Forum:UTP policy change

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > UTP policy change
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 7 June 2013 by Liquidhelium.

It is apparently the case that admins cannot be blocked for UTP violations unless a thread is made first. I propose that this violates, uh, the spirit of the wiki and that we change this policy.

(wszx) 05:45, June 1, 2013 (UTC)


Do you propose that the admin have their tools removed for the period of the block, longer, or not at all? Suppa chuppa Talk 05:49, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

Is there a practical difference between having their tools removed during the block, and 'not at all'? I'd assume they couldn't use the tools during their block anyhow. IP83.101.44.209 (talk) 05:53, June 1, 2013 (UTC)
It would really be a formality as they could technically unblock themselves. Although if they were to unblock themselves, there would be other problems. Suppa chuppa Talk 05:55, June 1, 2013 (UTC)
The fact that blocked admins can still use their tools doesn't mean welp let's just not block them at all. Admins should know that unblocking themselves is not acceptable, and one would hope that any admin who did would be swiftly desysopped. (wszx) 06:16, June 1, 2013 (UTC)
Yeah. Anyway, sounds good and I support this. Suppa chuppa Talk 06:20, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

I assumed it was more of a discussion, rather than a mandatory forum. Hair 06:10, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

Peasant editors can be blocked without any discussion, so why do admins get a layer of protection? (wszx) 06:16, June 1, 2013 (UTC)
Because she is a good editor.. why would we want to lose a good editor? Hair 06:38, June 1, 2013 (UTC)
Being a good editor doesn't excuse anyone from any policies. Any editor can be a good editor, anonymous editors included. There is no reason for any users to be excused from any policies. Especially administrators who are expected to uphold a higher standard of behaviour and conduct. 222 talk 08:06, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

How do you think the policy should be worded, (wszx)? Temujin 06:35, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

I guess this is relevant: May 29 S:C

  • 10:13, 11:50 - calling someone an idiot multiple times for asking a question on a YG thread (which is weird, since she didn't bother responding to her own thread, but is willing to repeatedly criticize a random user for single question on a thread. She then asks someone else to respond, because she says she can't refrain from calling them an idiot, and would presumably get her in trouble again)
  • 12:07 - angry at editors in general who might start a "fucking move war again"
  • 12:10 - calling Ben a moron (caps lock ftw)
  • 12:15 - when an editor asks for clarification, she says she's busy "ignoring you because you made no fucking sense"
  • 12:17 - user "fucks off" in her opinion (lots of "fuck" today)
  • 13:27 - defends calling people names (obviously not just her getting angry - she think's it's acceptable behavior)
  • 13:30 - "Fix your own fucking faults before lecturing someone else" (ironic IMO)
  • 14:32 - Ben asking her to fix her mistake. Response: "Find another admin to do your work for you"
  • 15:22 - "illiterate fools" in reference to new editors
  • 16:34 - in regards to a new editor making a mistake: "This is why I fucking hate people and think humanity should throw itself into a fiery fucking pit" (...alrighty)
  • 20:39 - user asks why she deleted page instead of moving. Reason being: "Annoyance at everyone"

And I wouldn't be too surprised if there's more like that. --Shockstorm (talk) 07:00, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

A quote of Suppa's closing statement on the previous thread:
Should Ansela be found in violation of UTP, a thread may be created to determine the severity of her breach.
The logs storm has shown is clearly outrageous behaviour. Ansela is aware what consensus was achieved in the previous thread. She has been found in violation of UTP (as shown by storm), and thus this is the thread which "may be created to determine the severity of her breach". UTP doesn't need a change, Ansela does. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 07:29, June 1, 2013 (UTC)
+1 Temujin 07:58, June 1, 2013 (UTC)
It might be a good idea to initiate a separate thread instead of leaving it here. They are two separate (albeit related) issues. 222 talk 08:03, June 1, 2013 (UTC)
In reality these actions would constitute a ban from Special:Chat, not a ban from editing. I certainly don't believe that being rude in chat means a block from editing, and that is consistent with actions taken against users in the past with regard to their behaviour in the various chats. What do others think about this? --Henneyj 19:10, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

