From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Protections Archive

2005 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Q3 Q4
2013 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Years 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

My user page

I am no longer a sysop, and wants to edit it. Just unprotect User:Hagnat and i'll be happy --People's Commissar Hagnat talk 19:10, 29 July 2008 (BST)

Not a problem, Done.--Karekmaps?! 19:11, 29 July 2008 (BST)
that was quick... will trade with ya again. A++++ --People's Commissar Hagnat talk 19:12, 29 July 2008 (BST)

Dunell Hills/Barricade Plan

I would like to see the following changes made to the Dunell Hill Barricade Plan page which is still under protection. The current version is not NPOV and this needs correcting.

This is only a start: I feel that the DHPD plans contain waaay to much text, most of which is unnecessary and should be axed. However, I can't be arsed to deal with it right now. The DHPD wins again by sheer force of spam?? ;) Maybe someone else will come up with a good edit for it.

Specifically, I request the following passages be deleted as blatantly non-NPOV:

  • "The DHPD policy is of historical interest only"
  • "While some would argue that this Policy is zombie-friendly, it is accurate and realistic, two features which lack from other barricade policies that have been proposed for the area. One will note that while the other plans on this page are pie-in-the-sky material, the above policy is currently implemented and maintained."

Next, the two DHPD plans ought to be moved and placed under one heading -- titled "DHPD-approved Plans". The first sub-heading would be titled "Standard Barricade Policy", and the second, "Lockdown Barricade Policy".

The following should be moved; this belongs under the "Standard Barricade Policy" subheading.

"The DHPD follows the Counterpoint Barricading Strategy rather than the Strategy of Distributed Defense. Although "DD" works well in siege environments, it sacrifices new players for the survival of older, more experienced players. The genre would lead us to believe that our primary responsibility is to protect ALL survivors, not just those with free running. This policy should be implemented throughout the DMZ but exceptions are allowed when other significant groups share the area."

Thanks. --WanYao 12:25, 24 July 2008 (BST)

This might be a lot easier if I just unprotected and let you do it, since it's going to be unprotected anyways. The only change I'd make is to remove the "DHPD-" in "DHPD-approved Plans".--  AHLGTG 19:28, 24 July 2008 (BST)
The page is NOT unprotected. Been waiting and waiting and waiting ... Therefore, unless someone unprotects the page, I resubmit this edit request. Some please either approve or deny it, already. Thanks. --WanYao 02:06, 28 July 2008 (BST)
Unprotected but I don't see why you don't just file a move request if the issue is that the plan is a group plan.--Karekmaps?! 02:36, 28 July 2008 (BST)
Thanks. Well... I don't take issue with the existence of any of the plans ... just the NPOV stuff on the page ... Let's see how this plays out, and if we can come to a peaceable conclusion... --WanYao 03:51, 28 July 2008 (BST)


Reason for protection. i realy dont want people messing around with it they can copy it ajd modify it for them selfs i just dont want them to mess it for me to go to fix it --Fanglord2 20:09, 23 July 2008 (BST)

Done.--Karekmaps?! 02:36, 28 July 2008 (BST)
thanks.--Fanglord2 22:49, 31 July 2008 (BST)

Viva la revolution

needs the {{delete}} tag as it is up for voting. --PdeqTalk* 06:33, 17 July 2008 (BST)

Done a while ago by Karek. --  AHLGTG 02:36, 23 July 2008 (BST)


Could you add the Monroeville map link under Monroeville please

Rejected. No signed timestamp. See page guidelines. --The Grimch U! E! 05:54, 19 July 2008 (BST)

Could you add the Monroeville map link under Monroeville please . Also while your there, can we linkify the word monroeville in the news box? Thanks. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 06:14, 19 July 2008 (BST)

