UDWiki talk:Administration/Deletions

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Archive

Discussion

ZombieJesus treatment

What is this being deleted for? Crit 1? I can't see it fitting into any crits for deletion... -- Rahrah is not too happy about another dead lexicon. 11:53, 4 April 2010 (BST)

The Crits are for speedy deletion. Any page can be nominated.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 11:57, 4 April 2010 (BST)

Category:Confirmed Groups

Now that speedydelete criterion 12 has been dropped, there is little point, other than bragging rights, for this category to exist. Without constant cleaning out, it becomes out of date very quickly, as the smaller groups have a high turnover rate. And even then there are disputes as to the eligibility of groups. The accurate information can be found on the stats page, this category is too much work for an inaccurate result. I'm planning on removing all the categories off the group pages and deleting it -- boxy talkteh rulz 09:53 7 October 2009 (BST)

Seems Fair. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 10:04, 7 October 2009 (BST)

Guideline Clarification Requested

Apparently we need some sort of clarification on the deletion guidelines for how long something with three speedy deletes and no keeps needs to be up on the deletions page before it can be deleted. Otherwise we get interpretations like this. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 23:21, 3 August 2009 (BST)

You don't need everything spelled out for you. It met the initial criteria, it had 3 speedy deletes, and there was a 2nd sysop/Crat that would have deleted them himself. The only keep votes weren't based on the content (which is why the pages were up for deletion) and were placed a day later. There is nothing wrong with this. Stop looking for drama.--– Nubis NWO 03:50, 4 August 2009 (BST)
No but, you might. That counts as a valid keep and the whole point of that policy is to allow for discussion on the images if a reasonable request for such is brought up. So, basically, it's for exactly the kind of thing Akule was trying to use it for, time frame is irrelevant if you can't reach it before that and if you can then it would have been a legitimate reason to start an undeletion discussion but you didn't. It's a very easy case for misconduct and horribly counter productive, especially if you had tried to strong arm that later on. --Karekmaps?! 04:22, 4 August 2009 (BST)
Those were pages. If they had been images I wouldn't have put them on here because there is a schedule for unused images. These were orphans that have been on that list that anyone including Akule and J3D are more than welcome to try and link. I don't see them doing that.
None of the pages had been updated in the last 6 months or longer.(usually longer but that is a low estimate). A few of them didn't even have parent groups to link back to. What is the point of keeping a recruitment page for a group that no longer exists even as a page saying they no longer exist?
The counterproductive mindset of this overly bureaucratic wiki sucks. --– Nubis NWO 13:39, 4 August 2009 (BST)
If you'd have put them on A/SD instead of A/D they would have been long gone. You went out of your way to get the obligatory "disc space = cheep" keep votes, and then ignored them anyway because they weren't to your liking -- boxy talkteh rulz 16:15 4 August 2009 (BST)
No, I didn't go out of my way to get any votes. I posted them there (like I said) in case someone wanted to claim them, because maybe they didn't realize their old side project was an orphan and had forgotten about it. That's the thing with orphans. If you don't have them linked you can't always find them.
VVV - HonestMistake, if you are going to be in the conversation can you at least try to keep up? That isn't even close to what I was saying. You missed the part where I pointed out that the recruitment page had no main group to link back to. Hence it "doesn't exist" because it was deleted under crit. 12. VVVVV--– Nubis NWO 14:20, 5 August 2009 (BST)
Yeah! Nubis is totally right! What's the point of keeping a recruitment page for a group that no longer exists? Haw.gif --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 21:55, 4 August 2009 (BST)
I'm failing to see which group was historical in the list of deleted pages. :/ -- High Overlord and Lead Conspirator of the Administrative Rebellion. Want help? 17:00, 5 August 2009 (BST)
I'm not indicating that one of those groups were historical, I'm merely pointing out the fallacy in the argument of "What is the point of keeping a recruitment page for a group that no longer exists?" --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 21:01, 5 August 2009 (BST)
Hmm, I think a Historical Group is way fucking different. Confirmed inactive non-historic groups are fair game to have their pages deleted.--SirArgo Talk 21:19, 5 August 2009 (BST)
Actually, it seems that I do. There's that whole section of the deletion guidelines that says: "If 3 Speedy Deletes are lodged, and there are no Keep Votes, the page will be deleted as per Speedy Deletions." When the keep votes were placed is irrelevant, as you got to it after they were placed, thus it should have gone through the two weeks. Now, where are you getting this idea that the keep votes weren't based on content? I looked over the pages and then voted keep on the ones I felt had enough information to keep for the wiki, and voted speedy delete on the rest. Hence why I asked that we define a specific time between the placement of 3 votes of speedy delete and no keep votes and the actual deletion, because as it stands, it is very open to possible abuse, which you seem all too glad to do. Maybe it's just me (but it looks like other people feel the same), but I believe it is bad form to put something up for deletion and then delete it yourself, regardless of what people voted. As for your drama accusation, we could all head over to misconduct if you feel like it, but I figured time would be better spent defining a time-frame for that part of the guideline and simply undelete the pages in order for them to go through their two weeks. My mistake. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 21:55, 4 August 2009 (BST)
Why does literally everything have to be 100% CODIFIED IN TRIPLICATE WITNESSED BY TWO MONKEYS AND THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD? Is it so hard for you to deal with things on a case-by-case basis? All signs point to yes. Cyberbob  Talk  04:22, 5 August 2009 (BST)
It's not to do with case-by-case basis. And even if you were so inlined to treat it as such, they were borderline crit1s which is why Nubis didn't bother bringing them to A/SD. I don't appreciate him treating them like they were anyway, and I don't like the fact that he threw them on there, ignored keep votes and went against the norm of the deletions process. --ϑϑ 04:32, 5 August 2009 (BST)
There's no "borderline" about those pages. They are very very very NO CONTENT pages. There are many pages in the orphan section that have a lot more content on them than those but will never be linked to anything. Those had NOTHING on them. --– Nubis NWO 14:20, 5 August 2009 (BST)
Oh I'm sorry, here I was crediting you with the knowledge of the wiki when I really should have just assumed that you were a fuckup who didn't know the difference between A/D and A/SD. You deserve all that you get for A/Ding them then, you fucking imbecile. --ϑϑ 17:27, 5 August 2009 (BST)
We may not have a civility policy, but hot damn can we all be a bit more professional? >:| -- High Overlord and Lead Conspirator of the Administrative Rebellion. Want help? 20:31, 5 August 2009 (BST)
Obviously it could have been handled better (by going to A/SD as you say), but I'm not inclined to believe that this is ever going to be something that happens more often than maybe once or twice a year (if that). There's no use in a policy that guards against an action which is controversial at best and is a long shot to really ever happen again anyway. Cyberbob  Talk  04:37, 5 August 2009 (BST)
Do we seriously have to make a policy for it? I mean, I will if I have to, but I was just asking the sysops just sit down and agree on some sort of time-frame on what is and what is not an acceptable amount of time to speedy delete something that has 3 or more speedy delete and no keep votes on the Deletions page. I was hoping that it would be something like the conception of soft warnings. I.e. an unofficial agreement that becomes precedent for future actions, but without having to make a policy for it. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 21:01, 5 August 2009 (BST)
If there's a sysop around the page could get canned right away and it'd be within the rules, so there's no point allowing for extra time on late keeps since it's a matter of chance that they'll even be able to be cast. This minor amendment would do it I think (change in red):
  • If 3 Speedy Deletes are lodged, and there are no Keep Votes, voting ends and the page will be deleted as per Speedy Deletions.
Late votes are invalidated so there's no conflict. -- User:The Rooster RoosterDragon User talk:The Rooster 22:57, 5 August 2009 (BST)
I'm just pointing out that it could easily be abused in that manner. Example: Say sysop A is elected. He has friends , Users B, C, D, and E. User B puts up RRF for deletion and users C, D, and E quickly vote Speedy Delete and Sysop A quickly deletes it "according to the rules". I am not saying this is what happened here. I am just saying that it could happen. Hence why I was saying that I feel we should have them wait a day before processing for people to see it, and if there is no {{delete}} template on the page, it is not processed until the template is placed onto it. It's not like the A/D is stuffed full of cases, and most content that is supposed to be A/SDed, will be Speedy Deleted, as per those guidelines. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 23:16, 5 August 2009 (BST)
The rules say to delete it according to SD guidelines, so deleting non-SD content isn't inside the rules. There's no loophole there. -- User:The Rooster RoosterDragon User talk:The Rooster 00:04, 6 August 2009 (BST)
Yeah I'm pretty sure that's not what you were saying at all Akule. Whoops! Cyberbob  Talk  00:32, 6 August 2009 (BST)
After some IRC discussion with Karek and DDR it appears my initial reasoning was made on an unsound foundation. Instead I'd like to suggest this change which has a minimum timespan:
  • If 3 Speedy Deletes are lodged, there are no valid Keep Votes, and voting has lasted at least 48 hours, the page will be deleted as per Speedy Deletions.
A sysop deleting a page with a keep vote even if it met the above requirement at some prior point in voting would be acting against the rules. Is this sufficient? -- User:The Rooster RoosterDragon User talk:The Rooster 04:57, 6 August 2009 (BST)

2 stoopid

ARE PEOPLE STILL GIVING THIS CASE ATTENTION????? --xoxo 01:03, 25 July 2009 (BST)

Stupid child.jpg Get This Idiot Off the Fucking Wiki!
Oh my God. Who the fuck is this jackass and what the fuck do they think they're doing? Get this fucking idiot off the fucking wiki now.
-- boxy talkteh rulz 01:28 25 July 2009 (BST)

Crit 1

Yes, admittedly, Project Team was a failure. But the snarky comment afterwards was unneeded. I'm still unsure what you were geting at... ----RahrahCome join the #party!00:03, 21 July 2009 (BST)

I believe what he was getting at in the comment afterwards is that the design of the Project Team page itself is very simple and full of spelling and grammar errors. That doesn't inspire confidence for a group whose aims is to produce well-presented pages.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 14:55, 21 July 2009 (BST)

Boobs (various)

I want to take a minute to bask in the hilarity of this statement for a moment. All right. Now that we are all composed aga-...seriously Bob? You admitted to getting gay porn for your birthday? Really? If that's not template-worthy, I don't know what is.

Ahem.

