UDWiki:Administration/Protections/Archive/2011 04

User:The General/sig

Might be good to remove the "system operator" spantext in order to avoid outright impersonation.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 15:17, 30 April 2011 (BST)

Vandalism Done. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 15:22, 30 April 2011 (BST)

Can de-protect it for you, if you want? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 15:23, 30 April 2011 (BST)

olol, Thad deprotected it, I made the requested change. Lol Misconducts? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 15:36, 30 April 2011 (BST)

I don't particularly mind if its protected or not. The reason I didn't actually request unprotection is because I don't edit it that often and the sig is included in quite a number of admin pages, which potentially makes for easy vandalism.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 16:32, 30 April 2011 (BST)

A/PM Stuffs

• Template:A/PM/06
• Template:A/PM/07
• Template:A/PM/08
• Template:A/PM/09
• Template:A/PM/10
• Template:A/PM/11 This one isn't protected yet.
• All need category Category:Nav Templates added to their pages.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 10:05, 23 April 2011 (BST)

  Done. -- Spiderzed█ 10:13, 23 April 2011 (BST)

Template:Locationblock

Shouldn't this be categorised under Category:Location Templates?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 18:01, 19 April 2011 (BST)

Done. Thanks, General. Welcome back by the way. ~ _{18:12, 19 April 2011}

Template:Verdict

These changes should probably be implemented to make it into this more code conservative version. Hopefully there won't be any opposition to it, and should it be necessary the colored text can be added to Template:V if it's really felt that it's worth pushing the limits(We've got 40,000 lebensraum on A/VB) to have it and this change should save ~400 per template call. --Karek^maps?! 08:25, 15 April 2011 (BST)

Note This template has been called 17 times, and that would increase the free space something on the order of 20% if my maths are right. --Karek^maps?! 08:29, 15 April 2011 (BST)

I'm going to hold off on doing this until its done being discussed on its talk, but to me this looks good.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:16, 15 April 2011 (BST)

I've done it, because there haven't been any objections.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 11:39, 17 April 2011 (BST)

Template:Shortcut

{{Shortcut}} is used mostly on high-visibility admin pages and isn't likely to need editing anytime soon. Seems like a prime candidate to me. Opinions? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 02:36, 16 April 2011 (BST)

Well, I actually just mutilated it but now it should be totally good. --Karek^maps?! 04:27, 16 April 2011 (BST)

Mutilation noted. Page protected. Rev don't be too shy with the butans. ^{~ ~} _{07:26, 16 April 2011}

Just following procedure. ↓ Which looks like it's done some good, having Karek savage it first… ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 10:13, 17 April 2011 (BST)

“	In the event of a system operator requesting a Protection, all the previous points will apply, excepting that a system operator other than the requestor shall review and take action on the request.	”
—#Guidelines for Protection Requests

Historical Group Voting Policy

Within two weeks of a nomination, the group must be approved by 2/3 of the voters, with a minimum of 15 voters for a nomination to pass. The only allowable votes are Yes and No

is confusing because while voting has always been decided after two weeks, the policy, as written, could be interpreted as a group only has to reach the magic 15 vote number and the 2/3 number within two weeks to pass, which was never the intent. The sentence should be rewritten to something like this:

Voting will last for exactly two weeks following nomination. To be successful, a group must by approved by 2/3 of eligible voters, with a minimum of 15 voters needed for a nomination to pass. The only allowable votes are Yes and No...

-MHSstaff 22:24, 10 April 2011 (BST)

The wording of that part is minimum requirements listing. May was well just change With a minimum to and a minimum and it would clear up any confusion that a wikilawyer would try to use against common sense. The purpose has always been very clear. --Karek^maps?! 23:20, 10 April 2011 (BST)

The problem (to me at least) is the word "within." At the strictest, possible interpretation, it implies that a group only has to reach a certain threshold at any time before the two weeks is up to be successful. I am probably not understanding what you are saying, but I don't see how adding "and" fixes that. Your right though. Everyone knows the real "story/purpose" but the way I look at it, there is no real harm in making it clear. -MHSstaff 23:34, 10 April 2011 (BST)