Assume for a minute that i am not up to date on all the monroeville links. Give me what i need to do my job instead of just asking me to link to pages that i have to hunt down myself. Please. --The Grimch U! E! 06:39, 19 July 2008 (BST)
Sure grim, Ill do it now. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 19:15, 21 July 2008 (BST)
I only say this because i have absolutely no idea what you are after or where it can be found. --The Grimch U! E! 19:16, 21 July 2008 (BST)
{{Lastupdate}} Can you make "Monroeville" A link? Also Below Monroeville in the Game Information blue box at the bottom add the map of monroeville found at User:Duke Garland/Monroe Hope that helps. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 19:19, 21 July 2008 (BST)
As for the first thing, done. As for the second: No. Not until its moved to the main namespace and becomes a community page. As a userpage he can quite legally blank it, or post an insulting message on it and there would be nothing we can do about it since its his userspace. When it enters the communal namespace, ill add it, not before. --The Grimch U! E! 19:36, 21 July 2008 (BST)
Fair enough. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 21:36, 21 July 2008 (BST)
Right, in that case can we either have each of the 5 suburb pages, or the following pages,
  • Central Monroeville/Map
  • West Monroeville/Map
  • Outside the City/Map
  • Newtown/Map
  • South Monroeville/Map

--RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 22:20, 21 July 2008 (BST)

Survivors of Newtown

The discussion section of this page is getting flamed by one of your sysops. I have asked The Grimch to stop cursing and making a mockery of the page but he persists. He also will not stop reverting the edits I make to his langauge (I bleep it out with *'s) and has threatened that he will supposedly report me for vandalism. His actions are not very admin-like and I find his behaviour repulsive. The page is recieving an incredible number of hits (before it was moved it was at 1030, then in it's new location it is up to 300+) and that was in only 5 days of being active. I will be leaving the wiki soon as well as this game because the Survivors of Newtown were my one last attempt at making this game fun. We had a large group of players supporting us and it was turning out to be a cool survival group. Mr. Grimch thinks he can bully others around because of his status on this wiki, which is not something to be proud of. He is under the misguided impression that we are cheating (I disagreed but stated that the group would stop such actions), and so he has gone on a crusade to destroy our discussion page with slander. I hope that he receives some kind of repremand, though I won't really be present to see what happens anyway. Thank you, for some of your admins are respectable and fair in dealing with people new to the site. --Lostcauseman 20:14, 18 July 2008 (BST)

Allow me to be of some small assistance: You want UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct for that kind of thing. By all means create a case there. --The Grimch U! E! 20:16, 18 July 2008 (BST)
Grim, WTF? Editing isn't a sysop only ability therefore isn't a basis for A/M. You should link him to Anti-Zerging/Multi-Abuse (which you did) then maybe Arbies since he doesn't seem to like you. The only legit "cases" from this mess is the request for protection for the group page (which I don't see a point to do since that page isn't in an edit conflict and talk pages aren't normally protected) and the A/VB for Lostcauseman editing Grim's posts. --– Nubis NWO 23:47, 18 July 2008 (BST)

Grim you are a fucking idiot. You can't even reprimand me. Worst fucking GM ever. --Lostcauseman 00:42, 19 July 2008 (BST)

So, you complain about his language on your page, but then you come here and swear at him? Beautiful. --– Nubis NWO 00:47, 19 July 2008 (BST)
OK, this is Urban Dead right? What's a GM? -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 00:48, 19 July 2008 (BST)
Most likely Game Master in this case... there are none. --  AHLGTG 19:27, 21 July 2008 (BST)

We're done here.--Karekmaps?! 05:51, 19 July 2008 (BST)

User_talk:Finis Valorum

Ought to be protected as I'll be inactive for a while.--Luke Skywalker 17:37, 18 July 2008 (BST)

Done.--– Nubis NWO 00:50, 19 July 2008 (BST)


Link to Deletions Scheduling in the Page Maintenance Requests section. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 11:44, 12 July 2008 (BST)

Done. -- Cheese 08:43, 15 July 2008 (BST)


Add a link to Deletions Scheduling. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 01:31, 12 July 2008 (BST)

Done. -- Cheese 01:41, 12 July 2008 (BST)