So, yes. A show of hands for those who didn't see something like this or this coming when Bob was promoted. I know I was shocked to see him continuing his normal habits even while being a sysop. It pretty much follows him whenever he is put in any sort of position of power. Ah well. I warned you. Now let's enjoy this crazy ride as long as it goes on for! Oh, and Bob, to prove this isn't some sort of vendetta, I expect that you'll be going through all of the images in order to find all of the "offensive images". Right?--Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 11:18, 17 July 2009 (BST)

I already tried putting images that were submitted to me up for deletion. Look how well that turned out; you're barking mad if you think I'm going anywhere near those things again until we get something more definitive in place. In the meantime you are more than welcome to assert that I'm on a vendetta if that's what makes you happy. --Cyberbob 11:29, 17 July 2009 (BST)
I would be interested to know what relevance my promotion has to my actions here, by the way. Nothing I've done apart from the actual deletion of those first two images has been anything a normal user couldn't have done. --Cyberbob 11:31, 17 July 2009 (BST)
Also, "technically", Bob deleted these images as he was alerted to them. I see no vendetta.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 11:32, 17 July 2009 (BST)
"technically" that is not true as Bob was well aware of the existence of all of them long before then. Still no real harm and no real foul as at least he didn't just KOS as he might "technically" be allowed too. (I love the word technically... its great how it always seems to mean almost exactly the opposite of what it actually means :D) --Honestmistake 11:39, 17 July 2009 (BST)
GIVE uz The logs or it did not happen... He didz not know withoutz the logs.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 11:40, 17 July 2009 (BST)
well I am not going to search deletions to see if he voted last time but I will point out that the boobs thing is SexualHarrisons sig and is on Bobs talk page at least twice (with a reply) so its fair to say he must have seen that one wouldn't you say? Its also in his promotion bid and I reckon he read through that a few times too. --Honestmistake 11:56, 17 July 2009 (BST)
FULLY SICK --Cyberbob 12:02, 17 July 2009 (BST)
Like I implied before (forget where), it is possible for standards and opinions to change over the course of years. --Cyberbob 11:43, 17 July 2009 (BST)
There is a difference between a trusted user and a regular user, thus you are held to higher scrutiny. I'm merely pointing out how nothing has really changed. You're still doing the same things as before, and are clearly starting to cause grumblings in the community, and I note some of the sysops as well. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 11:49, 17 July 2009 (BST)
Sorry but if we're going to be quoting guidelines at each other I hold the trumps card. --Cyberbob 12:01, 17 July 2009 (BST)
Sounds good, but it still talks about that whole trusted user and beholden to the community business. Might want to get that changed before you use your trump card. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 12:10, 17 July 2009 (BST)
Sorry but what you just linked says absolutely nothing about anything to do with what the Sysops are not Moderators policy deals with. Are you sure you didn't accidentally link to the wrong thing? --Cyberbob 12:13, 17 July 2009 (BST)
The drama llama is smileing--DOWN WITH THE

'CRATS!!! | Join Nod!!! 21:11, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Yeah, isn't he though? He seems to be doing that a lot here latly.... -Poodle of doom 00:15, 21 July 2009 (BST)
I figured you wouldn't get it. Read your "trump card". It literally is only a title change, nothing more. Read here specifically. It states that the pages labeled Moderation would change to Administration, Moderator would be changed to System Operator, and Mod to Sysop. The Administration Guidelines, specifically General Conduct on the other hand, remained unchanged by that policy. All of that fancy text in the why section of your document, doesn't actually apply, as the policy failed to do anything in reference to changing the general conduct of the sysops. You still have to be a trusted user, which means that you are still held to higher scrutiny, and you are still beholden to the community. The guidelines say this in black and white. If you choose to ignore it, and do so long enough, I am sure the community will respond. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 00:16, 21 July 2009 (BST)

Old Image Deletion Request

I notice that both Iscariot and J3D have now included the image on their sub-pages. Wow, don't you guys have anything better to do than "save" images that no one, not even the author, wants -- boxy talkteh rulz 12:14 26 March 2009 (BST)
He already had it? Dammit. Also i would usually have some better things to do, but seeing as they are done i've downsized to saving poor helpless images.--xoxo 12:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Uhhh....

Anything we can do about this? Category:Allied Travellers Organisation. It burns my eyes. --Haliman - Talk 02:53, 13 May 2009 (BST)

What's wrong with it? --Pestolence(talk) 03:10, 13 May 2009 (BST)
Look at all of the subpages. The categories fine, but those pages... --Haliman - Talk 03:17, 13 May 2009 (BST)
Group Subpages...i.e. off limits unless the group itself is nuked...from orbit....twice. Conndrakamod TAZM CFT 03:19, 13 May 2009 (BST)
Not even for Crit 1 not edited since 07? /me goes to cry in a corner. --Haliman - Talk 03:21, 13 May 2009 (BST)
Gaah, two edit conflicts in a row. But yeah, they've gotta stay until ATO is removed. --Pestolence(talk) 03:22, 13 May 2009 (BST)
I'm seriously gonna be haunted by that category for days to come now. --Haliman - Talk 03:30, 13 May 2009 (BST)
I'm sure you'll be able to sleep at night. --Bob Boberton TF / DW 03:33, 13 May 2009 (BST)
Yes... /checks under the bed for the wiki monster. Alright, enough with the spam. I got my answer. --Haliman - Talk 03:35, 13 May 2009 (BST)
If it makes you feel better, I made all those pages in the ATO namespace back when I was a group-UD-player, so you have me to blame. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 06:54, 13 May 2009 (BST)

May 2009

Bub

Moved from main page.

  1. Delete - It's a character page in the mainspace created by someone who isn't its owner. What next? A Petro character page in the mainspace? -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 11:03, 28 May 2009 (BST)
    Kevan. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 12:08, 28 May 2009 (BST)
    Would that be because his name is all over the wiki and the game so is an exception due to owner privilege and common sense. I don't see Bub's name in the same places. We move or delete the characters of normal users to their own user space, but Kevan didn't even create this. The character's got one piece of relevant information, it belongs to Kevan, that's it. Petro's done more to effect this game as a character but we aren't creating pages about him in the mainspace, same with Jorm or anyone else who's had a major impact. Why? Because character pages should only exist if created by the owner and in their namespace. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 12:31, 28 May 2009 (BST)
    Kevan. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 12:55, 28 May 2009 (BST)
    Kevan. -- Cheese 14:53, 28 May 2009 (BST)
    Kevan.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 14:56, 28 May 2009 (BST)
    Kevan. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 14:58, 28 May 2009 (BST)
    Kevan? -- Cheese 14:58, 28 May 2009 (BST)
    Kevan!--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 14:59, 28 May 2009 (BST)
    Kevan?! DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 15:00, 28 May 2009 (BST)
    Kevan! Living a lie!! -- Cheese 15:03, 28 May 2009 (BST)
    Kevan...--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 15:01, 28 May 2009 (BST)
    This is the indent police, I'm fining you all for overuse of idents. -- User:The Rooster RoosterDragon User talk:The Rooster 15:08, 28 May 2009 (BST)
    Timmy!! Kevan!! -- Cheese 15:08, 28 May 2009 (BST)
    hahaha you guys are sooooo rnadum and "lulzy" xDDDDDD --Cyberbob 15:16, 28 May 2009 (BST)
    i no rite? lol!!!1!--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 15:18, 28 May 2009 (BST)--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 15:18, 28 May 2009 (BST)
    The page is there to teach. If no one wants to learn it, it shouldn't be there. But Bub is a celebraty. You know why? Kevan.--TripleU 17:56, 30 May 2009 (BST)
    Dude at least bother to use a tinyurl *sighs* --xoxo 10:39, 31 May 2009 (BST)
Kevan is a redirect, which is what i think Bub should become, are the 3 of you saying you agree with me? --xoxo 08:19, 29 May 2009 (BST)
I think Bub should stay as it's own page because...Kevan.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 13:30, 29 May 2009 (BST)

I remember getting an escalation for spamming up the admin pages for shit like this, odd how it's one rule for some, another for sysops isn't it? -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 16:58, 28 May 2009 (BST)

You honestly can't see the difference? (hint: the difference isn't that you're not a sysop) --Midianian¦T¦DS¦SP¦ 18:22, 28 May 2009 (BST)
Pray tell what the difference is Mid. I'm tired right now and I can't figure it out either. v_v --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 13:30, 29 May 2009 (BST)
If you can't see a difference, then you should be giving out warnings to the people involved. Unless, of course, you think Iscariot was unjustly punished? --Midianian¦T¦DS¦SP¦ 03:35, 30 May 2009 (BST)
The only real difference I'm seeing is the fact of being Iscariot or not. --Cyberbob 04:33, 30 May 2009 (BST)
Either I'm thinking of a different case or you're all blind as fuck. --Midianian¦T¦DS¦SP¦ 15:00, 30 May 2009 (BST)
Actually, right now, I'm blind in my right eye. It kind of sucks. But mostly I'm just tired and I don't want to think.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 15:06, 30 May 2009 (BST)
This? -- Cheese 18:21, 30 May 2009 (BST)
Iscariot couldn't be talking about that. The circumstances are just too different. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 11:02, 31 May 2009 (BST)
Welp, I was thinking of something completely different that when I actually went back and looked at it turned out not to have involved Iscariot at all. --Cyberbob 14:09, 31 May 2009 (BST)

Aug 2009

Image:5oN09.jpg

  1. Delete Just because #99 is funny as hell..... -Poodle of doom 23:16, 12 August 2009 (BST)
    Can you tell us all how his arse tastes too? You don't make friends with salad, PoOdLe oF dOoM--CyberRead240 15:08, 13 August 2009 (BST)
    You, calling other people out on brownnosing? Really? Cyberbob  Talk  15:18, 13 August 2009 (BST)
    It's called friendship bob. I know you don't know much about it so i won't blame you this time, but look it up on wikipedia then come back to me.--xoxo 00:36, 14 August 2009 (BST)
    Hahaha, cheers for proving my point. Cyberbob  Talk  00:40, 14 August 2009 (BST)
    Your point is that friends vouch for friends? Wow bob that is a poignant point. --xoxo 00:43, 14 August 2009 (BST)
    It is indeed. Read (and Nick too IIRC) seems to enjoy describing people backing each other up as arse licking or whatever else but the truth is you guys do it more than anybody. That's my point. Cyberbob  Talk  00:45, 14 August 2009 (BST)
    There is a difference. Arse licking (or whatever you want to call it) is more one person sucking up/backing up/siding with another specific person in order to achieve some sort of personal gain or make themselves an ally. It is unnecessary if you're friends because you've already got an ally. Read vouching for me wasn't arselicking because he didn't gain anything from vouching for me that he wouldn't have got if he didn't. Sorry just kinda thinking outloud here..thoughts? --xoxo 00:49, 14 August 2009 (BST)
    I'd say you're right except that I really don't think that distinction ever entered their minds. Cyberbob  Talk  00:55, 14 August 2009 (BST)
    How pathetic are you? You would have seen that comment and tried your little heart out to come up with SOMETHING as a little witty quip. Sadly for you, Jed is my friend and at the time he was very serious about getting sysop. I wanted him to get sysop for 2 main reasons. Reason 1: Jed is a mate and I know it meant something to him (at the time, sysopship is just gay now), and Reason 2: I knew there would be a wave of drama to come until he was eventually going to be demoted by those who couldn't hack that one of "the qlique" had more power than them (see:you), and frankly, I fucking love drama, especially when I am involved in it. So if you think that pOoDlE Of DoOm saying "i vote for ddc coz he is funneh" isnt the ultimate "ive seen this guy around and he looks like people like him (they don't but anyway) so I will try and befriend him because I am in desperate need of friends coz every1 pickin on m3" is the same as "If my already acquainted and long time friend got sysop, it would be an enjoyable moment for me, too" then you are quite obviously a complete idiot, OR, you tried really hard to find SOMETHING to hassle the same old users who simply get under your skin, and you failed at it. Stop hassling regular users for the sake of drama, it doesn't sit well for a sysop. Be reactive, not pro-active. At least boxy only hassled us when we hassled him first--CyberRead240 03:07, 14 August 2009 (BST)
    You really do love people until they become a sysop, don't you? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 04:49, 14 August 2009 (BST)
    Pardon me, I stand mistaken, I forgot to tally up Jed. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 05:24, 14 August 2009 (BST)
    In the post above us right now, in what way did I even mention you? If you are looking at DDC and thinking it means you, it is a deliberate misspell of DCC to outline the noobness of pOoDlE oF dOoM--CyberRead240 05:35, 14 August 2009 (BST)
    I misread ddc as ddr. I apologise. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 05:37, 14 August 2009 (BST)
    While my general nature on this wiki, as you know, is to hate everyone and everything with authoritah, I hope that in the many times we will but heads while you are in sysopship (because we WILL at some point, its unavoidable) I hope you don't take it personally, and you look upon DDR as and alter ego of Charlie, as I look upon SLR as an alter ego of myself.--CyberRead240 05:40, 14 August 2009 (BST)
    r u rselikan????????????????? Cyberbob  Talk  08:55, 14 August 2009 (BST)
    That's how I treat it, I won't be surprised when it happened, just had work so I didn't get time to explain that when I incorrectly read it I thought you were referring to PoD's post on UDWiki_talk:Administration/Bureaucrat_Promotions#August_Election about me, and hence found your comment out of line. Otherwise I'll treat everything as fair game. Bring it on! --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 10:11, 14 August 2009 (BST)
    Not ddr assuming everything is about him, surely!! --xoxo 12:28, 14 August 2009 (BST)
    Quiet you, we already established that I misread what he said as an uncalled for personal attack, which I was wrong. You're the ego around here ;) --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 12:30, 14 August 2009 (BST)
    That is a lot of words. And no, I don't think I will stop harassing you if you insist on being such a complete fuck towards anything and everything you deem to be stupid. I'm sure there's a saying about heat and kitchens that applies here. Cyberbob  Talk  08:55, 14 August 2009 (BST)
    lol, if I can't stand the heat coming from some random 18 year old from Melbourne who throws insults at people via a free text based MMO online web based browser games free wiki run by random people from all around the world who hold a position of power as some sort of esteem when really their main purpose is to keep the pages free of vandalism and edits that don't improve the wiki as a factual online book of information aimed at aiding the enjoyment and playability of the free text based MMO online web based browser game, then I should probably not be living. The fact that you take it as if it is your life path to govern this wiki is laughable enough on its own right, but you then go and tell me (no wait you don't, you try to be witty by vaguely saying it LOL) that if I cant handle the heat I should get out of the kitchen. HA. Sorry man, there never has, and there never will be, any activity in your furnaces. And I mean that both literally and figuratively.--CyberRead240 09:02, 14 August 2009 (BST)
    Woah, another big chunk of angry words! You sure do like to write angry words. Cyberbob  Talk  09:04, 14 August 2009 (BST)
    Woah, another reply that strolls away from the fact that you were once again made to look like a fool, in an attempt to have the last word--CyberRead240 09:06, 14 August 2009 (BST)
    The point I'm making is that clearly you give some kind of a shit if I can get you to write so many words with so few of my own. You're trying way way way too hard to make me, some random 18 year old from Melbourne who throws insults at people via a free text based MMO online web based browser games free wiki run by random people from all around the world who hold a position of power as some sort of esteem when really their main purpose is to keep the pages free of vandalism and edits that don't improve the wiki as a factual online book of information aimed at aiding the enjoyment and playability of the free text based MMO online web based browser game, look like a fool. Cyberbob  Talk  09:08, 14 August 2009 (BST)
    The point I am trying to make is, no matter how many times I say anything, no matter how long I go away for, no matter what I do, you can't resist it. We get under your skin, and you hate that there are a few people on this wiki who are able to break you over trivial issues. This isn't even over policy, or nothing. But you keep coming back, and back, and back, for more. Any issue, you can't stand it. You have to win, and you just can't with us. Have the last word, have many of them. But I can walk away from this wiki at any time, and come back knowing full well that you will be hear, and ready to take the bait so that I can have a bit of fun for 2 hours before I have to go out for dinner. Cya.--CyberRead240 09:13, 14 August 2009 (BST)
    Woah, looks like some random 18 year old from Melbourne who throws insults at people via a free text based MMO online web based browser games free wiki run by random people from all around the world who hold a position of power as some sort of esteem when really their main purpose is to keep the pages free of vandalism and edits that don't improve the wiki as a factual online book of information aimed at aiding the enjoyment and playability of the free text based MMO online web based browser game has managed to extract another big chunk of angry words (dressed up as contempt of course) from you once again. Cyberbob  Talk  09:17, 14 August 2009 (BST)
    Wtf it isn't angry in the slightest? It's jovial if anything, and regardless, I need to now have a shower, Dinner is at 7.--CyberRead240 09:21, 14 August 2009 (BST)

