UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Combative External Links

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Padlock.png Administration Services — Protection.
This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

This wiki, at heart, is a resource to inform urbandead players how to play the game and interact with other survivors or zombies. As such, we constrain pages to generally be on-topic to the game. Our user base is kept in check by banning vandals and other users that create only problems for the legitimate users of the wiki. Users of the wiki and game rely on the information in the wiki to be factual as well as constructive to their game experience.


We have quite a few links to external sites(forums, games, and information collections) that users expect to be topical and positive supplements to their gaming experience in urbandead. When one of these external sites is run by a user(or former user) of the wiki or game that has shown themself to be an enemy of the urbandead community, we should no longer allow the link to exist in areas users consider authoritative.


Removing these links will lessen the chance of users(especially new ones that are still forming their impression of the game) getting a negative impression of urbandead and our wiki community from these "combative" users.


Areas considered "authoritative" that should not link to sites run by combative users:


This policy gives us a precedent to use when passing these proposed deletions through M/D or when removing the links from authoritative areas.

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. Rueful 14:34, 8 September 2006 (BST)
  2. Remove 'zing links? Of course.--Thari TжFedCom is BFI! 16:34, 8 September 2006 (BST)
  3. If you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't worry about this policy.Jjames 17:24, 8 September 2006 (BST)
    What is that supposed to mean? Voting against censoring amazing's links means we have something to hide, does it?--The General T Sys U! P! F! 17:26, 8 September 2006 (BST)
    Apparently you forgot the time that Amazing had an offsite image in a template that he changed to be anti-wiki after he got banned? He's displayed this kind of behavior before. -- Rueful 17:40, 8 September 2006 (BST)
    I did forget, actually. But, anyway, does that mean that you think he'll delete his game and put something offensive in it's place just to spite UD? He's not stupid, he wants the advertising, he's not going to try to give us any reason to delete it.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 19:28, 8 September 2006 (BST)
  4. --Thom Flask 17:54, 8 September 2006 (BST)
  5. I'm coming out of e-tirement to support this. Rasher 19:00, 8 September 2006 (BST)
  6. Should have been a policy from the begining. --SirensT RR 23:40, 8 September 2006 (BST)