I have protected this due to an active edit war. This is the second time i have had to do so. I would like this to be locked for a period of at least one month while they cool off. The fact of the matter is that independant observers (WanYao, Myself) have confirmed that there is nil human presence in the suburb, and there hasnt been any for many months. The general concensus is that there is no presence of that group in the suburb, and thus they have been removed from the groups list. They dont like this and have been perpetuating an edit conflict instead of discussing the issue. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 11:54, 30 June 2008 (BST)

I'm hardly uninvolved or unbiased, but I think the pages need to be locked until an actual policy (and not a compromise) is written on what makes a group qualified for the group section of a suburb page. There should be standards of membership, duration, presence, and activity (and so on) otherwise any group can add itself to every suburb. --– Nubis NWO 13:07, 1 July 2008 (BST)
Being ineffectual has never been a reason to remove a group from a suburb list. If it was so, for much of the time I was in the NE suburbs with my little band of zombies, not a single zombie group should have been listed. If you stood in one place for more than 5 minutes, headshot. This is a bad precedence, and the only way to make it useful is to only have it apply to survivors (only survivors can be forced to play as zombies in a specific area, not the opposite) -- boxy talki 13:28 1 July 2008 (BST)
Thats not the reason. They arent there and havent been there for months by all accounts. On any other group that would warrant removal. Send an alt over there and have a look. In any case, im simply requesting the lock be extended until the 30th of next month. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 14:12, 1 July 2008 (BST)
No, you're asking someone else to approve your edits removing them from the suburb, and giving your subsequent locking of the page legitimacy. And I'd be very surprised if none of them were there as zombies... and taking an alt in there isn't going to confirm or deny that without having them all in your contacts list... hardly simple -- boxy talki 14:37 1 July 2008 (BST)
Im not trying to give anything legitimacy, i dont need to, the guidelines gave it. I dio, however, need a decision here to extend that beyond 24 hours. Could you please stop making this about the person and more about the issue, please? As a side note, common sense dictates that if a survivor group wants to be listed as present in a suburb after being punted for three plus months, they need to be present as *gasp* survivors. If they wanted to be listed as ZKers or even a zombie group, presence as zombies would be sufficient. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 15:12, 1 July 2008 (BST)
The group template doesn't say Survivor. It says Pro-Survivor. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 15:21, 1 July 2008 (BST)
Pro as in professional (which they aren't since they are all zombies) - or Pro as in FOR (I ask what their zombies are doing that is FOR or aiding other living survivors?) They tried that argument back in the day and it was just as retarded then. --– Nubis NWO 16:37, 1 July 2008 (BST)
Well what do you think? I don't think I've ever seen it used to mean "professional". It's the template that's retarded, not the argument. I don't know or care what they're doing as zombies, I'm just pointing out that (as it is) they do not have to be alive to qualify. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 16:53, 1 July 2008 (BST)
The guidelines give you the right to protect pages for a short period, only if they are being vandalised. Edit conflicts are not vandalism. And I disagree with your interpretation of common sense. My common sense tells me that if a group is still in a suburb, even if zombified, and still committed to "the survivor cause" (as lame as I find it to cling to an area so tightly), they should still be considered a survivor group, even if all they do is mrh?. The defining attribute is that they want to be survivors. Just as zombie groups that spend 99.99% of their time as dead bodies are still considered active zombie groups. No, I wont extend your unwarranted protection -- boxy talki 15:29 1 July 2008 (BST)
Edit conflicts are not vandalism. WTF? This wasn't an "edit conflict". This was DHPD vandalism. This was the Dead removing the obviously defeated DHPD from the suburb page and the DHPD throwing a hissy fit and sticking themselves back on. I think the next time I am accused of vandalism I will just say it was an "edit conflict".
The point is the group ISN'T in the suburb. By their own admission they are in Caiger. The few that are in DH are zombies. Even as zombies the Dead still attack them by the way. The Dead isn't saying that DHPD isn't a survivor group - they are saying they aren't in DUNELL HILLS. This is something that can be proven.
This building has been ruined since the update and has reached the highest level of ruin. It is estimated at 31+ AP to repair. This is the only NT in the suburb. If there really was a survivor group active in the suburb do you think the NT would be the oldest ruined building without ANY period of recovery since the update? --– Nubis NWO 16:37, 1 July 2008 (BST)
You're a sysop, and most likely the next 'crat to be elected... and you call this edit war vandalism? We're in for a world of shit in a few months, arn't we. Go ahead, put the DHPD guys up on A/VB, lets see if even grim agrees with you that it is vandalism for a group to replace themselves onto the suburb group list, when even you admit that they are in the suburb (as zombies). That The Dead is completely dominating them is not being debated here, only whether they have a presence in DH, which you just said they do, and that The Dead are still attacking them. They are there, they are still committed to the survivor cause, hence they are still a pro-survivor group in that suburb. Until the dead can get them to give up on retaking the suburb, they should remain listed as a survivor group. Zombie groups have never been removed from green suburbs for being ineffectual, neither should survivor groups -- boxy talki 01:51 3 July 2008 (BST)
Ignoring Grim's advice, I'll try this again. There was an active discussion on the talk page about the change. If ignoring that attempt to "settle" the question and just force a change on the main page isn't vandalism then what is? If edit wars aren't considered vandalism then why do we protect pages? Why should we care how often a page is edited? Answer is that we don't care how often it is edited, we are just supposed to care about it being edited to reflect the facts.
Nevermind. I'll just add The Dead as a Pro-Survivor group too then since the only criteria seems to be that they are in the suburb and attack zombies.--– Nubis NWO 10:59, 3 July 2008 (BST)
Save your breath Nubis, he has already prejudged this based on the particiopants and reason wont sway him from his course. I have already made the rather strong case that its intentional vandalism of an informative page to present falsehood based on egotistical dickwaving instead of evidence, and tried my utmost to handle the manner in a responsible and adult manner. Apparently facts carry no weight here anymore. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 16:44, 1 July 2008 (BST)