Keep --Bob Boberton TF / DW Littlemudkipsig.gif 18:28, 13 August 2009 (BST)

Nnnnooooooooo! Don't meddle with my attempts to stereotype you!--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 23:37, 13 August 2009 (BST)
Actually this was to counter Thad's vote as he has a known anti-umbrella bias. If Umbrella wants to look "idiotic," I say let them. --Bob Boberton TF / DW Littlemudkipsig.gif 00:32, 14 August 2009 (BST)
Oh I'm sorry, but you really don't know what your talking about there see.--Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png 23:54, 16 August 2009 (BST)
I know about as much as your two groups throwing sand at each other a while back for both sides being uncreative and/or lazy by using an established (though fictional) corporation's name. Parasol would've been a cooler group, though it sounds a bit like Paradox. --Bob Boberton TF / DW Littlemudkipsig.gif 02:36, 17 August 2009 (BST)
  1. Delete - It's sad to see them making an event like the 5th of November suck as hard as Umbrella -- boxy talkteh rulz 02:01 13 August 2009 (BST)
    PURITAN!!!!!1 Cyberbob  Talk  14:30, 13 August 2009 (BST)
    I'll will forgive your ignorant view on that. --Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png 23:57, 16 August 2009 (BST)
    GTFO -- boxy talkteh rulz 03:04 18 August 2009 (BST)
    The fact you thought Boxy wasn't using the term "umbrella" as an umbrella (no pun intended) term for both fail groups, is ignorance in itself. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 04:43, 18 August 2009 (BST)
    You really can't judge a group that you barely know let alone just on it's apparent cover. Maybe it's me, but I really can't remember the last time Boxy experienced any Umbrella activity, forum, members (apart from me, and remember there are about 50 others) or basically have any view on how we operate. You don't have a clue about Umbrella, yet you and so many others are never to slow to judge us. Spend some time with us, and then come back with some actual judging properly backed up by arguments. And that goes for pretty much every group. --Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png 00:34, 19 August 2009 (BST)
    Blah, blah, blah -- boxy talkteh rulz 04:15 19 August 2009 (BST)
    I was going to say something to that tune but then I figured it'd be talk page material (so I'd have to move it) and I was distracted by those cursed MMOs. --Bob Boberton TF / DW Littlemudkipsig.gif 04:26, 19 August 2009 (BST)

Reworking the porn scheduled deletion

Recent cases have shown the lack of definition for porn has become problematic in regards for the porn scheduled deletion. There's no clear "definition" for porn - which is problematic when sysops can define anything remotely sexual as porn. In short, the porn scheduled deletion needs a rework to remove the huge gray area that's in the current version.

As I see it, we've got four ways to solve this:

  1. Leave it - obviously not my preferred way of going foward, considering the problems with the current one. But if the community wills it...
  2. Change the current porn deletion to include a definition of porn (ether in the wording of the deletion itself or in a linked-to page.) This doesn't cover sexually explicit material which isn't porn (the current gray area.) I wouldn't call goatse porn, but it still should be deleted on sight.
  3. Change the current porn scheduled deletion (as above,) but include a speedy deletion criterion for sexually explicit material. This means that another sysop will have to check the item before deletion, and the community has time to vote keep on it if they don't think it's too explicit.
  4. Remove the scheduled deletion, and summary delete all porn under the TOU (probably the worst idea, as the TOU can be quite vague and we still haven't figured out how to interpret a lot of it.)

Thoughts? Linkthewindow  Talk  03:13, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Redundant. Remove it, pretend like that scheduled deletion vote never happened. Actual porn or unsavory material gets deleted anyway. The scheduled deletion is entirely pointless. --  AHLGTG 03:18, 7 July 2009 (BST)

^^^^^ --Cyberbob 03:27, 7 July 2009 (BST)
Option 5 is that it becomes a scheduled deletion after the upload of the image is deemed to be vandalism on A/VB. This catches "real" porn quite easily, and borderline cases like those that get taken to misconduct are discussed and a majority of the sysops is required for the deletion -- boxy talkteh rulz 04:10 7 July 2009 (BST)
If an image is even vaguely ambiguous it should be able to get nuked on the spot (my keep vote on the other thing was keeping the current criteria in mind) IMO. As for vandalism... I wouldn't mind seeing that become an option but there would need to be a fairly explicit warning against uploading images of such a nature somewhere (not the welcome template as it's pretty obvious that nobody reads it). --Cyberbob 04:15, 7 July 2009 (BST)
(this does not extend to non-sexual portrayals of the nude body - I'm thinking classical art and whatnot here) --Cyberbob 04:19, 7 July 2009 (BST)
Obviously inappropriate images should be nuked, no argument, but not ambiguous ones. If the sysop has doubts as to whether any other sysops may disagree, it should be discussed. We can put a warning about inappropriate images on MediaWiki:Uploadtext -- boxy talkteh rulz 04:25 7 July 2009 (BST)
That's a point. The MediaWiki idea is good too. --Cyberbob 04:29, 7 July 2009 (BST)
Sounds good. Obvious porn is vandalism and is sent to A/VB then deleted, while ambiguous cases are sent to A/D. Linkthewindow  Talk  05:28, 7 July 2009 (BST)
I would have thought A/SD rather than A/D? --Cyberbob 05:30, 7 July 2009 (BST)
Don't care ether way. If a community member (or sysop) doesn't think it's porn, then they can just vote keep and send it to A/D. Linkthewindow  Talk  05:39, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Again, this is a wiki about Urban Dead. There should be nothing sexual on here at all. If it is questionable enough that a reasonable sysop wants it deleted then it should be deleted. You can't justify anything sexual on here. Violent - yes. Sexual - no. Violence and sex are not the same. The game won't even let you spray paint obscenities on the walls, why should you be allowed to post pictures of dicks and boobs on the wiki? --– Nubis NWO 03:29, 7 July 2009 (BST)