Support - In the aforementioned thread, I supported allowing an administrator to ban Ansela at his/her discretion. I continue to hold this opinion. 222 talk 08:03, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

This shouldn't need to be a thread. This wiki needs to man up and not let the little stuff build up en masse because of some reason regardless of how powerful it appears to counter the bad. It doesn't counter it. Nor should we tell ourselves it'll get better (I've lost hope once again). We're too lenient in the face of blatant misconduct. Not only does that let the bad stuff slip by unhindered, but it makes us look bad when we actually take action. It also makes the less practical of us try to justify actions of the same nature with our condoning of another.

I kind of wanted to avoid the elephant in the room on the thread(?) and not mention Ansela, but I can't. That problem should have been dealt with a year ago from what I've heard, but we've just let it happen. It seems we have to have an explicit precedent, but, frankly, we need a harsher one.

I'll close by saying I noticed a nice irony between our operations and that of the media: we focus on the good and try to understate the bad; the media, vice versa. Neither system works, guys. MolMan 12:13, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

Support - Quoted from the chat logs by Shockstorm: "Especially as an admin on wikia you should have some sort of aura of authority... you should be even mroe conservative with your insults" LOL this is what we have come to. I'd like to applaud all admins for hitting rock bottom with how other users see us. I support applying UTP to all users, including admins & b'crats. I'd like to point out that we all have bad days and minor mishaps, but there is clearly a difference between those and obvious UTP violations. The things we block IPs for (Special:Diff/8123752) we should hold ALL users to, not just IPs. This example is not a minor screw-up, it is worded in a way to hurt someone and should not be tolerated by anyone at any time. Gawd, I don't get how people can do that, IPs or admins. I have NEVER told someone something like that before, it's just pure malice and violating UTP is never necessary. We need to be strict with UTP against everyone or our core will rot. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 13:44, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

Confused - Admins know our policies very well - otherwise their RfA would not have passed. That also means that if an admin breaks a policy, especially a basic one like UTP, there has to be an actual reason for it. Our admins are (I hope) wise enough not to randomly start breaching policies and so, in my opinion, a simple ban would not work here. You can ban an anon or a new user for something like this - that will generally teach them to be nicer. For an admin I don't think a ban like this would do much - they already know they're breaking the policy, there's no need to point it out with a ban.

Now to why I am confused - is this about the specific AnselaJonla case? Or is this a general admins-should-be-banned-like-normal-users case? If it's the former I don't know enough details about the case and don't understand why a new thread is needed, if the latter then no. Sure, we are all equals, but admins are more familiar with most policies, simply because otherwise they would not be admins. For that reason, IMO, the normal ban-and-move-on approach should not be used on admins. I hope I made sense. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 16:14, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

