UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning: Difference between revisions
From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Rosslessness (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
I have an issue with the suddeness and unwillingness to believe that this is anything other than vandalism because the person who made it was a goon. Suddenly, it's "bad faith" and "Sharing a signature = impersonation," even though it's got a lot of clever wiki-code that gives each goon a different color and only shows the link to the goon posting at the time. Yes, you could put forth a convincing argument that sharing a signature causes a lot of unnessicary confusion and that the policy should be altered to ban it. I'd even agree with that, but I don't see this as anything other than an attempt to de-legitimize a canidate in the current Beaurocrat election.--[[User:Fjorn|Fjorn]] 00:25, 2 May 2011 (BST) | I have an issue with the suddeness and unwillingness to believe that this is anything other than vandalism because the person who made it was a goon. Suddenly, it's "bad faith" and "Sharing a signature = impersonation," even though it's got a lot of clever wiki-code that gives each goon a different color and only shows the link to the goon posting at the time. Yes, you could put forth a convincing argument that sharing a signature causes a lot of unnessicary confusion and that the policy should be altered to ban it. I'd even agree with that, but I don't see this as anything other than an attempt to de-legitimize a canidate in the current Beaurocrat election.--[[User:Fjorn|Fjorn]] 00:25, 2 May 2011 (BST) | ||
:Hey Fjorn, not exactly true, it shows the links to ALL the users, not just the one who signed. I'm now moving this comment to the talk page. --[[User:Rosslessness|Rosslessness]] 00:31, 2 May 2011 (BST) | :Hey Fjorn, not exactly true, it shows the links to ALL the users, not just the one who signed. I'm now moving this comment to the talk page. --[[User:Rosslessness|Rosslessness]] 00:31, 2 May 2011 (BST) | ||
:If it ''looked'' the same but all ''linked'' to the user who made it, I'd be fine with it. Hell I'd be impressed (as I was when I saw the sig and first thought that was the case). And I didn't know Rev was a goon. -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig4}} 03:36, 2 May 2011 (BST) | |||
Revision as of 02:36, 2 May 2011
May 2011
User:Revenant
I have an issue with the suddeness and unwillingness to believe that this is anything other than vandalism because the person who made it was a goon. Suddenly, it's "bad faith" and "Sharing a signature = impersonation," even though it's got a lot of clever wiki-code that gives each goon a different color and only shows the link to the goon posting at the time. Yes, you could put forth a convincing argument that sharing a signature causes a lot of unnessicary confusion and that the policy should be altered to ban it. I'd even agree with that, but I don't see this as anything other than an attempt to de-legitimize a canidate in the current Beaurocrat election.--Fjorn 00:25, 2 May 2011 (BST)
- Hey Fjorn, not exactly true, it shows the links to ALL the users, not just the one who signed. I'm now moving this comment to the talk page. --Rosslessness 00:31, 2 May 2011 (BST)
- If it looked the same but all linked to the user who made it, I'd be fine with it. Hell I'd be impressed (as I was when I saw the sig and first thought that was the case). And I didn't know Rev was a goon. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 03:36, 2 May 2011 (BST)