I really hate to knock you on it Nubis, but we cuss all the time here. You know as well as I that if we start using the "This is the game's wiki. We need to keep it as clean as in there" card, people will push those sorts of things to be enforced and no one will be happy.--SirArgo Talk 04:29, 7 July 2009 (BST)
There's nothing stopping you from swearing ingame as long as you don't do it on the radio. I guess you could draw a parallel between the radio and policy documents? --Cyberbob 04:30, 7 July 2009 (BST)
I propose we accept a certain definition for automatically deletable images, but anything outside that definition that is veiwed as offencive to someone could be put up to vote.... not unlike it is now but, we need a stricter (As in set in stone, not as in less stuff is allowed), and Administration has to abide by the way the people vote.... unless kevan wants it off his wiki which is perfectly acceptable after all i believe the wiki is his property --Imthatguy 04:39, 7 July 2009 (BST)
ur dumb --Cyberbob 04:55, 7 July 2009 (BST)
That the best you can come up with?...... 'ur dumb'......... how pathetic that you have sunk to such a level--Imthatguy 05:30, 7 July 2009 (BST)
but.....you are dumb so i dunno what you're on about? --Cyberbob 05:40, 7 July 2009 (BST)
Nubis that's ridiculous. If what was allowed and only what was allowed in the game was allowed on the wiki then i could say NIGGER all over the place because hey, you can do that in the game. Go undo my 2 vandalism cases then call me and we'll talk--xoxo 11:15, 7 July 2009 (BST)
You're so bitter --in before bob.11:15, 7 July 2009 (BST)
well if you would just stop being "so bitter" i wouldn't have to keep saying it now would i --Cyberbob 11:38, 7 July 2009 (BST)
i can't help that everything nubis did to me is in contradiction to the way he is acting of late...--xoxo 12:45, 7 July 2009 (BST)
Stop being an idiot. You can say Nigger. You can't spray paint Nigger. There is a difference. You can "say" all kinds of (text)underage rape shit, but does that mean it is appropriate here on the wiki? Please post child porn to prove your argument.--– Nubis NWO 13:29, 7 July 2009 (BST)
Ah see but can i say underage rape shit here? --xoxo 14:38, 7 July 2009 (BST)
No, because it Violates T.O.U. This server doesnt even allow IRC to host on it to avoid a number of issues. Conndrakamod TAZM CFT 16:31, 7 July 2009 (BST)
http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Alim. Should these be pruned too Newbis? The image that started all this (this time) was a simple pictogram suggesting that fort dwellers were wankers... a sentiment that most wiki goers probably agree with. The problem with deleting everything sexual is that it would be an endless process. The bouncing Boobs gif in someones sig, the scantily clad zombie chick on my user page, the use of any vaguely sexual imagery including text? Do you make different levels of censorship apply in different areas? Its all going to get pretty damn confusing pretty damn quick. The game itself must have thousands of obscene names in it by now so just purging the wiki seems pointless. Of course real porn should be an absolute no-no but wander around in the actual game and tell me with a straight face that smut has no place here. --Honestmistake 09:34, 7 July 2009 (BST)
Smut has no place here.--– Nubis NWO 13:21, 7 July 2009 (BST)
If smut has no place here you will be banning a lot of groups and users whose characters are little more than dirty jokes or obscene descriptions. --Honestmistake 17:51, 7 July 2009 (BST)
This just in, Mistake misses the point. Again. Completely. Film at 11.--– Nubis NWO 19:48, 7 July 2009 (BST)
WAH WAH! They won't let me post my fucking porn on the wiki and now I have to wank it to underwear ads and pop ups crying and wishing I could touch a real girl. I love the stupid fucking argument that something like Cockburn is offensive because your retarded little 12 year old brain thinks anything that sounds dirty is porn, but when it is an actual picture then THAT'S FUCKING ART AND SHOULD BE SAVED!!1!one!!. God, you jackoffs are pathetic.--Globetrotters Icon.png #99 DCC 13:36, 7 July 2009 (BST)
Honest struck me as being pretty desperate for porn on that misconduct case of Nubis'. Good to see he hasn't changed (though literally nothing else about him has so I guess I shouldn't be surprised at all) since then. --Cyberbob 13:48, 7 July 2009 (BST)
My point hasn't changed Bob (its called being consistent, you should try it with something other than trolling) What was deleted in the last case was not porn and what was deleted in this one wasn't either but its not misconduct to delete because the rules are so messed up that sysops have the power to over rule everyone else if they decide they don't like something.
Everyone knows that this rule was only intended to allow sysops a quick way to get rid of actual porn (you know the stuff that is actually pornographic) rather than stuff like asci art, risque pics and line drawings.--Honestmistake 17:51, 7 July 2009 (BST)
And what do you know, most of that doesn't have a place on the wiki. Fancy that.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 18:15, 7 July 2009 (BST)
If that kind of stuff has no place on the wiki then I can expect to see a move to have SexualHarrisons sig sent for a mastectomy soon can I? Or how about the entire Dribbling Beavers group page? Maybe the Dead Bunnies? Hmm VPoD were pretty rude too and as for all those zombies "ramming banananahz".... well it just should not be tolerated, I mean there are children out there. --Honestmistake 18:43, 7 July 2009 (BST)
Classic HM argument, eh? "on noes if we remove this we should remove everything else because it makes sense in my mind!"
Porn check.
  • Harrison's sig? Negative. Not even the "merest hint of aureole"
  • Dribbling Beavers? Still no sign of graphic representations of the naked body. Nor any classical art for that matter.
  • Dead Bunnies? Again, not a single tit or dick on the page
  • Village People? Fuck man, where do you come up with this shit Honest?
There's no real problem with text, just pictures and the manipulation of text to create a nude body. Grow up honest.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 18:51, 7 July 2009 (BST)
  • I was a member of the group... the wiki page is very tasteful... all the smut was in game, there was a fair bit of it but nothing compared to the various "Yiffers" out there.--Honestmistake 20:41, 7 July 2009 (BST)
There is just no point arguing with you on this. I don't consider the image you deleted to be porn and don't think many others do either but consider one of Nubis's statements at the start of this...
  • "Again, this is a wiki about Urban Dead. There should be nothing sexual on here at all."
Yes he later mentions images but there are a hell of a lot of legitimate game related reasons to post zombie stripper type pics or crude phallic insults aimed at an opponents team, saying that the game does not support rude images is a pretty shitty argument as the game does not support any images at all (the bloody eye being an exception) Look again at those examples and tell me there is nothing that might fall into the category of sexual. --Honestmistake 20:36, 7 July 2009 (BST)
Sexual references in text? Yeah. Pornogrpahics? No. Not even the "classic art" kind. My definition of porn isn't the same as Nubis's, and his isn't even as strict as you're trying to paint it as. Seriously. Everyone needs to stop taking these weak ass interpretations of what someone says to try and justify their shity little jokes and grow the fuck up. The averge cock is six inches, now can we please move the fuck on from the dick related jokes?--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 21:24, 7 July 2009 (BST)
Mistake, you have reached a new low of stupidity. Those first two lines up there can not be topped. Yes he later mentions images THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION WAS ABOUT IMAGES FROM THE START. I never said the names or text (except to form an image) was a problem because THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION WAS ABOUT IMAGES FROM THE START. I'm not offended by the name Dribbling Beavers but a picture of one (a VAGINA) would be over the line here because THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION WAS ABOUT IMAGES FROM THE START. Ok. I'm done. I no longer believe that you are capable of making any intelligent contribution to any discussion. --– Nubis NWO 15:59, 9 July 2009 (BST)
When the fuck did you ever believe that he was? Serious question. --Cyberbob 17:43, 9 July 2009 (BST)
I never really did, but like monkeys throwing shit on typewriters sometimes he popped out an interesting statement that actually applied to a discussion. Or maybe Nubis was more of an optimist than I am. I realize those days are over. --– Nubis NWO 03:28, 10 July 2009 (BST)
Lolz; you guys are just the funniest! --Honestmistake 09:16, 10 July 2009 (BST)
No, you didn't just try that one on for size. Chalking it up to some kind of glitch with your computer. --Cyberbob 11:25, 10 July 2009 (BST)
I eLove you so hard right now.--– Nubis NWO 19:48, 7 July 2009 (BST)


UDWiki:Think about the children, nuff said. --People's Commissar Hagnat [talk] [wcdz] 20:58, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Just a point...the most elaborate court system on the planet (The U.S. Supreme Court) Hasn't been able to define what is "Pornography" in over eighty years of trying...The best they can come up with is Physical community standards and that when telecommunication crosses multiple communities the most restrictive must be used. Now since this is an international online community and the laws that govern the wiki are British, I'm not saying anything important other than good luck because anything that ends up qualifying as an offensive image is either going to end up being deleted by a sysop or reported to the host and then deleted regardless of what others may think about it. (Personal non-sysopy opinion follows) AScii drawings of Penis can be art but if you want to show them off, host them off the wiki, not all images that can be related to UD are suitable for UD and the wiki is not to be a substitute for an image host-server. 4chan is a much better place for this kind of crap folks..take it there. Also....The Game ya win yet? Conndrakamod TAZM CFT 11:58, 8 July 2009 (BST)

The UD wiki is going to be governed by real-world laws now? Ut-oh! --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 11:23, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Generic Header

I've just skimmed through the above discussion. Unless anyone's got any complains, I'll put up for voting the removal of the porn scheduled deletion.

At the same time MediaWiki:Uploadtext will be changed to include the following words:

Upload Text said:
Images judged to be pornographic will be deleted on sight and a (warning/ban) issued to the offending user.

So instead of an image being deleted on sight, it must first be judged to be vandalism on A/VB. It may be worth making porn an immediate ban.

Thoughts? Linkthewindow  Talk  12:43, 16 July 2009 (BST)

The idea of deleting porn on sight is so that no one else has to see it, etc, and waiting for consensus is just destroying that. I do want the porn scheduled to go, in favour of something more cement, but I think it needs to be done with a definition of porn in the guidelines so that users don't have a fit like the last Nubis and SA case, and similarly so sysops will have a more objective basis when judging suspect images. --ϑϑℜ 12:48, 16 July 2009 (BST)
"Images that clearly show male or female genitalia will be deleted on sight and a (warning/ban) issued. Ambiguous images will be taken to A/VB" Linkthewindow  Talk  12:54, 16 July 2009 (BST)
That sounds good. --Cyberbob 12:58, 16 July 2009 (BST)
Should be "uploading inappropriate (eg. sexually explicit) images may be deemed to be vandalism and deleted as such without notice", IMO. It should be clear that risque does not automatically mean deletion -- boxy talkteh rulz 13:00 16 July 2009 (BST)
Yeah, that's good. --ϑϑℜ 13:01, 16 July 2009 (BST)
"Images that are inappropriate (eg. sexually explict) may be deemed to be vandalism and deleted on sight." << for the mediawiki upload text.
"Images that clearly show male or female genitalia will be deleted on sight and a (warning/ban) issued." << scheduled.
That should hopefully catch all obscene images that need to go as soon as they are seen and leave ambiguous images to a vote. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:05, 16 July 2009 (BST)
Sounds fine to me, though it should certainly be the case that ambiguos images are not eligible for sysop KOS until the vote is done. --Honestmistake 13:08, 16 July 2009 (BST)
They wouldn't be anyway - they wouldn't be scheduled and vandalism is only removed once it's ruled to be vandalism. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:12, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Out and out porn should be KOS just as it is now. Borderline cases like askii art or tasteless nudity are not real porn though and should be subject to A/VB or even just a full deletion vote without a sysops ability to over rule a clear majority. The problem (as we all see) is that definitions of where that divide falls vary as much as is possible when dealing with a world wide audience. --Honestmistake 12:57, 16 July 2009 (BST)

How can you say they aren't real "porn" when they meet the criteria of visible genitalia? Just to cover the bases and have a fair definition there should be no nudity at all including "art". Yes, Malton may have museums, but that doesn't mean that every page about one needs a painting showing nipples or tits. That way there is no question about "is this porn?" Nipples, dicks, and vaginas are deleted onsight. That's pretty damn simple. --– Nubis NWO 15:06, 16 July 2009 (BST)
Because nipples are not genitalia and they are not porn. I have no problem with deleting porn but I do dislike the idea of deleting anything risque just because some people cannot distinguish between sexual obscenity and mere titillation. The whole "OMFG I can see nipple" thing is done and consensus says it should go so go it does. My concern would be definition creep, without something a bit clearer than we currently have we will have folk calling cleavage porn, naked silhouettes porn or even photo's of inanimate objects porn... Many such images will be inappropriate and should go, that discussion should be taken by a consensus rather than a single person. We obviously have different views on what is acceptable, hell i think every single member of the sysop team has different views, what I am saying is that in cases where one or more people think it is borderline then no one person should be able to decide. --Honestmistake 15:24, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Shall porn be a 24h ban (in the way arbies escalations work,) or a mere warning? Obviously porn is different to regular vandalism. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:02, 16 July 2009 (BST)

I would say only a warning for the ambiguous stuff (esp if it really was a close called thing) but all the obvious stuff should go straight to a 24 hour ban and/or single escalation. --Honestmistake 13:05, 16 July 2009 (BST)
Single escalation for both. --ϑϑℜ 13:12, 16 July 2009 (BST)
Vandalism is vandalism, it gets an escalation (except for the 3 edit rule) -- boxy talkteh rulz 13:19 16 July 2009 (BST)
what boxy said pretty much --Cyberbob 13:22, 16 July 2009 (BST)

"Images that clearly show male or female genitalia will be deleted on sight and a (warning/ban) issued." Are you guys retarded? This little line was the crux of the whole argument last time with the image with the nipples "almost" covered by some sort of power tool vs. the Statue of David. When we argued that that there was a clear difference in intent and usage the old IF YOU BAN THIS THEN WHAT'S NEXT? crew came in. You can't have a blanket statement like that and call it a reworking. I am not being prude about this. It's just the only fair way to do it. You want a group with nudity in your logo? Host it somewhere else. --– Nubis NWO 15:06, 16 July 2009 (BST)