This thread is indeed mostly about Ansela (since there's nothing in UTP supporting a difference between admins and non-admins). Still, your argument makes little sense -- you're saying that because admins are aware of policies and break them anyway, that makes it less bad? ʞooɔ 16:43, June 1, 2013 (UTC)
I'm trying to say the opposite - it is reasonable to expect an anon or a regular user not to be 100% familiar with all our policies. Therefore in my opinion a simple ban is enough to tell them "that's not how things work around here - please take some time to read our policies, and get back when you have". For admins that obviously does not work - of them we can, and should expect that they know all policies. Therefore in my opinion simply banning an admin for breaking something like UTP makes no sense - for an admin to break a policy there must be a deeper issue than just "I didn't know that policy", because to be an admin you must know our policies. Telling an admin to take some time off and read some policies makes no sense. If an admin breaks a policy then there must be a deeper issue than just not knowing it, and I do not see how banning would help that in any way.
I'm sorry, I'm not very good at explaining. I hope this conveys my message more clearly. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 19:35, June 1, 2013 (UTC)
I understand your reasoning, but I don't agree with it. IPs might know our policies but have a deeper rooted reason to break UTP - it makes no difference. Calling someone a ***** for no good reason, telling someone they don't have a brain and don't know how to read, telling someone to f*** off, etc - these are inexcusable. Can you think of an instance where we can excuse treating someone this way? Minor arguments are not breaking UTP, calling someone names in an effort to hurt them is. I don't care what reason someone has - it is never acceptable to treat people that way. If an admin sees fit to break UTP for some reason, that person should not be an admin. Clearly they are not responsible enough to handle conflict, therefore they should be dealt with quickly before the wiki is harmed. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 20:15, June 1, 2013 (UTC)
As I said, I don't want to talk about the specific AnselaJonla case - I do not know enough about it. It was more about the general proposal in the article, ie that admins who violate UTP should just be banned, like everyone else. In my opinion that is not a good idea, and I think cases like this should be brought to the YG (which in the AnselaJonla case did happen). Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 07:59, June 2, 2013 (UTC)

Strong support - The principle that somehow an administrator is immune from a block without a discussion is ludicrous at best and (censored) at worst. Historically, administrators have always been blocked when they violate policies to such a degree that other administrators deem necessary to take preventive action (exempli gratia [1]). While practically speaking, administrators are less likely to violate a policy in such a clear-cut and unambiguous fashion, in the event that such a transgression occurs, there is no reason to add in an extra bureaucratic step of a discussion.

Because of this, I take issue with Archibald's closing statement explicitly disallowing a block in the case of a clear UTP violation. (I take no issue with the ban of spontaneous desysopping as we never allowed that except in emergencies.) Administrators are bound by the same policies as everyone else, and therefore must be held to the same accountability. The notion that anonymous users are less familiar, and therefore deserve more slack is interesting, but we always warn IPs anyway except in a few cases of obvious malicious intent, so I don't think that is relevant here.

<incoming rant about AEAE, feel free to ignore> I would also like to say that this is one of the threads that make me very very happy that we renamed RS:AEAE to something that more accurately describes the text of the policy. It's nice to see that no one is throwing around AEAE in a case like this where it does not pertain. However, I am rather disappointed in the perception that administrators have some.... "aura of authority"? That issue needs to be addressed..... But I'm still very very happy we renamed that misnomer of a policy. </rant>