It's simple English. It means the following criteria need to be met within the next two weeks for the page to qualify. Anyone that tries to argue that is kinda a douche really and not worth considering. The And would clarify it as a list, not that the commas don't already do that and would just be better English. Something like this.--Karek^maps?! 23:48, 10 April 2011 (BST)

Within two weeks of a nomination, the group must be approved by 2/3 of the voters, and have a minimum of 15 voters for a nomination to pass. The only allowable votes are Yes and No

But it doesn't matter if they qualify on Day 1, Day 2, Day 10, or any day "within" two weeks. It only matters if they have qualified (through meeting the required number of votes and reaching 2/3 yes votes) at the end of voting after two weeks. There is no reason, at all, to have the word "within" anywhere in the policy. My point is the word only adds to the possibility of confusion, and if we are going to change it, well, we might as well make it right from the beginning. Why keep it if you don't have to?-MHSstaff 00:08, 11 April 2011 (BST)

There no need to really, it's just that that word isn't what's causing the confusion. Nor, for that matter, is there probably any real confusion. --Karek^maps?! 00:35, 11 April 2011 (BST)

Damn it Jim, I'm a sysop, not an English major. Tell me what, if any changes to make and I'll do it. ~ _{02:24, 11 April 2011}

I'll defer to your sysop judgment. It's basically item 3 on the Adding to the Category section. I wouldn't mind seeing it rewritten to what is shown in the OP above to make the letter of the law more clearly match the spirit of the law. Not really an earth-shattering change though.-MHSstaff 01:31, 12 April 2011 (BST)

so does this mean the ck bid was successful? -- The preceding signed comment was added by these amazing looking

bitch 03:16 11 April 2011 (UTC)

No. Policy is being clarified, not changed. --VVV ^RPGMBCWS 03:18, 11 April 2011 (BST)

I think that guy was just being a nitpick, I don't think this is necessary at all :( But I won't mind if people really want to change it just to clarify. I guess. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 05:05, 11 April 2011 (BST)

Sorry DDR, but my point was made in perfect seriousness. Policies which can be misinterpreted and read in multiple ways are bad policies and must be struck down. The "within" in the policy as it stands serves to make two weeks the maximum time voting must run for as opposed to being the prescribed voting time it was intended to be. I think MHS' alternate wording is a vast improvement. Gordon 20:33, 11 April 2011 (BST)

That's how I kinda look at it. Yeah, it's not too big of a deal but it's a quick fix and removes all doubt. -MHSstaff 01:01, 12 April 2011 (BST)

Holy fuck, GTFO! The policy's intent is clear. The vote goes for two weeks, and as long as it gains the required number of votes, and required percentage, it passes. It is not closed earlier just because it suddenly gains the right percentage at any point in time before two weeks is up... that would just be batshit insane. Basically, change it as Karek said, or leave it be, and keep the current (correct) interpretation -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:17 14 April 2011 (BST)

And the harm in actually "writing that out" is...? There is no real downside to making something more clear. Karek's change doesn't really address the misleading part, which is the decision is actually made after two weeks, and not within two weeks. What is hilarious is actually making the change would take less time than going back and forth on this. -MHSstaff 07:37, 15 April 2011 (BST)

I went with Karek's suggestion. Basically, there didn't seem to be any misunderstanding when the policy was voted upon and until now there have been no misunderstandings in the 5 years since the policy was enacted. A very slight clarification is all that is really warranted. If any person truly feels the wording of the policy goes against the spirit of the policy, then they should put it up to vote via A/PD. ~ _{07:31, 15 April 2011}

The Dead's Resurgence

That page seems to become a hotbed of edit warring and general SA shit-stirring. Would anyone mind if it would be protected for a week or so, or until it can be moved to a place of clearer ownership? -- Spiderzed▋ 20:53, 4 April 2011 (BST)

Sounds good to me. ~ _{20:56, 4 April 2011}

Errr being a bit reactionary aren't we? -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:22, 5 April 2011 (BST)

That's not what reactionary means... ;_; --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 08:57, 7 April 2011 (BST)

You're right! Sorry, perhaps the word I failed to articulate was overreacting, but got caught up in a muddle of fail and/or dyslexia. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 09:04, 7 April 2011 (BST)