What would you propose in terms of a useable guideline? --Cyberbob 15:18, 16 July 2009 (BST)
Nipples are not part of human genitalia... Full on frontal nudity (even partial if it shows Nipples) should be included in the definition for clarity. --Honestmistake 15:28, 16 July 2009 (BST)
"Photographic depictions of human genitalia will be deleted on sight." That's as close as I can get without including the word "porn." Linkthewindow  Talk  01:33, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Unless anyone complains, I'll take "Photographic deplictions of human genitalia and female nipples will be deleted on sight" to schedlued deletions soon, and insitute a vote over the new upload text somewhere (probably General Discussion.) Linkthewindow  Talk  12:00, 18 July 2009 (BST)

One word: hentai. --Cyberbob 12:09, 18 July 2009 (BST)
Change photographic to realistic then? -- boxy talkteh rulz 12:12 18 July 2009 (BST)
Perhaps not a bad idea, but "realistic" is a potentially subjective word. It's hard to pin down exactly what "realistic" is (and I want to keep subjectivity out of this.) If we've got hentai, delete all image calls to it and then send the uploader to vandal banning. Linkthewindow  Talk  12:16, 18 July 2009 (BST)
Most photo's of genetalia is going to get the uploader sent to VB too, nipples less so, I guess -- boxy talkteh rulz 12:28 18 July 2009 (BST)
Yeah, that's true. This is more here so it can do the intended job of the old schedueled deletion without the pesky gray area. They'll get sent to VB too once it's been deleted. Linkthewindow  Talk  12:30, 18 July 2009 (BST)
I'm going to have a bit of a problem voting vandalism on a red link :p -- boxy talkteh rulz 12:32 18 July 2009 (BST)
True, maybe just remove the deletion and just make porn vandalism (get rid of the scheduled deletion.) This however takes us back to the original problem of "anything really bad should be deleted on sight." Linkthewindow  Talk  12:35, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Straw poll proposed MediaWiki upload text change

Basically, we add "uploading inappropriate (eg. sexually explicit) images may be deemed to be vandalism and deleted as such without notice" to MediaWiki:Uploadtext. In practice, this will mean that if anyone uploads something that someone else thinks is inappropriate, they will be taken to A/VB and the image will be deleted if the case is ruled vandalism (they will also recieve a warning.)

I'll advertise this on Wiki News if we don't get enough votes to be considered useful in judging consensus. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:17, 18 July 2009 (BST)

I'd like to point out that of anyone here on the wiki, I have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that most people don't read the MediaWiki:Uploadtext, nor do they care about it. It'd be a good step, however, if/when it is added, that we enforce it. That'd put some validity in the warning of MediaWiki:Uploadtext. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 19:49, 31 July 2009 (BST)
This was made a little redundant by this ;) Linkthewindow  Talk  23:14, 31 July 2009 (BST)
Not really Akule, more that most people aren't copyright lawyers and can't stand of bring themselves to care about copyright law. Different issue entirely. This should be added, no discussion needed as it's a statement of fact on the wiki, even without changing it this does happen it's just providing more notice that it will. --Karekmaps?! 23:18, 31 July 2009 (BST)
As karke said, we don't need a discussion. Porn while not deletable on site is still against the rules, and our half assed interpretation of the TOU.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 23:40, 31 July 2009 (BST)
Yes, but I proved that Kevan cared about it, since he is liable for any possible lawsuits. It's the community who said: "Eh. Fuck em. We don't care about it." I'm just saying that if you don't actually police the porn guideline, people will do exactly the same with the copyright issue: The majority won't care, and the minority can't do anything about it. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 23:15, 3 August 2009 (BST)
The minority can because Porn is a vandal offense, whilst copyright is not. Porn can still be deleted as vandalism on sight. --ϑϑ 23:22, 3 August 2009 (BST)
Kevan was backing this rule. The sysops said they wouldn't. Kevan lets the sysops run the wiki and keeps his hands off for the most part. Hence, it is not backed in the rules, even though it is a rule. (You can see some of Kevan's comments on the matter here.) --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 23:29, 3 August 2009 (BST)
In addition to here:
Kevan said:
Two: one angry lawyer demand over use of the name "Medical Defence Union" and one obviously reasonable request from Packard Jennings about the mall pictures. The wiki bureaucracy should be able to support the speedy deletion of any future such requests; if you want to thrash out a good wording, that's fine - but given that this is purely an issue of what I decide to host on my own server, this must be enacted in some form, and I'll press the "carte blanche" button when it's ready to go.
Which was promptly ignored, much like the policy (or something similar it) that he was talking about. Like I said. Kevan wanted something like it, was waiting for the sysops to do something, and is happy to be still waiting. Hence, if the sysops don't enforce your proposed change (like they didn't with copyrights), no one will care and will do what they have done, like always. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 23:38, 3 August 2009 (BST)
Well, since the actual discussion above is irrelevant we may as well talk about this. That's not exactly proof posit of your argument, it's certainly not justification of a "Oh screw him" view. What Kevan said there, aside from "Why not develop something that represents this" is that The wiki bureaucracy should be able to support the speedy deletion of any future such requests;. He's saying that reasonable copyrighted item removal requests should be able to be deleted by wiki bureaucracy, this doesn't mean user x can go around yelling about copyright and everything will get deleted, it means that if the copyright holder does, as is necessary to pursue copyright claims in the first place, express a wish to have their content removed from the site we remove it. It's not carte blanche on preemptive harassery. Of course, the real issue here with enforcing this is that we can't see appropriately made requests as users or sysops, they have to go through Kevan. --Karekmaps?! 01:04, 4 August 2009 (BST)
I know. I'm not pursuing that. I've actually mentioned that I might follow Kevan's request and make some sort of policy proposal to allow for a Speedy delete criteria that is requested by an author of an image. Hagnat and I worked out a few things on what to do with Copyrighted images. The thing is, at the time (as you may recall), the majority of users did not care in the slightest what effects copyrighted images might have on Kevan. The idea was: "No one will pursue it, so it is a non-issue", despite a case of a cease and desist notice and an author request for removal being placed. The general user doesn't understand copyright law, much less how it applies to websites, and thus could care less that every edit window says DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION. My argument is that apathy also applies to the content that users upload. If the sysops actually police what is uploaded and uphold that rule, it will work. If not, then it will be exactly like the copyright content "rule". --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 23:04, 5 August 2009 (BST)

On an only slightly related topic can we change the link to image categories to the link that actually takes you to the page where you can copy paste them? Seems better to me. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 21:31, 5 August 2009 (BST)

"DISK SPACE = CHEEP"

Can we make votes using this and this alone, or any other similarly stupid reasoning, strikeable? It's seriously giving me the shits and I know it annoys a bunch of other people as well. Cyberbob  Talk  05:36, 19 August 2009 (BST)

ahem Cyberbob  Talk  12:31, 19 August 2009 (BST)

We shouldn't strike them (as that would just be a recipe for drama,) but it's a completely retarded argument. Firstly, you're not paying for the disk space, and when you're not paying for it, it's pretty much automatically cheep. Secondly, if disk space is truly cheep, then why delete anything, such all the one-liner "group" pages that are around and spam pages? Linkthewindow  Talk  12:40, 19 August 2009 (BST)
The people that use it don't actually care about whether it's a good argument or not - they're just doing it to be "lulzy". That's my point. If we can enforce the use of actual reasons in Suggestions of all places surely we can (and should) do so here. Cyberbob  Talk  12:42, 19 August 2009 (BST)
It was a semi-relevant argument back in the crit 12 days, when stuff that shouldn't be deleted was up for deletion - such as perfectly legitimate group pages, etc. But, yes, now in most cases, it's a pretty retarded argument. We shouldn't be striking votes at all unless they're obvious troll votes or voted to be vandalism (for some reason.) Yes, "disk space=cheap" is a retarded argument, but if people aren't making this argument, they'll be making another one. Linkthewindow  Talk  12:48, 19 August 2009 (BST)
Please explain your obvious troll vote and how it is different from exactly what Bob is saying? If they spell "cheap" right does that make it less of a troll vote? Is that your point? Look at the history of people that consistently use that justification, too.--– Nubis NWO 18:26, 20 August 2009 (BST)
By obvious troll votes, I'm talking the same criteria we use for suggestions - variations on "X is an asshat". Linkthewindow  Talk  10:54, 21 August 2009 (BST)
Once again that is my point. Nobody uses DISK SPACE = CHEEP these days in anything but a facetious, trolling fashion. Cyberbob  Talk  12:50, 19 August 2009 (BST)
Who cares. It's just yet another phrase that's pushed too hard. If it wasn't that it'd be something equally useless and annoying. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 12:45, 19 August 2009 (BST)
"votes using this and this alone, or any other similarly stupid reasoning" Cyberbob  Talk  12:50, 19 August 2009 (BST)
You want to censor unjustified stupidity/silliness on the wiki. This won't work. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:19, 19 August 2009 (BST)
I wouldn't be suggesting it if we didn't already have such a system in place with Spam votes on suggestions. That works, doesn't it? Cyberbob  Talk  13:28, 19 August 2009 (BST)
Using a voting system such as spam isn't the same as allowing us to unilaterally invalidate comments simply because the user puts a stupid comment on there, which anyone could easily ignore. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:33, 19 August 2009 (BST)
So just removing the disk space is cheap justification? Don't see why not. We already have server load is not a good reason to vote kill on suggestions. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 13:57, 19 August 2009 (BST)
Server load IN GAME is not a justification. This is a separate entity. We don't have to save every page made. We are supposed to be maintaining an organized and useful resource, not some horder's closet where every thought spewed onto a new page is really useful. I am saying that there needs to some connection with something to justify keeping a page. Letting a page get saved by the DS=C vote goes against the ENTIRE point of voting on the CONTENT of a page in the first place. Why do we have guidelines for submitting something for deletion if that is all it takes to save it? --– Nubis NWO 18:26, 20 August 2009 (BST)
I am aware of the difference between UD and the wiki, it was only an example if an area of voting where some votes can be challenged.--RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 11:29, 21 August 2009 (BST)
We have it, but it isn't enforced. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 14:02, 19 August 2009 (BST)
The comment can be ignored, but the vote can't. I'm not saying that we should go around NO YOU CANNOT VOTE ON THIS SORRY MOVE ALONG CITIZEN - people would be able to remove strikes on their votes when they actually justify them with something other than a crappy catchphrase. Cyberbob  Talk  14:05, 19 August 2009 (BST)
We should be treating votes as the focus of a user's contribution on A/D, not the comment that follows it. I won't be for this, it just provides unnecessary anguish onto A/D where it isn't needed. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 14:13, 19 August 2009 (BST)
I would argue that there would be a minimum of anguish due to the fact that strikes can easily be removed, and also that it is needed. Cyberbob  Talk  00:47, 20 August 2009 (BST)
Sometimes it's a valid vote, I've used it to mean that the page has relevant content, and just because it's of little interest to most people, disk space is still cheap. Just because retards like Thad use it on crit 1 pages, to prove how idiotic and annoying they can be, doesn't mean we should ban it altogether -- boxy talkteh rulz 21:53 19 August 2009 (BST)
You'll recall that the "DISK SPACE = CHEEP" was the common cry that eventually took down the Crit 12 for A/SD. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 22:54, 19 August 2009 (BST)
Why do you insist on being so thick? Eliminating DISK SPACE = CHEEP as a reason altogether is not my goal. Eliminating stupid facetious votes in general is, and DISK SPACE = CHEEP just happens to be the phrase that is being thrown around at the moment so that was the one I used as my main example. If people were able to use disk space being cheap as justification for keeping a page without coming off as being a silly troll then that would be fine. Cyberbob  Talk  00:47, 20 August 2009 (BST)
The guidelines don't actually say that any justification is needed when voting. "The specific vote keyword should be bolded within the lodged vote. Any relevant comments are also allowed, but these should not be bolded. " Now, it sounds more like you want to change that section to include some sort of a justification with the vote. I note that we don't really even do that with suggestions, as we explain what good voting practices are, but on each of the pages, the voting box just says: "The only valid votes are Keep, Kill, Spam or Dupe. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote." It does mention justification, but it doesn't explain anything about it. If we want to make justification required for voting (suggestions and deletions), we'd have to come up with some sort of format and run it by the community. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 22:50, 19 August 2009 (BST)
When did I say that that that wasn't my intention? The point of this discussion is to sort of get the ball rolling in terms of raising awareness about the fact that the problem exists, not to act as a substitute for a policy vote. Cyberbob  Talk  00:47, 20 August 2009 (BST)