Cheers, --LiquidTalk 21:07, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

It's not so much that I said a block without consensus isn't allowed. It seems that that's how people are interpreting my closing though. The majority of the discussion was centered around the removal of her tools, and there was no decoupling of the two. Obviously, she still can be blocked without consensus. That was never the issue. Suppa chuppa Talk 21:32, June 1, 2013 (UTC)
Except apparently I said that. Huh. Not quite what I meant. Suppa chuppa Talk 21:37, June 1, 2013 (UTC)
Admins certainly do have an aura of authority and no amount of denial driven claims that adminship is just a new set of tools will ever change that. We can say that anyone who looks up to an admin is wrong, but that won't change the truth. Authority isn't the right word to describe the entirety of their aura, but there is certainly a hint of auhority. After all, who carries out blocks and deletions? The real reason why adminship is not a big deal, is because we're not some sort of oli4burggraa oligarchy. You can't change people's perceptions either. Frankly, we stress how big a deal adminship is not that it makes it sound like it kinda is. MolMan 13:10, June 2, 2013 (UTC)
Using the tools is easy, making the decisions is what trips you up. Even down to the basic things like speedy deletions, the decision ultimately lies with roughly a dozen admins who have to gauge whether the deletion is in the interest of the wiki. We can't go by "(s)he told me to so I did", we need to be able to explain why we did it. This is true of everyone with tools, from rollback to bureaucrat and the implications of the decision only grow with the gain of new tools. Sysop tools are not there for you do with as you will, they are there for you to serve the community, and to interpret it's collective will. Sometimes this is common sense and you can safely preempt consensus, sometimes it requires more.
To say admins have an aura of authority is false. It's the experience and surety in your actions, that you will almost always make the right call, that creates the aura. I place great value in the opinions of people like Flaysian and Ajr, neither are admins but they have experience and can explain their decision making process. This is what defines a sysop, whether they have the tools or not.
This is point where I apologise for moving this off topic and support this clarification of the policy. cqm 18:53, 2 Jun 2013 (UTC) (UTC)
It's not really false at all. To say that admins have that authority is wrong, but that is different than saying that they, in some form, have an aura of authoritative discretion emanating from them. Whether or not that aura be true and whether or not everyone feels it, it exists. Perhaps "authority" isn't the perfect word, but you're living in denial if you assert that there is no aura whatsoever. MolMan 21:29, June 2, 2013 (UTC)
You opened the tag <incoming> with "rant about AEAE, feel free to ignore" being attributes, so you should also close with </incoming>, not </rant>. Nub. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 22:11, June 2, 2013 (UTC)
It's actually fine. MediaWiki parses those tags really weirdly and converts them all to <blathering>. I just wonder why it changes what they literally are in the source code for reading but doesn't convert other similar-purpose tags the same way. MolMan 22:14, June 2, 2013 (UTC)
Silly Pim; my main reason for commenting was disagreement with Archie's closing statement on the previous thread. Since he has fixed that issue, I don't really care anymore. --LiquidTalk 22:42, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

Support - I think admins should be the prime examples of calmness and civility on the wiki. It's obvious that they often have to deal with vandalism and general stupidity, but this is not an excuse for anything. My (more concrete) proposal: Should any admin seriously (or repeatedly) breach the UTP, a permanent removal of sysop tools should be the first action taken, without any block. Blocks are a measure to be used when there are further issues with the person's behaviour. I'm fairly sure (I hope?) a normal user would also get a warning instead of a block at first (if the breach of UTP is not very serious); in a case of an admin this should be accompanied by desysop as early as possible. That's my opinion. 5-x Talk 19:48, June 2, 2013 (UTC)

More examples of incivility - May 30 S:C:

  • 12:40 - "F****** Leon..."
  • 14:55 - "Jlun2 - tone down the off-colour jokes please" (aware of the rules, but only willing to enforce them against certain users)
  • 15:12 to 15:19 - flames users and threatens to lock pages they've been editing due to their own alleged faults (but not Ansela's, of course)

Apparently she thinks that it's ok to flame people in chat, particularly behind their backs. Why is this tolerated? When she was warned for UTP, she said "Okay, so someone who never comes into chat and has absolutely no sysop powers has decided to go all wannabe-sysop on my talk page" (not to my face, of course). This clearly shows that she doesn't care much for anyone's opinion accept those who can desysop/block her. After Cook made the thread, she toned down her behavior for a while, then started up again once she realized the discussion had died down (she said in chat that she read it, she just didn't bother to respond on it). If it's necessary to make a separate thread to move forward then I think that should be done. --Shockstorm (talk) 23:19, June 2, 2013 (UTC)

It was already suggested above that you should probably take these sorts of issues to a separate thread. --Henneyj 00:17, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

Support - If this is another Ansela-type thread: Sadly I haven't been as active as I used to be, and I have seen examples of Ruri's behaviors myself in the chat. I don't see them much, but I am well aware of it through observing the chat logs and threads such as these. Although I've seen her violating UTP several times, and have once attempted to tell her to stop the behavior (which was nearly a year ago, or several weeks before my RfA; I can't recall exactly when but it was almost a year ago for sure.), telling me "So I'm supposed to act nice and sweet to everyone?" Or something similar, I decided to tolerate those minor insults, but intervening only when it gets out of control. So in a nutshell I believe something should be done concerning Ansela's behaviour, even though she is a great editor.

