UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Banning Self-made Vandal Cases: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
m (Protected "UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Banning Self-made Vandal Cases": withdrawn policy discussion [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
I don't think it's ''necessary'', but I see no reason not to have it either.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 13:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC) | I don't think it's ''necessary'', but I see no reason not to have it either.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 13:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC) | ||
:more redtape and homework. pass--<small><div style="display: inline-block; height: 14px; width: 18px; overflow: hidden; vertical-align: text-bottom;">[[User:Sexualharrison|<span style="position: absolute; display: block; font-size: 0px; height: 14px; width: 18px;"> </span>]][[Image:Boobs.sh.siggie.gif|18px]]</div> [[User talk:Sexualharrison|<span style="color:Red">bitch</span>]] 14:05 23 March 2011 (UTC)</small> | |||
As Boxy. Plus, it is really easily short-circuited by contracting a third-party (which is trivially easy for those who active in the metagame - I could easily find half a dozen meat-puppets willing to report me for lulz, if I ever felt like it). There is no merit in this one. --{{User:Spiderzed/Sandbox/Sig}} 15:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
Don't think it's really needed. -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig4}} 00:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
Meh, fair enough then. I'll withdraw this. For the time being. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 14:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 15:07, 25 March 2011
Thoughts? -- Cheese 11:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Me like. Oidar 11:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thoughts? Mountains and molehills mate.
~ Kempy “YaketyYak” | ◆◆◆ | CAPD | 11:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thoughts? Mountains and molehills mate.
Unnecessary policy. Newbs who do it (because they are fearful that they will be reported by others because of a mistake edit) should not be escalated. Experienced users who do it for the lolz should be soft warned, and if they continue, escalated for shitting up admin pages. It's not a big problem -- boxy talk • teh rulz 11:59 23 March 2011 (BST)
As Boxy. This isn't really much of an issue, so I don't see the point. --
Thadeous Oakley Talk 12:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary, but I see no reason not to have it either.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 13:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- more redtape and homework. pass-- bitch 14:05 23 March 2011 (UTC)
As Boxy. Plus, it is really easily short-circuited by contracting a third-party (which is trivially easy for those who active in the metagame - I could easily find half a dozen meat-puppets willing to report me for lulz, if I ever felt like it). There is no merit in this one. -- Spiderzed▋ 15:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Don't think it's really needed. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 00:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Meh, fair enough then. I'll withdraw this. For the time being. -- Cheese 14:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
