UDWiki:Administration/Undeletions
From The Urban Dead Wiki
| Administration Services |
|
Sysop List | Guidelines | Policies (Discussion) | Promotions (Bureaucrat) | Re-Evaluations Deletions (Scheduling) | Speedy Deletions | Undeletions | Vandal Banning | Vandal Data Protections | Move Requests | Arbitration | Misconduct | Demotions | Discussion |
|
This page is for the request of page undeletions within the Urban Dead wiki. Due to concerns about loss of data, the ability to undelete pages is restricted to system operators. As such, regular users will need to request an undeletion from a system operator. For consistency and accountability, system operators also adhere to the guidelines listed here.
Please note that Images cannot be restored, they are permanently gone when deleted. If you wish to prevent any currently unused images from being deleted you may wish to Image Ark them.
[edit] Guidelines for Undeletion Requests
All Undeletion Requests must contain the following information in order to be considered:
- A link to the deletion request in question. Preferably bolded for visibility.
- A reason for undeletion. This should be short and to the point.
- A signed datestamp. This can be easily done by adding ~~~~ to the end of your request.
Any undeletion request that does not contain these three pieces of information will not be considered, and will be removed by a system operator.
Undeletions may only be granted if the user provides a convincing reason as to why the page should be resurrected, or if the page was deleted as a result of a system operators abuse.
Once the undeletion request has been entered, the request shall remain on this page, where it will be reviewed by a member of the Sysop team, and action taken accordingly. Once action has been taken, the request will be moved into Recent Actions, along with a comment from the system operator who determined the action take. After a week has passed with the target page in Recent Actions, it can be moved to the Archive.
[edit] Undeletion Queue
There are currently no pages in the queue.
[edit] Recent Actions
[edit] The mark of death
It just got speedy deleted but it doesn't meet any of the criteria for speedy delete. Not crit 7 as DDR suggested. If you look at the page history you'll see that there were two primary editors to the page and they both contributed to it constructively.--
Giles Sednik CAPD SWA
12:05, 24 October 2009 (BST)
- Here's the link: The mark of death--
Giles Sednik CAPD SWA
12:06, 24 October 2009 (BST)
- Oh, dear. Dare I ask if I had only seen the first 50 edits and thought they were the only edits to the article? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 12:43, 24 October 2009 (BST)
- Haha, yeh, little mess up there. I was looking over the histories when it got deleted and I hadn't voted yet. But there were two primary users. The link you referenced in your vote was of Bob Boberton reverting the edit of user#2, assuming that user#2 was not an authorized user. However user#1 came back in and reverted bob's edit, presumably because user#2 had been acting on behalf of the group. It may be that both users would like the page deleted, in which case crit 7 speedy is fine. But the delete request on the page may also be the result of an inner group political struggle, in which case we should treat it as a regular deletion.
- I can't remember the name of the other user. Hopefully the history doesn't get blanked when the page is deleted, right?--Giles Sednik CAPD SWA 13:09, 24 October 2009 (BST)
- We can see all revisions despite it being deleted. My crit 7 vote was with what you explained, in consideration, if C Witty considered the edits welcome, and he was just acting on behalf of C Witty himself. Either way, I've asked the second contributor if he has any prob with it. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:31, 24 October 2009 (BST)
- Looking at the talk page (since deleted) it appeared a member of the fortress (the group who mark of death targets) made edits to the group, some formatiing, some spelling. There was an apology from the fortress command staff there, I also believed he kpet the edits because the spelling was better, not because it was an authorised edit. --Mr. Borehamwood -Rosslessness -Wants a new city 13:32, 24 October 2009 (BST)
- Ah I see. I didn't have time to unravel those nuances, I just saw some of those formatting and grammar type edits you referred to. Based on your information, it appears C Witty is the rightful owner of the group, and Mendoza's talk page indicates a history of editing other people's pages. Please consider this undeletion request withdrawn. Sorry for the extra leg work.--Giles Sednik CAPD SWA 14:12, 24 October 2009 (BST)
- Ah I see. I didn't have time to unravel those nuances, I just saw some of those formatting and grammar type edits you referred to. Based on your information, it appears C Witty is the rightful owner of the group, and Mendoza's talk page indicates a history of editing other people's pages. Please consider this undeletion request withdrawn. Sorry for the extra leg work.--
- Looking at the talk page (since deleted) it appeared a member of the fortress (the group who mark of death targets) made edits to the group, some formatiing, some spelling. There was an apology from the fortress command staff there, I also believed he kpet the edits because the spelling was better, not because it was an authorised edit. --Mr. Borehamwood -Rosslessness -Wants a new city 13:32, 24 October 2009 (BST)
- We can see all revisions despite it being deleted. My crit 7 vote was with what you explained, in consideration, if C Witty considered the edits welcome, and he was just acting on behalf of C Witty himself. Either way, I've asked the second contributor if he has any prob with it. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:31, 24 October 2009 (BST)
- Oh, dear. Dare I ask if I had only seen the first 50 edits and thought they were the only edits to the article? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 12:43, 24 October 2009 (BST)