About the change to our User Treatment Policy: I have a strong support for it. We are supposed to treat everyone as equals, and that includes administrators. A policy breach by an anonymous user is the same as a policy breach by an admin. Policies apply to everyone here.

-- Recent uploads SpineTalkGuest book 23:22, June 2, 2013 (UTC)

Support - This really need to be enforced. Admins should not be allowed to breach UTP, but us not. — Jr Mime (talk) 00:44, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Forum:Problems with AnselaJonla Part 2 has been established. All info regarding Ansela's behaviour should mainly be posted on that thread (well, in my opinion, it should, as this thread is about changes to UTP). HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 03:05, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and I support the policy change per all. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 06:20, June 3, 2013 (UTC)
What is it exactly that you support, Haidro? Other than the suggestion that UTC be alter, no actual proposal has been made - nor has the aforementioned suggested been put into words. Temujin 10:14, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
Admins should not be different than normal users (in terms of violating policies). I support that UTP recognises this and agrees with RS:SAOW. If an admin breaks UTP multiple times, they should receive the same punishment as an anon would. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 11:05, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
Wouldd you be willing to make a proposal as to how exactly the policy should be reworded? :3 Temujin 07:39, June 5, 2013 (UTC)
Not really, that can be left to more intelligent people. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 09:24, June 5, 2013 (UTC)
Are you guys for serious?... MolMan 14:17, June 5, 2013 (UTC)
Yes… Temujin 11:37, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I'm not entirely certain what the proposal here actually is, but if it's that admins shouldn't need a thread to be blocked for violating UTP, then I support that concept, yes. Matt (t) 05:51, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

This is common sense. Admins are not above policy. Nobody is. I don't know why this thread is even needed. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 06:27, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with you here andorin, I didn't even realise something like this wasn't already understood, even if unwritten. This thread should not exist, admins aren't special. In case someone isn't bothering to read, Support unwritten rule that everyone knew about. God damn it people, we don't need an official policy for every possibility. Isn't use common sense a core of this wiki? /rant TZPNCBucket detail.pngrwojy 17:28, June 3, 2013 (UTC)
K so then I'll just banhamm0r you for saying god damn it to everyone who commented here. Kthxbai. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 22:25, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

Support - per Andorin, why should we not use common sense? And why should someone get a layer of protection because nobody bothered to check the RFR page but their best friend or something? And why hasn't someone thought of this before?Ice Rush12Zaros symbol.pngTalkHiscores 06:27, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

Because that happens allllll the time. MolMan 14:17, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose change - Just like Andorin said, this isn't anything new. It appears the basis for this was Suppa's closing statement on that thread a few days ago, but if he never meant to say that then this change is somewhat redundant. Having a line to explain "admins are affected too, guise" is only going to make them seem even more almighty and powerful, since we apparently need to make policies for everyone, then have a few rules specially for admins too. Even if the special rule is "admins can be banned for this too". Real Crazy 07:28, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

Closed - Since Archibald changed his closing statement to remove the line that prohibits blocking Ansela without consensus, this forum is moot. It's proposition was based on the theory that an administrator cannot be blocked without consensus, but obviously everyone agrees that's not the case. The UTP policy has never stated that. Thus, this forum is proposing nothing, and there is nothing further to discuss. --LiquidTalk 05:22, June 7, 2013 (UTC)

Addendum - Ansela has been discussed thoroughly in this thread, and as for specific actions as a result of this thread, I should elaborate. Because of an ongoing review of her behavior, a block should not be placed for the incidents currently in discussion in that thread. While administrators are free to block users who violate any policy in accordance with our block policy, they should refrain from doing so if a Yew Grove forum is currently debating the issue. Of course, if further infractions occur, these do not carry the same restriction. --LiquidTalk 05:27, June 7, 2013 (UTC)