Dude your case was shot to pieces and you're refusing to back down or approach the issue at hand with reason and logic. Every time something you've said has been refuted, you've changed your case and it's clear that you 'trying' your utmost to handle it responsibly and like an adult, and failing. It's an obvious zombie bias - you butted into our argument and immediately backed The Dead by locking the page with their recent edit intact (because you thought survivors have to be alive in a suburb in barricaded buildings to count on the pro-survivor list). Then when several people pointed out that wasn't the case and you were provided screenshot evidence as requested of DHPD members as zombies inside the suburb, suddenly you want screenshot evidence of MORE than one officer, otherwise the edit stays. Then I bet when we provide it, the Dead will come along and immediately target that building, post a screenshot of it ruined next to ours, and claim we should be taken off the page again. The point is we *are* in the area, we have members in the suburb in question attacking zombies whilst in zombie form (to soften up targets), and we're working towards reentering the suburb to repair. If you were really interested in discussing what is obviously a complicated and contested point, then as I keep telling you there needs to be a discussion about the exact requirements needed to qualify for inclusion on a suburb page. Until that discussion takes place and someone reaches a conclusion, the page should remain AS IT WAS before the fact was contested, NOT how Grim chose to edit it before locking ('innocent until proven guilty'). Ezekiel UK 19:33, 2 July 2008 (BST)

Given the all the arguing, this should probably stay protected for a short while longer, but the edit I think should be put back to before the war. This should not be protected for too long, though. Also, I have sent an alt over there to check on things. So far things are dead... but I'll give it more than a day.--  AHLGTG 04:11, 3 July 2008 (BST)

Ok, it seems like the DHPD are there, alive, and doing things. Proof enough. The DHPD stays, methinks and this should be unprotected as there is no further use for it to be still locked from editing. --  AHLGTG 01:58, 6 July 2008 (BST)
As usual, Jim solves a massive wiki argument using only his trusty axe. Oh yeah! Jim Extreme 12:17, 7 July 2008 (BST)

