UDWiki talk:Privacy policy: Difference between revisions
From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Well, honestly, I'd only gotten as far as requiring all CheckUsers to be 18+… ideas are not particularly developed, hence “meaning to write up.”) |
Rosslessness (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
:::::Because it's true and it's relevant to a discussion on privacy policy. I'm not "flying that flag", but it is information which could be relevant.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 13:56, 13 October 2011 (BST) | :::::Because it's true and it's relevant to a discussion on privacy policy. I'm not "flying that flag", but it is information which could be relevant.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 13:56, 13 October 2011 (BST) | ||
:::Well, honestly, I'd only gotten as far as requiring all CheckUsers to be 18+… ideas are not particularly developed, hence “meaning to write up.” Out of curiosity, how many of said incidents would this rule have prevented? (Also, I believe there were more, earlier, incidents, but am disinclined to look them up at the moment.) {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 14:02, 13 October 2011 (BST) | :::Well, honestly, I'd only gotten as far as requiring all CheckUsers to be 18+… ideas are not particularly developed, hence “meaning to write up.” Out of curiosity, how many of said incidents would this rule have prevented? (Also, I believe there were more, earlier, incidents, but am disinclined to look them up at the moment.) {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 14:02, 13 October 2011 (BST) | ||
==About two years ago== | |||
I was sent an email asking whether a specific user (No idea who) was editing using a specifically named IP after the same IP had vandalised an URBAN DEAD related forum. At the time I ignored the request (and subsequently the vandal openly vandalised the same forum so it was irrelevant in the end). However I feel this is the kind of thing that should be specifically given as a no no. --[[User:Rosslessness|<sup>Hey Sweden!</sup>]] 17:36, 13 October 2011 (BST) | |||
Revision as of 16:36, 13 October 2011
Since it is official policy, this page could do with being in Category:Policy Documents. (I know it wasn't voted on, but that doesn't change it being policy.)--Toejam 17:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Considering adding section re: personal data? -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 10:01, 6 May 2011 (BST)
yikes! sysops should have to take a personality test...you can hardly trust any1 w/ a plethora of IPs →Son of Sin← 05:55, 13 October 2011 (BST)
- To be fair 90% of them wouldn't know what to do with an IP to cause problems if they tried and the other 10% are real tight asses about leaking of personal information. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 07:21, 13 October 2011 (BST)
- Interesting opinion. It's true, at times I think checkuser should be only assigned to those who understand the consequences fully but at the same time it really hasn't been a massive issue for a while now. Only a couple times does anyone in the team slip up. annoying 08:43, 13 October 2011 (BST)
- Yeah, and then the two worst were insta-demotions where people gave other people access to their accounts. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 13:12, 13 October 2011 (BST)
- I've been meaning to write up a new Checkuser policy for a while now. It should not be handed out willy-nilly as it is at present; I think the amount of abuse it has gotten clearly demonstrates that. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 13:34, 13 October 2011 (BST)
- Honestly can only think of about four incidents. J3d, Nubis, and two accidental postings(one, again by J3d), it's done significantly more good as far as A/VB is concerned but, then again not everyone takes the time to use it in cases of fly by night vandalism. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 13:42, 13 October 2011 (BST)
- And me.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 13:46, 13 October 2011 (BST)
- I don't know why you'd fly that flag when I was giving you a pass by not mentioning your name. :P --Karekmaps 2.0?! 13:48, 13 October 2011 (BST)
- Because it's true and it's relevant to a discussion on privacy policy. I'm not "flying that flag", but it is information which could be relevant.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 13:56, 13 October 2011 (BST)
- I don't know why you'd fly that flag when I was giving you a pass by not mentioning your name. :P --Karekmaps 2.0?! 13:48, 13 October 2011 (BST)
- Well, honestly, I'd only gotten as far as requiring all CheckUsers to be 18+… ideas are not particularly developed, hence “meaning to write up.” Out of curiosity, how many of said incidents would this rule have prevented? (Also, I believe there were more, earlier, incidents, but am disinclined to look them up at the moment.) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 14:02, 13 October 2011 (BST)
- And me.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 13:46, 13 October 2011 (BST)
- Honestly can only think of about four incidents. J3d, Nubis, and two accidental postings(one, again by J3d), it's done significantly more good as far as A/VB is concerned but, then again not everyone takes the time to use it in cases of fly by night vandalism. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 13:42, 13 October 2011 (BST)
About two years ago
I was sent an email asking whether a specific user (No idea who) was editing using a specifically named IP after the same IP had vandalised an URBAN DEAD related forum. At the time I ignored the request (and subsequently the vandal openly vandalised the same forum so it was irrelevant in the end). However I feel this is the kind of thing that should be specifically given as a no no. --Hey Sweden! 17:36, 13 October 2011 (BST)
