UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Impersonation Law

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Padlock.png Administration Services — Protection.
This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

To clarify some of the regulations on this wiki, this policy has been written. This policy defines one aspect of behavior that has been deemed unacceptable by this community - Impersonation and Identity fraud.

Impersonation

a user shall be guilty impersonation if they improperly sign comments to mislead readers into believing that another user posted them, or that they were posted at a different time. A user shall also be guilty of impersonation and bad faith if the user makes an edit that alters, deletes, strikes, re-words or adds to another user's signed comments. Impersonation includes altering another user's words that the editor finds offensive. Impersonation also includes creating a user account with a name so similar to an existing user's name as to create confusion between the two. Impersonation also includes an editor making changes to their own signed statements after posting.

Exceptions:
Any user may strike votes that are improperly formatted or violate existing rules;
any user may add an unsigned comment tag to the end of an unsigned comment;
any user may remove signed comments from their user pages or affiliated group pages at their discretion;
any user may remove blink tags, improper formatting (including color changes and font size changes) from a discussion or public page or their associated talk pages;
any user may correct broken links as long as the links are correctly repaired;
any user may correct the spelling and grammar of comments left by other users;
any user may edit another user's comments to make the formatting consistent to the rest of the page;
any user may edit their own statements if it would not change the meaning of that statement or responses to it (if that statement has not yet been replied to, more latitude is given).

Voting Section

Voting Rules
Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. They can take one of two forms:
  • # comments ~~~~
    or
  • # ~~~~

Votes that do not conform to the above will be struck by a sysop.

The only valid voting sections are For and Against. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

For

  1. I think that this would go a good ways towards keeping the rules clearly defined. --Kiki Lottaboobs 11:59, 27 September 2006 (BST)
  2. Cuts down on the vaugueness of moderation. This is very specific, and I should be able to delete crap other people put on my page.. obviously. Things that are self evident unfortunately have to be written down sometimes so people can't claim innocence or ignorance on the matter. Additionally, you can edit someone's screw ups if they cause page breaks and the like.. provided you didn't delete everything they put up, just what was irrelevant. --MrAushvitz 01:08, 28 September 2006 (BST)
  3. Sounds good.--Labine50 MHG|MalTel 15:20, 5 October 2006 (BST)
  4. I understand the problems with this, but the unwritten laws of the wiki need to be written down in some form or other so we can point to them. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 21:19, 6 October 2006 (BST)
  5. I'm with Darth on this one. -- Alan Watson T·RPM 04:30, 10 October 2006 (BST)

Against

  1. Stupid - case by case basis is better. This removes all latitude a mod has.--Gage 15:31, 27 September 2006 (BST)
  2. "Impersonation also includes an editor making changes to their own signed statements after posting." If I say something stupid, removing it myself should not count as impersonation. Under the wording of this policy, I couldn't even strike out my own comment. -Toejam 19:39, 27 September 2006 (BST)
  3. Just a terrible idea. Handcuffs moderators and identifies as vandalism at least some things that absolutely aren't. --Centerfire 19:59, 27 September 2006 (BST)
  4. I would rather see this as a series of revisions to UDWiki:Vandalism than formed as a blanket policy of its own. It seems to have a number of great clues of which novice users should be made aware but could also be too limiting in practical interpretations. I also just dislike the use of the word Law in this situation. --Max Grivas JG / M.F.T. 20:06, 27 September 2006 (BST)
  5. No comment - --CaptainM 00:00, 28 September 2006 (BST)
  6. ..... --Axe Hack 01:10, 28 September 2006 (BST)
  7. Is this still a wiki? Bubba 04:21, 28 September 2006 (BST)
  8. Bango Skank T W! M! 15:02, 28 September 2006 (BST)
  9. Too little leeway, too easy to be abused if we put it in. --DavidBeoulve 18:18, 28 September 2006 (BST)
  10. Is such a stringent rule necessary? How many people manipulate others comments anyway? WhyEnn 07:23, 29 September 2006 (BST)
  11. Tis red tape gone mad, I tells ye! --Funt Solo 00:13, 30 September 2006 (BST)
  12. Somebody get a little regulation-happy here? Sounds like a freaking EULA. --Qarn Barnok 11:40, 1 October 2006 (BST)
  13. David Malfisto 15:29, 1 October 2006 (BST)
  14. Carries all the fun problems of codes of regulations. To much room for interpretation in some areas, too little in others. --Rgon 17:00, 2 October 2006 (BST)
  15. More exceptions than rules... --Peter Moran 14:25, 2 October 2006 (PST)
  16. no comment --ag 02:36, 5 October 2006 (BST)
  17. TheDictator 20:48, 4 October 2006 (MCT)
  18. I vote against because while this is great at saying WHAT this will do, it doesn't say HOW. A concise explanation of how the distinction will be made could change my vote. --MorthBabid 19:24, 5 October 2006 (BST)
  19. This is a F'ing laugh riot. (Especially since this edit would count as impersonation) --SirensT RR 03:07, 6 October 2006 (BST)
  20. Eveything has already been said. Pillsy FT 11:03, 6 October 2006 (BST)
  21. I think this would actually hurt wiki. --Nob666 21:03, 9 October 2006 (BST)
  22. Firmly against Brains 22:53, 9 October 2006 (BST)
  23. Agreeing with WhyEnn, the precedent or cause for this rule isn't entirely clear to me. Also, as Toejam pointed out, removing the ability to edit one's own comments just seems bizarrely restrictive.--The Envoy 14:19, 11 October 2006 (BST)
  24. Asheets 19:57, 11 October 2006 (BST)
  25. fap fap fap fap --Thari TжFedCom is BFI! 20:02, 11 October 2006 (BST)
  26. blah blah blah people should just read rules...and then we wouldn't need this!--Mayor Fitting 02:41, 12 October 2006 (BST)
Bongonesia 02:01, 13 October 2006 (BST)
So, now I can't change my signature to reflect which of my characters I'm posting as? WTF? --Pinata 15:35, 13 October 2006 (BST)
Struck invalid votes; made after voting deadline had past. -- Alan Watson T·RPM 18:32, 14 October 2006 (BST)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Impersonation_Law&oldid=1370895"