S'okay. Everybody uses it the wrong way. The only reason I don't is because I was ripped apart in a history essay because I sued the wrong meaning.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 09:07, 7 April 2011 (BST)

Either way, the page will be drama free eventually, SA while picky only really get into it if you actually give them the drama they're trying to create. Undo, leave, discuss reasonably and without argument/acknowledgement of the shitstirring. Best advice I can give. --Karek^maps?! 09:10, 7 April 2011 (BST)

Good call, I just don't agree with the menetality of "it sucks and people are disagreeing with it so lets protect it, stop its hope of becoming decent, then move it away". Seems a bit domineering considering its in such a foetal state right now. While I admit it's not looking good as a future article after days of inaction, at least we are giving it at try at getting better, then justifiably discussing its removal. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 09:14, 7 April 2011 (BST)

I was agreeing with you actually, it's not much of a page now and drama on it, while not really worth the time to escalate but if done with 3pwv type edits is most definitely not worth the time to protect. That would be the opposite of productive in solving the problems. So yeah, I totally agree and felt someone should mention that this is the kind of thing you don't want with SA and the history of The Dead vs wiki usefulness. --Karek^maps?! 09:33, 7 April 2011 (BST)

No discussion in over a week. Consensus seems to be no protection is needed. Cycled Unprotected. ~ _{07:04, 15 April 2011}

Misconduct Archives

Karek made the archives but it needs the following link archive code on the main page.
*[[UDWiki talk:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/2008|2008 Archive]]
*[[UDWiki talk:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/2009|2009 Archive]]
-MHSstaff 01:54, 15 April 2011 (BST) *[[UDWiki talk:Administration/Misconduct/Archive|Main]] **[[UDWiki talk:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/2007|2007 Archive]] **[[UDWiki talk:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/2008|2008 Archive]] **[[UDWiki talk:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/2009|2009 Archive]]

Actually, here's what's used on the other archives. --Karek^maps?! 02:05, 15 April 2011 (BST)

Done. Please verify. ~ _{06:12, 15 April 2011}

They all work. The only other change would be to add the same code to the 2007 Page for consistency.-MHSstaff 06:32, 15 April 2011 (BST)

Which apparently you just did. Looks solid. -MHSstaff 06:33, 15 April 2011 (BST)

Alrgihty, thanks. The formatting of Karek's comment almost threw me for a loop. ~ _{06:40, 15 April 2011}

Template:Vndl

All of This. --Karek^maps?! 02:27, 15 April 2011 (BST)

Made requested edits. ~ _{06:08, 15 April 2011}

Template:Bot

I'm done with it, and everyone else with editing interest in it is a Sysop. It should be protected like the other Administration Templates. I can request it through here if any more quick changes come up. --Karek^maps?! 02:31, 15 April 2011 (BST)

Protected ~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 04:40, 15 April 2011 (BST)

Administration/Misconduct/Archive/2008 and Administration/Misconduct/Archive/2009

New Archives for the talk page. Although we'd probably be better served with Archive 1 Archive 2 formats for actual page discussion a format is a format.--Karek^maps?! 01:46, 15 April 2011 (BST)

Protected ~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 04:40, 15 April 2011 (BST)

Some of my user pages

Re-protected my user page, sig and archive. =3 -- Cheese 12:49, 14 April 2011 (BST)

UDWiki:Administration

Needs {{shortcut|A}} added to the top of the page. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 02:52, 12 April 2011 (BST)

Got this myself. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 05:16, 13 April 2011 (BST)

Template:Unsigned

Would be improved by linking default "at an unknown time" text to page history. Also, documentation could use improving via template docs (c.f. Wikipedia). ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 02:52, 12 April 2011 (BST)

Also changing of the category to Wiki Templates might not be the worst idea ever considering it's more of a notice than a general use utility. --Karek^maps?! 03:20, 12 April 2011 (BST)

I linked "unknown time" to page history and updated the category. Not sure what you had in mind for the documentation. Now that you have butans, I'm sure this is only a mild inconvenience. ~ _{05:57, 13 April 2011}

This comment left intentionally unsigned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vapor (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

Are we there yet? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:17 14 April 2011 (BST)

No worries, I'll handle the rest myself. Cycling – cheers! ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 07:10, 15 April 2011 (BST)