Removing this kind of justification is retarded since, as pointed by akule, no one is forced to provide a reason for their votes and, as pointed by cyberbob himself, the intent of this is to strike out the comment without invalidating the vote. Its simply drama for drama sake. If you dont like 'disk space == cheep' votes, simply ignore them. --People's Commissar Hagnat [talk] [wcdz] 23:30, 19 August 2009 (BST)

That's was pretty much a reason why I put that vote there in the first place. It's so petty, why even bother for something like that. It's the vote that should count not the justification. Oh and Boxy, you can call me retard but continuing to make personal attacks like that only shows your inability to properly discuss things. The contributing factor of name calling like that equals zero. If you don't like me then just ignore me, and I really don't get what your problem is but whatever.--Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png 00:04, 20 August 2009 (BST)
What you did was relevant to his point and it was retarded and annoying, at leased in my opinion as well. He was using you as an example of its misuse, so it hardly demonstrates an inability to discuss things on topic. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:35, 20 August 2009 (BST)
No Hagnat, the strikes would strike the vote too - I thought that DDR was saying that a strike would basically be permanent and the person wouldn't be able to have their vote count on that deletion request ever. I will also thank you not to make statements like "drama for drama's sake". You may disagree with me but I'm sure you have it in you to do so without assuming I'm acting in bad faith. Cyberbob  Talk  00:47, 20 August 2009 (BST)

I agree with Bob that that is a horrible vote when it is the only reason given. I would also like to see votes that are a conflict of interest struck. For instance, a group putting up another group's page (like in the propaganda wars where the pages created aren't "hate" pages that fall under vandalism, but were clearly put up on A/SD as a revenge move or for griefing.) Also, I think that forum shopping should be restricted. If a page fails A/SD for a legit reason then you can't move it to A/D and meat puppet it through. We've had this problem before.--– Nubis NWO 18:26, 20 August 2009 (BST)

fucking fascist commie, git your filthy sysop hands off mah freedums Cyberbob  Talk  18:34, 20 August 2009 (BST)

I never use it to 'troll' most of the time i use it to mean that something is revelent ir someone put it up for deleteion for a stupid reason--DOWN WITH THE 'CRATS!!! | Join Nod!!! 18:49, 20 August 2009 (BST)

If you think they've put it up for deletion for a stupid reason the best response is to say so, rather than using a silly catchphrase that makes you look just as bad. Cyberbob  Talk  18:59, 20 August 2009 (BST)
If I may interject. Rather than striking DISKSPACE=CHEEP, I suggest that you come up with a similarly convenient retort. Something to the effect of YOURDISKFACE=*BLEEP*, or whatever. And have that response be a link to a page which explains how fallacious their one-line argument is. By providing a superior argument in a manner that catchy and easily repeatable, you will ultimately prevail over the forces of darkness.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 19:47, 20 August 2009 (BST)
Your mom's disk-space is so overbearing, her hosting company dropped her website without using the proper channels to notify her. She in turn sent them to court with an injunction. Catchy enough?--SirArgo Talk 00:15, 21 August 2009 (BST)
I have considered it Giles, but I really really don't think anybody who uses it (or any other silly little catchphrase) cares about it being a bad argument. Cyberbob  Talk  01:42, 21 August 2009 (BST)
So instead of actually using the system as it was intended and not allowing invalid reasons that have no bearing on the CONTENT of a page we are supposed to come up with a catch phrase to counter it? Yes, that will clearly solve the problem. I CAN HAZ VOET STRUCKS.--– Nubis NWO 22:54, 22 August 2009 (BST)

September 2009

The Southern Cross Club

  • Delete - I don't like being in any group with the SC in its title. Oh, and otherwise as Boxy. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 07:33, 17 October 2009 (BST)
    Yet you have no problem making racist remarks about historical cultures, interesting.--xoxo 06:20, 18 October 2009 (BST)
    Look up the word in question on an online dictionary. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 09:28, 18 October 2009 (BST)
    I'm not saying that i don't understand what you mean, more that it is politically incorrect and derogatory. It would be similar to me calling you a jew because you wouldn't split the cab bill. --xoxo 13:12, 18 October 2009 (BST)
    It's now not in my interest to vote delete. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 09:28, 18 October 2009 (BST)
  • Every user who was on the list and has expressed any remark that could be construed as dissatisfaction about beingon the listhas been removed, thus i see no validity for this case. I will make a header on the talk page so anyone else wishing to be removed can clearlyand publically request it. So unless i'm mistaken, this case is now entirely irrelevant. And to think some of you used to think i was too hasty with jumping to admin pages to solve issues...--xoxo 09:23, 18 October 2009 (BST)
    You only fight to the death when it directly involves 2 cool, methinks. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 09:28, 18 October 2009 (BST)
    MMmmm maybe ALiM. Sometimes you've gotta concede ground to make ground. read the art ofwar, you'll enjoy it.xoxo 09:44, 18 October 2009 (BST)
    I AM the art of war, bitch. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 10:03, 18 October 2009 (BST)
    You forgot the L and the i, also gimme ideas to get my edits up...--xoxo 10:09, 18 October 2009 (BST)
    2 late 2 act all conciliatory now, mate. You've still got your fan club page to have your arbies fun with, keep it there -- boxy talkteh rulz 10:16 18 October 2009 (BST)
    I disagree. Your name is off which you said was all you wanted. You could tell me what you actually want if youwish to continue with this case.xoxo 10:19, 18 October 2009 (BST)
    Who cares if your name is on a list like that, I mean seriously I find 2 Cools antics gayer than 80% of boxys hard drive but its not under the 2 Cool namespace so why not have a bit of fun with it?--CyberRead240 10:23, 18 October 2009 (BST)
    Fucking hell when will you peoplelearn its spelled antix!!!xoxo 10:25, 18 October 2009 (BST)
  • Keep - Okay, so... it's a list of users from australia. Not very interesting. But the reaction to the list is entertaining and worth preserving. Also, what sexylegsread said.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 11:22, 18 October 2009 (BST)
    It's a cultural thing, you wouldn't understand. Some Australians would claim it is like grouping all the German users under a "Swastika Club". --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 11:41, 18 October 2009 (BST)
    The Swastika is banned in Germany, the Southern Cross is on your national flag.... -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 11:44, 18 October 2009 (BST)
    And yet a rag tag group of fucktards decide to use it as a symbol for beating up anyone who isn't white and who can't do a hang-ten. Think the "Swastika Club" analogy but in the 20's. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 11:48, 18 October 2009 (BST)
    You're using an extreme example, the 'normal' cross is still used by Christian humanitarians even though it had a connection to and was used by the KKK. Given that the Southern Cross also appears in both the Aussie and Brazilian national anthems I feel you're using a pretty weak argument by assigning the significance to this fringe minority rather than the mainstream use. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 11:53, 18 October 2009 (BST)
    Do you use the union jack in everyday use Iscariot? On tattoos and car windows and the like? This is practically the only message the symbol carries nowadays. As I said, you wouldn't understand. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 11:56, 18 October 2009 (BST)
    lolwut?? I see the Union Jack in everyday use ALL THE FUCKING TIME. And I live in CANADA, in a fucking MAJORITY FRANCOPHONE province to boot. I see the Union Jack used by britpop and ska fans here and all over the world. I see it on t-shirts, on badges, sometimes (though rarely because it's lame) in tats and, yup, even emblazoned on the roofs of Union Jack-themed minis (that's a kind of car, fyi). I also see it used, along with English red cross, as simple symbol of (non-racist) pride in the place one came from and its heritage. Fascists and bigots usually use other symbols. Anyway, this has got to be the most idiotic "discussion" this wiki has seen to date... This is a retarded, pointless wiki group with a membership of 2 or 3 lame-assed clowns... Delete the waste of disk space with prejudice. --WanYao 16:46, 18 October 2009 (BST)
    And in relation to the nazi analogy, you are right, it is much too extreme but I was going for notoriety and meaning in terms of an example. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 12:00, 18 October 2009 (BST)
    I'm trying to get across that those of us in the rest of the world certainly don't see it the way you seem to. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 12:02, 18 October 2009 (BST)
    Naturally. But the rest of the world aren't the ones 'targeted' here. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 12:03, 18 October 2009 (BST)
    DDR, you are a massive fucking idiot. Shut the fuck up with your ignorant reactionary bullshit. Cyberbob  Talk  12:31, 18 October 2009 (BST)
    QQ, Reactionary my dickhole, mr "speedy delete for no reason other than teh butthurt" --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:18, 18 October 2009 (BST)
    hm yes a speedy delete request on a shitty and insignificant wiki is certainly equivalent to equating the southern cross with the swastika. The only place where it has come up as a racist thing in Australia has been in Sydney and its surrounds, you fucking tool. I'm sorry that you live in a racist shithole but the racist connotations of the SC are purely restricted to your area. Cyberbob  Talk  13:22, 18 October 2009 (BST)
    u mad? *exposed SCS member* --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:25, 18 October 2009 (BST)
    He's from newcasle, and everyones white so theres no one for them to be racist against, infact i'm not entirely sure ddr's aware that asians are real...xoxo 13:43, 18 October 2009 (BST)
    dooooooood I'm part asian. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:20, 19 October 2009 (BST)
  • Delete - If and only if DDR's stance on it is actually the majority stance in Australia. Though in my time there I never once heard of anyone considering a symbol of hatred, and it's pretty much the only symbol of Australia (other than kangaroos and those silly corks-on-strings hats) that the majority of the world would recognise at a glance. They never lynch children, babies—no matter what they do they are whitewashed in advance 12:06, 18 October 2009 (BST)
    DDR has no fucking clue. Ignore him. Cyberbob  Talk  12:30, 18 October 2009 (BST)
    Fucking hell i have no idea where ddr pulled that shit. It's called the southern cross club because WE"RE ALL FROM TEH SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE. JUst so y'all know hagnat thought up the name a few months back in irc...he's not even from australia and wouldn't be aware of all the racism that is associated with it (oh wait, there isn't any!) DDR where do you pull this shite>?xoxo 13:20, 18 October 2009 (BST)
    he's seen a couple of news stories on the telly with sydney bogans wearing I bet Cyberbob  Talk  13:23, 18 October 2009 (BST)
    Like half the guys in the west have those tats, and only a few of them bash indian students....xoxo 13:31, 18 October 2009 (BST)
    I don't give a flying fuck where you thought up the name. It's what resonates with me, and I don't want people being thrown into it. Deal with it. Oh, you have? Then shut the fuck up and move on. Eat a dick, Cyberbob, Melbourne too perfect for the rest of Aus? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:39, 18 October 2009 (BST)
  • I have no idea what any of this is about but it's really funny. --  AHLGTG 17:23, 18 October 2009 (BST)

Also may i point out that this drama has more or less made my point about the southern cross club perfectly, thankyou all, thankyou so much.xoxo 13:23, 18 October 2009 (BST)

The Southern Cross, what it means to most Australians, and clearing up that most Australians do not see it as an Aussie Swastika Look, DDR is going over the top just a little. Well more than a little. The Southern Cross, as you all know, is a symbol of identity that unifies many of the southern hemisphere countries, and is especially grouped in with Australians, and to a lesser extent (as always) New Zealanders.