Arbitration Arbitration Arbitration. Obviously this isn't going to be served at Grim's request because of the misconduct case, however it will, also obviously, remain protected at least until that case is over at which point that may be reconsidered. It has also been reverted to the point where Grim should have left it, if you want it changed Request Action, give reason, and show some actual attempts at bringing in a neutral third party to settle the matter.--Karekmaps?! 08:24, 3 July 2008 (BST)

Policy Policy Policy. Arbitration is pointless. It will either say that they can be on there or they can't. That solves nothing in the long run. We need a set policy on what counts as an active survivor group so that if there is an "edit conflict" in the future we have a policy to uphold. --– Nubis NWO 11:21, 3 July 2008 (BST)
It's not a matter of what a policy will or will not say, it's a matter of interpretation, which is exactly the type of thing Arbitration exists for. A policy won't solve your problems and will go a long way towards adding to the ridiculously unnavigable lattice work of reactionary policies we already have. Making more things vandalism because people have different viewpoints is never the answer.--Karekmaps?! 12:28, 3 July 2008 (BST)
Abry cases set precedents. And allow for people to hash out these differences of opinion and practice... In a way that can be pointed to as model for the future. Because there really can't be a hard-and-fast way to determine who is or is not in a suburb... Frankly, I think that even the requirement to have 10 members is too much. There are a number of small but very long-standing and effective groups that in no circumstances ought to be left off the page just because they fall under 10 members. One man armies, even two or three man armies -- they probably don't deserve a spot. But what about the classic case of FUACK? Or ROAR? Or the Necronauts? No... there can be no r00lz for this... but there can be guidelines, precedent and consensus -- which is what Arby creates. --WanYao 09:17, 7 July 2008 (BST)

Dunell Hills Barricade Plan

Requesting protection for Dunell Hills/Barricade Plan due to an edit war and a pending Arbitration case regarding keeping the page(s) NPOV. I trust any sysop other than nubis and grim -- who IMO are biased as members of SA -- to revert to a version that they consider appropriately NPOV. Thanks. --WanYao 04:04, 24 June 2008 (BST)

Sure, assuming there is a half decent version to revert to. --  AHLGTG 04:14, 24 June 2008 (BST)
I'm disputing the current edit and -- obviously -- would prefer my last major edit... but CBA whether you leave it as is or not --WanYao 06:24, 24 June 2008 (BST)
Grim isn't a goon, FWIW.--– Nubis NWO 09:12, 24 June 2008 (BST)
Nubis speaks the truth. Just because i have actually been fair and not joined the persecute SA crowd that, well... persecuted SA when they first came to this wiki doesnt mean that im somehow biased in their favour. As several of the older goon members of this community could probably attest, i have disagreed with them on several occasions, especially on the old desensitised boards. The fact that i agree largly with them on the suggestions pages has absolutely nothing to do with bias. That has more to do with us all being zombies and/or PKers. (Who get a much better veiw of the game than trenchcoaters who traditionally inhabit such regions of the wiki) --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 11:11, 27 June 2008 (BST)
That had to do with me thinking I read something about Grimch saying he was a member of Something Awful... I distinctly remember that, but perhaps I was hallucinating... again... sigh... And, I agree by-and-large with you, Grimch, re: game mechanical stuff, tactics, etc.... Does that make me your fanboy??? Right. Exactly... I don't think on those terms, that wasn't what my belief you were an SA member was about. Righty, then, the matter at hand is the stupid page, where's the broom?? ;P --WanYao 11:40, 27 June 2008 (BST)

Sorry, what's happening here? --  AHLGTG 04:12, 3 July 2008 (BST)

Not sure... Nothing ATM re: the Arby ... But, if it's unprotected, sadly I expect another edit war to start up... --WanYao 09:10, 7 July 2008 (BST)
Want to take a stab at fixing it, Wan? Since the arbitration case seems to be going nowhere. --  AHLGTG 02:36, 23 July 2008 (BST)
Personal tools