Against

  1. Cwissball 15:46, 8 September 2006 (BST)
  2. You may as well change the title of the policy to "remove all Amazing's links", then at least I could say you were being truthful.The General T Sys U! P! F! 15:52, 8 September 2006 (BST)
  3. Brizth 15:54, 8 September 2006 (BST)
  4. You made an entire policy that hinges on whether or not a user is 'combatative,' but completely failed to define what a combatative user is. I could get one or two mods together and basically remove anything I damned well pleased using this policy to justify it. Is that a good thing? I think not. Nubis 16:06, 8 September 2006 (BST)
  5. This is where I stand right now, because I'm not sure how the links involving the CDF would be affected. I also don't understand that wording. I think I get the premise, and I have no problem with the premise, but the wording leaves much to be desired.--Steele Glovier 16:10, 8 September 2006 (BST)
    They'd be eliminated only on the specific pages that are listed in the policy. –Xoid STFU! 16:29, 8 September 2006 (BST)
    The policy lists exact areas; the CDF pages are totally unaffected by this. -- Rueful 17:10, 8 September 2006 (BST)
  6. Too draconian. –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 17:24, 8 September 2006 (BST)
  7. Altough I don't like most of the games listed on related games, I think that that record is more complete with Scroll Wars on it, and it is a testimony of C. H. Wolf little originality on the games matter. Isn't imitation the greatest of flatteries? --Matthew Fahrenheit YRCT+1 19:14, 8 September 2006 (BST)
  8. --Amanofpower CFT 21:11, 8 September 2006 (BST)
  9. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 22:05, 8 September 2006 (BST)
  10. --Centerfire 22:37, 8 September 2006 (BST)
  11. As Bob Said --Karlsbad 04:03, 9 September 2006 (BST)
  12. Sounds like something Blair would say... Amazing is gone, get over it. Ezekiel UK 09:51, 9 September 2006 (BST)
  13. --Dudemeister 14:10, 9 September 2006 (BST)
  14. As Nubis and The General. And might I add: gtpb. David Malfisto 16:48, 9 September 2006 (BST)
  15. All enemies of the state must be purged! Or not. --Funt Solo 18:47, 9 September 2006 (BST)
  16. Neither Scroll Wars links nor the game itself negatively impacts UD in any way. --Zod Rhombus 22:44, 9 September 2006 (BST)
  17. No reason for it. -- Alan Watson Talk · MalTel 10:49, 10 September 2006 (BST)
  18. --Some guy 11:44, 10 September 2006 (BST)
  19. More unnecessary censorship rules, this time trying to eradicate anything possibly related to someone who got on the wrong side of the mods. Haven't we had enough of this garbage? --Ivan Romanov 14:56, 10 September 2006 (BST)
  20. I'd like a clear cut definition of a combative user. - Bango Skank T W! M! 16:17, 10 September 2006 (BST)
  21. No unpeople. --Ron Burgundy 20:22, 10 September 2006 (BST)
  22. Gage 20:29, 10 September 2006 (BST)
  23. --Axe Hack 20:34, 10 September 2006 (BST)
  24. Max Grivas JG,T,Max4Mod,F! 22:40, 10 September 2006 (BST)
  25. "ban anything to do with Amazing", lol that's what they are always doing...--1 4 of CDF 04:15, 11 September 2006 (BST)
  26. no Asheets 04:33, 11 September 2006 (BST)
  27. --Cartoonlad 06:22, 11 September 2006 (BST)
  28. "Combative" is too loose a term - Attentater 12:34, 11 September 2006 (BST)
  29. Why? The Badman 17:22, 11 September 2006 (BST)
  30. No one goes on power trips like wiki moderators and bureaucrats. Jeez. Bubba 02:38, 12 September 2006 (BST)
  31. no, policy is much to vague and creates yet another point of contention for arguments to break out over --Lehk 08:35, 12 September 2006 (BST)
    # Nope--Gage 15:24, 12 September 2006 (BST) One vote per user. --Max Grivas JG,T,Max4Mod,F! 21:51, 12 September 2006 (BST)
  32. You have seriously got to be kidding me. No way. --John Hawke 01:48, 13 September 2006 (BST)
  33. Just no. Pillsy F! 16:02, 13 September 2006 (BST)
  34. Going with no on this one. This kind of behavior is why I haven't even played UrbanDead for many months. Come back... and see it's still alive and well. Nephus 02:05, 15 September 2006 (BST)
  35. Oh, great. Just what we need, you communist. --Gold Blade 02:15, 15 September 2006 (BST)
  36. Is this still a wiki? OK. Just checking. --ERNesbittP·T·MalTel 15:41, 15 September 2006 (BST)
  37. Neurotrashed 12:27, 16 September 2006 (BST)
  38. Just another nail in the coffin on this one. That "FOR" list looks like a coven of witches to me... -- Basil 21:16, 17 September 2006 (BST)
  39. burn the witches!! --Steamwhistle 03:48, 18 September 2006 (BST)
  40. Heck, why not take out the links on the user pages as well? >.< --Upsetting 23:14, 18 September 2006 (BST)
  41. Negative pages are subjective. The wiki should be a comprehensive guide to Urban Dead, which includes all opinions about the game. --Akule 00:23, 19 September 2006 (BST)
  42. No definition of "combative user" - and I don't think we'll agree one soon. Spiffulous 04:23, 19 September 2006 (BST)
  43. Too Vague. Arainach 00:48, 20 September 2006 (BST)
  44. So basically, this is "ban links to Scroll Wars"? Do we really need to stoop to Amazing's level? Rheingold 05:56, 21 September 2006 (BST)
Personal tools
advertisements