Recently, in the past couple of years, it has become trendy for the bogans, chavs for you Pommies or Hicks for you Americans, to see the symbol as something of an Aussie Pride, and display it all over their bodies with tattoos and on their vehicles with large decals or stickers. To be honest, when this first started, I and many others did not see it as too much of a problem. They love their country, so do I, they just feel the need to "brand" it and show it off.

It is only recently been associated with bad things. Eventually these peoples ideals of "Aussie Pride" was not about being a working class bloke with freedom, a love of their mates, a love of the booze, a love of sports and generally being a top bloke to everyone, no, it was found that some of these people were racists, bigots and general buffoons who spend most of their time bashing asians for their money, lebs for their cars, and Jews for their pots of gold.

The thing is, Racism, and serious racism, like actually making someone elses life miserable or demeaning them, is NOT accepted in Australia, and it is NOT the view held by most Australians.

Additionally, most of us, if not all besides DDR, do not view the Southern Cross as a bad image, it is the people who use it in the bad way that have created this stigma. I hate how it is used personally, and I am sure that most are. It makes me frustrated and mad to see these racist thugs use this famous symbol of our country to bond together as racist, pig headed thugs. I know DDR shares this view, as most Australians do. The difference here is, I most of us don't hate the Southern Cross, we love it and what it stands for, thats why it makes us mad when we see it being represented the wrong way. The southern cross and many other things make most of us proud to be part of a country that is generally pretty cool. The people who use it the wrong way are the ones that have sordid DDRs image of what it means.

I just wanted to write this to clarify to all non aussies, who are probably wondering wtf he is talking about.--CyberRead240 15:21, 19 October 2009 (BST)

Thanks, definitely clears stuff up a bit.-- SA 15:29, 19 October 2009 (BST)
That was awesome! +10 karma.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 15:37, 19 October 2009 (BST)
thanks, but at the same time I want it to be known, Bob is completely wrong in saying that DDR only thinks this way because of the news, it is just another one of his pot shots to make someone seem intellectually inferior to him, when in fact, DDR only holds that opinion (or something less strong that was accentuated by the art of argument) because it really does run riot in our state, and there are a lot of people who are like this etc etc. I dont think DDR hates the southern cross, I think he just hates the people, but has blurred the lines without thinking through what he is really saying etc etc--CyberRead240 15:53, 19 October 2009 (BST)
There is actually a long history of neo-Nazi and other racist groups (amongst others) trying to claim the Eureka Flag (basically the southern cross on a blue background) as their symbol, much as the Confederate Flag in the US (also known as the Southern Cross!) has been appropriated. It's a pity, given the value that mainstream Australia puts on the incident and symbolism of the flag.
Links to racism have nothing to do with why I put this up for deletion. The fact is, J3D doesn't speak for all those he placed on the page, and it's just stupid to have to go through arbitration with someone who refuses to take names off pages (unless there's a good chance the page will be deleted), but then refuses to settle arbies cases in a timely fashion. The page was created to stir up similar drama that he was already drawing out in his latest arbies case -- boxy talkteh rulz 22:18 19 October 2009 (BST)
I know you like to feel important, but I know DDR personally and I know very well that he is directly talking about the demographic of young males who use they symbol as faux Australian pride. I wasn't referencing why you were doing this, I was pointing out that the Southern Cross, not the Eureka flag ffs it is a different shape altogether, the Southern Cross that appears on OUR national flag is not a symbol of racism and hate like DDR wants to tell everyone. It is in a small demographic but not the majority. The southern cross is completely different to the arrangement on the eureka flag, it is like saying "a square and a trapezium are the same because they have four sides", yeah they are similar but they are not the same. I am referring to what DDR said, nothing else.--CyberRead240 07:05, 20 October 2009 (BST)
  1. Delete - The Southern Cross is not isolated to just Australia so I believe this club is a misrepresentation of Australia and needs to be culled. Also, Shakey is always wrong so... --Guy.The.Firefighter 09:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    Wow should've read the page first... still delete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Guy.The.Firefighter (talkcontribs) at an unknown time.
    Yeah was gonna say. And tell charlie that if he's gonna meatpuppet can he at least make new accounts...xoxo 09:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    Says the faction who's used shakey for two years. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 10:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    J3D =/= Read xoxo 10:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    Wtf? you aren't the same person? (note the word faction). --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 10:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    Okay then mr silly, i'll rephrase if it makes it easier for you. J3D's"faction" =/= Read's "faction" xoxo 10:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    Touche. Doesn't change the fact that once one side meatpuppets, it's game on. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 10:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    "No proof", indeed. Cyberbob  Talk  12:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    IP check on User:Guy.The.Firefighter please.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 12:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    Guy has been a member of the UDWiki longer than you have... :/ --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    So has Shakey. Cyberbob  Talk  13:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    You better IP check him then too, Bob! --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 14:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    Why bother? I know what it'll come up with - some faggot friend who's agreed to help trol teh wiki for epic lulz!! Cyberbob  Talk  14:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    I was kidding anyway. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 14:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    Well the oldest edit I can see is from september. So anyway, can you check to see if he's using a proxy IP.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 20:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    Well if you look at whatlinkshere, he was active before the purge. And no, I'm not IP checking him because I know for a fact he isn't a fake account and that he isn't using a proxy. The very thought is just obscene, though I know with your history why you'd think that. And if Cyberbob won't do it as stated above, I don't know what luck you'll have. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
    Support your statements. How do you "know for a fact he isn't a fake account and that he isn't using a proxy."--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 16:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
    99.99% likelihood that he knows about him from IRL Cyberbob  Talk  16:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
    He's been editing for almost two years now, so I'm doubting fake. My guess is another compromised account!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-- SA 17:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
    Gotcha. Thanks.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 11:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
    About time. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 12:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
    It's about time you can the snark. *pfTTT* I just stuck my tongue out at you.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 14:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
    Ew. With that description, I can imagine a lot of spit flying on me :/ --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 01:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Humour

A Crit 4 which is a redirect to its much larger colonial brother: Category:Humor. I ask the serving sysop to consider the possibility that this may be kept on the grounds that it is a redirect for a legitimate method of spelling Humour, but in my opinion it just serves as a way to confuse categorising users (ie. when someone uses it and sees the blue link, they think it is the correct category despite its actually use as a redirect). --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 09:46, 13 September 2009 (BST)

For my sake, I'd appreciate it if from now on some of you that vote please specify, as Cyberbob, whether you think the other one should be deleted. If so, I'll happily move the entries from Category:Humor to Category:Humour as per Iscariot's reasoning, then delete the former. I just think there should be only one of these categories. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 11:11, 13 September 2009 (BST)
This dispute was already settled ages ago category:Humor is the accepted commonplace usage here on this wiki, the other is kept as a redirect and has been for something like 2-3 years now. If you change that I will revert all of it on general principle that you're baiting a conflict without regard for precedent. Don't propose shit without actually looking at the whys first, there is no valid why for a change from the long accepted system. --Karekmaps?! 23:04, 17 September 2009 (BST)
What? 2-3 years? Decided ages ago? What? Quite the exaggeration. It was originally Humour, but for some random reason you decided to go all around the wiki removing the U on a great campaign (granted, I think people were also trying to use the Humor as well, but still). Karek... karek... karek... No one actually had a coherent reason for picking one or the other, it's just the humour side was just too lazy to care. --  AHLGTG 23:58, 17 September 2009 (BST)
Actually, if I remember correctly, I tried to suggest a vote, which you chose to ignore, so lets have a vote on this totally, vastly important issue that could shake the very foundations of this wiki. --  AHLGTG 00:01, 18 September 2009 (BST)
It was originally both with more in Humor and the suggestions category using the American form. The lack very coherent reasoning for choosing the one over the other was very basic wiki etiquette of going with the version used more heavily on the wiki itself at the time of decision and it was very clearly humor over humour. The only reasons provided for changing it were the same ones being provided now which amount to "I like it better because it's how I spell it". There is no need for a vote over something so stupid and there's no need for challenging both basic wiki etiquette and the current standard for, again, something so stupid. --Karekmaps?! 00:26, 18 September 2009 (BST)
I know for a fact that the vast majority of Humour/Humor pages was in the Humour category, with the odd couple in the Humor category. Tell the whole story, silly. --  AHLGTG 00:29, 18 September 2009 (BST)
I am telling the whole story. There was no particular majority in one until someone else decided to edit it based on personal bias and it was reversed and then done the other way because of the well established linguistic convention on the rest of the wiki including but not limited to Suggestions. --Karekmaps?! 01:21, 18 September 2009 (BST)
And one could say that there is established linguistic convention for the other word usage, what with Iscariot said, for example. You can't make an argument for either other than personal opinion without it being arbitrary, so stop trying. --  AHLGTG 01:26, 18 September 2009 (BST)
I checked the logs etc, I had a vague idea of what happened, though I'm not supporting a precedent that is wrong. There should only be one category and I'm not supporting a "do it this way because that's how we've always done it" mentality. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:06, 18 September 2009 (BST)
No you're supporting a justification based in a "do it this way because I hate Americans" mentality. The difference is mine's actually based on valid established reasoning and his isn't actuary based on historical fact as the one he's claiming for it is completely false. Imperial English is as different now from what it was at the time of Colonization as American English is from it. The only difference is he's decided that because they live on the island it came from they're automatically in charge of the language. You want to go into user usage statistics; 40% of the game's active user-base spell it this way, every single Humorous Suggestion has always used it this way, and for years it's been acceptable to use it this way for the categories. There is no legitimate reason for this discussion other than a Brit is throwing a fit because you aren't accepting his linguistic structure as superior. --Karekmaps?! 04:08, 18 September 2009 (BST)
...You blind? I put "the one of my own native language" up for deletion, because it was the one that, over time, had become unused. I couldn't give less of a shit which one stays and which one goes, as long as the community decide not me. Jesus. Last thing I want to talk to is a hypocrite who preaches that basing an argument around petty bias is poor form then does it himself. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 04:14, 18 September 2009 (BST)
(that's because it is) Cyberbob  Talk  05:24, 18 September 2009 (BST)
Wait, Karke meant Iscariot was throwing the fit? Oooh. Explains a lot. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 05:33, 18 September 2009 (BST)

November 2009

user:Iscariot/Noah's Boat

Why is this not being early kept? Attempting to bad faith the pages of others into deletion, such as meat puppeting the group pages of active or high profile groups has always been overridden before. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 16:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The only person exhibiting bad faith in this particular issue is you, my good fellow. Cyberbob  Talk  16:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

D.o.W.

Deleted as a Crit 7. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 23:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Bad DDR, Crit 7 doesn't yet override the fact that even one Keep forces the thing to go for the full two weeks. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 23:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I swear this has been done before. Keeps are overridden if the requesting author asks for it to be deleted and the keeps are as such out of date. There is precedence somewhere... --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 23:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Here she blows: 1. This is on a larger scale but is more or less the same principle. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
That was possibly the most clear cut example of misconduct you could pull up, either that or the Nubis version. A single keep always prevents a deletion until two weeks are up, nothing in actual policy has ever changed that. Half arsed sysops with a history of not knowing the policies and only being sysops when it suits them do not precedent make. As a point I agree that author edit should override everything, but it needs to pass into scheduled first. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 00:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
It's called not being an idiot with taking the letter of the rule to the extreme. It's text-based game's wiki, nobody gives a crap. --  AHLGTG 00:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The irony of you caring enough to post a comment.... -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 00:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Lulz, you dun getit. --  AHLGTG 03:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Go work out which is the correct strike template to use, or alternately fuck off back to Shartak until the opportunity to cause more drama appears. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 03:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Still don't! --  AHLGTG 03:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Are you seriously arguing over a page being deleted by the author? Not that's trivial isn't it? It's a pointless page. Not active, no members in it, I as a alt created it and see no point in keeping it up, trying to save you all the hassle of doing so later. Matt Aries 07:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
We're not, Iscariot is, because he doesn't get it. --  AHLGTG 16:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Well thank you to whoever deleted the page I appreciate it. Matt Aries 03:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
No probs. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 04:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Been thinking

"If 3 Speedy Deletes are lodged, and there are no Keep Votes, the page will be deleted as per Speedy Deletions."

I think this is really worded awfully. So basically if I put up any random page, and get a few people to vote speedy delete, the page should technically be deleted. Granted; any sysop with common sense would not do it, but we should still make sure it is air tight. Maybe:

"If 3 Speedy Deletes are lodged, there are no Keep Votes, and two sysops agree SD is the correct measure, the page will be deleted as per Speedy Deletions."

Thoughts?

P.S.: No umbies were hurt in the making of this edit.

P.P.S.: Inb4 Izzy rips me a new one. --Haliman - Talk 03:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You're a fucking idiot. The deletions process specifically allows for a sysop to subvert (for a delay) the process. The sequence isn't 'three speedy deletes without a keep and something must be deleted' it's 'three speedy deletes and no keeps' at the point of sysop cycling. A sysop could therefore come across a page 27 bajillion speedy deletes and add his/her own keep as a normal user before cycling it as a sysop to the normal deletions queue.
What needs codifying is author/owner request compared to standard regulations. While I support individual and group rights to have anything they want deleted based on their own will, the current policy does not support this. Making these instances a scheduled deletion rather than a speedy deletion would cure this. The red tape is there and should be obeyed until it is changed, until then DDR et al are all guilty of ignoring the established process and therefore misconduct. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 03:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Lez make a scheduled deletion then! --  AHLGTG 03:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Put it this way: the "3 speedy delete" votes is technically the red-taped process of moving something from A/D to A/SD without physically moving it from the former to the latter. Basically once the 3 SD votes are lodged it becomes an SD candidate, and is treated as such by the sysops. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 03:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
You missed this on the deletion and speedydeletion pages: "To be eligible for a Speedy Deletion Request, the page must fall under at least one of the following criteria". Basically, speedydelete votes are invalid unless the page already fits one of the speedydelete criteria, and your "random example" does not -- boxy talkteh rulz 06:38 11 November 2009 (BST)
Let's not blind ourselves to the light Boxy, both Umbrellas are shameless Crit 1's of a legitimate fictional corporation ;D --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 07:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Add Keep/Delete sections below a proposed deletion

Simple change. We go from this:

Page that must Die (level three header)

to

Page that must Die (level three header)

Keep (just bolded text)

Delete (just bolded text, includes speedy delete.)

Basically make it easier to count votes, and make it (even less) ambiguous about who's voting for what. The Keep/Delete words are in bolded text to prevent the creation of a huge table of contents. It might be worth editing the Guidelines for Voting to include a note that merge/speedy go in the delete section, and move goes in the keep section. On that note, it's probably also worth codifying the move vote in the Guidelines section. Linkthewindow  Talk  10:34, 4 April 2010 (BST)

We talked about this awhile back somewhere, and I seem to recall that Merge, Move, and Speedy gave us trouble in the thought process, but I like the way you address them here. Maybe use a span to make the bold text a bit bigger so that it stands out from people using bold text in their comments? Otherwise, it sounds good. My only other concern is whether it will clutter things too much, and for that, I'd need to see how it looked in practice, but we can always mock up an example if it looks like it has initial support. Aichon 11:18, 4 April 2010 (BST)
Nah, Aichon is right, too many fail minisections, and when it comes to dividing votes into groups, it's only useful if they have individual headers (ie. in this case, it'd be a level 4 header for all keep, kill sections etc.), because, let's face it, the voting on suggestions, which is the only one without headers for each voting section, is annoying as hell. And if we did the header version here, it'd get messy. -- 12:04, 4 April 2010 (BST)

KKK.JPG

I'm the girl who uploaded KKK.jpg it was a joke I have a new logo for DB and so I no longer need to use KKK.jpg so I wouldn't mind letting it get deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Radio Girl (talkcontribs) at an unknown time.

First off... learn to sign your damn posts. Second of all... vote speedy on it... and it'll go bye bye. -Poodle of DoomM! Fear is only as deep as the mind will allow it be.T 04:36, 19 April 2010 (BST)
First off, learn to indent. Second of all, A/VD much? They never lynch children, babies—no matter what they do they are whitewashed in advance 04:53, 19 April 2010 (BST)

April 2010

Department of Emergency Management (new)

I don't like doing this, and another sysop can put it back if they disagree, but I'm pre-emptively Keeping it due to lack of sufficient reason for deletion, given that the group is active. We do not delete pages of existing groups without good reason, and just because they're parodies of existing groups in ways that may be potentially misleading is not a good enough reason (I'd link the Department of Evangelical Morons too, but the group requested that their page be deleted awhile back). Aside from the fact that the page has a link to it and the content that's different from the current DEM page is not insubstantial (just copy paste the code from NDEM to DEM and then tell it to show you the changes), the group leader (who was never contacted) claims they do indeed exist and are still active. That's all we need to know, since we don't go around deleting existing groups. Just add a NPOV section to the page (anyone can add one). Aichon 18:38, 19 April 2010 (BST)

NPOV Added. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 18:56, 19 April 2010 (BST)
I have slightly adjusted your notice, changing the link from [[DEM]] to [[Department of Emergency Management|DEM]] as previously it only referred to a disambiguation, and I added the short notice "which it is not affiliated with." to ensure that the use of the DEM navigation template which implies a connection to the DEM, parody or not, is properly explained. Is this acceptable? Furthermore, I would like to request that the DEM category is removed from the page. Just as one should not edit the page of a group one doesn't belong to, I would think that one should neither change the category of a group one does not belong to, for instance by wrongfully adding articles. Can this be done, or would removing the category be considered an act of vandalism?
For clarification, I have nothing against parodies - the Department of Emotional Man-love has been there for a while, I am not aware of a single DEM member attempting to do something against it - I am more concerned with wrongful impersonation.
By the way, could somebody have the kindness of pointing me to a wiki policy showing that deletion candidates may be decided about by a SysOp at any time, regardless of the "running time" and votes? I have seen that happen before and have no problems with it, do not misunderstand, but I'm curious as to where it is written down.
Regards, G F J 19:31, 19 April 2010 (BST)
UDWiki:Administration/Guidelines#General_Conduct Your NPOV note is an improvement. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 19:37, 19 April 2010 (BST)
Regarding the nav template, I might be able to help you out with the template, making it impossible for other groups to steal it without outright copying the code for it (i.e. it'd show the navigation table on your page, and something else, such as "I'm stealing this template", for everyone else that uses it). Contact me on my talk page if you're interested. Not sure if it'd work for sure, but it might be worth considering. Aichon 21:05, 19 April 2010 (BST)
Actually, if it's not to much to ask,.... I'd like to continue with the vote. I know it's not something we do to groups,.... and I hate to say it, but the votes to damn close to call a keep. 5 delete votes, 5 keep votes, 1 merge vote. Though it's whatever you guys thinks is best. I'll agree with whatever everyone else wants.... -Poodle of DoomM! Fear is only as deep as the mind will allow it be.T 21:26, 19 April 2010 (BST)
Why would you want to continue it? How close the vote was is inconsequential, since I didn't preempt it on the basis of the Keep votes outnumbering the Delete votes. The vote should not be taking place at all since the group is active, hence why it was preempted. I'd do the same thing if someone put up EVIL's page for deletion. ;) Aichon 00:16, 20 April 2010 (BST)
Hmm, I just looked at the What Links Here for the navbar, and if we don't want to break all of those pages, the code would be rather large for making my idea work. Possibly not worth it, but I'm still open to discussing it. Aichon 00:22, 20 April 2010 (BST)
Would it be easier to add this page to the Malton Sanitation Department as a subpage, instead of a standalone, since they are claiming ownership of it? Almost as if it was a project of one of it's members, as opposed to a standalone with a VERY similar name, and the template which links to several DEM pages, including some with my UD and Wiki contact information. I went to the aforementioned group page, and noticed that the forum used is no longer active, and is now archive only, meaning no one can post on any of the threads. Not very useful for an active group, with many players having different group tags, and low levelers with "pasta" names. A Garbage service with Italian members, and a union rep? And none of the members are carrying the NDEM tag, the Malton Sanitation Departmentis the group. The Malton_Sanitation_Department page is also claiming to be a DEM affiliate and to having DEM member(s) in it (The DEM adopted a "One character" policy, and this "group" is claiming to adhere to DEM policy, and any new members adhere to it also) Misleading! --verratio 01:10, 20 April 2010 (BST)

Tricell corp

So is this a different page for the same group or a similarly named group? If it's a different group then there is no call for making it a redirect to the newer one. Look at Umbrella for how that could turn out, in an extreme case. Defunct or not, if it's two different groups the only valid merge would be to a neutral dismabig. They never lynch children, babies—no matter what they do they are whitewashed in advance 20:26, 8 August 2010 (BST)

Funny that, since if my memory serves me right, Tricell is the equally villainous and unoriginal name for the Resident Evil 5 antagonist group. -- 22:37, 8 August 2010 (BST)
Had originally thought they were the same, and that Rohanzap was thus involved with both Tricell group's. Now looking again at both group's page history and Rohanzap's contributions, they seem indeed to be separate things. -- Spiderzed 22:49, 8 August 2010 (BST)
Doesn't really matter. No reason why, if it's going to be deleted anyway why it can't be used as a placeholder redirect to a proper group of very similar name. -- 01:33, 9 August 2010 (BST)

Archive

I am planning on moving the individual discussions to their appropriate archive month, instead of having moving this page (at over 120K) to the archive discussion page (over 110K). This way it would be like what we normally do with A/VB. I would also like to do this to the A/SD talk page. Thoughts? Opinions? --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 00:43, 15 April 2011 (BST)

Sounds like a plan.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 00:56, 15 April 2011 (BST)
Better to just A/MR the whole discussion page to an archive and then recreate imo. The discussion pre month thing has always been kinda annoying to follow and this way at least gives a quicker point of reference to find the actual votes, not that these always have to do with a vote or a month which is just another reason for why not. --Karekmaps?! 01:32, 15 April 2011 (BST)
I was thinking that for the current page and archive, if the discussion is over a specific vote, it could be moved to that particular month's discussion page, while any subheadings dealing with general deletions issues could be moved to the general Deletions talk archive. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 01:39, 15 April 2011 (BST)
That seems appropriate and definitely workable. Although the discussion is rarely big enough that it's really an issue is it? I mean the idea should be the same one that was brought up three years ago with the A/PT Archives, it seems very relevant in this case when there wouldd be so little gained by changing to that system that we can't also get from Redirects in the archive's talk pages.-Karekmaps?! 01:59, 15 April 2011 (BST)
I wasn't saying for a policy or anything of that sort, since it only seems to need to be done every year or two. I was just basically verifying that I won't be stoned on A/VB for organizing the current Deletions discussions, so we can clear some of the old clutter off. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 02:34, 15 April 2011 (BST)
I understand, I'm just trying to look at the best way to organize this particular archive, by month seems an obvious one but by archival is probably more efficient. S'all I'm saying. --Karekmaps?! 02:40, 15 April 2011 (BST)

Correction on main page...

It seems rule 12 should be added back into the criteria, since it is exactly what is being voted on now. Or, we could just continue ignore wiki law, unless it suits our purpose. --Open the Box Org XIII Alts 00:02, 9 August 2012 (BST)

Yup, oops. I guess that's just speedy. --Open the Box Org XIII Alts 00:13, 9 August 2012 (BST)
Yar and it's also being voted on the fact that the page is awful too haha DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 05:49, 9 August 2012 (BST)
Given that the sysop team at the moment rarely serves Speedy deletions within 14 days, deletion votes might as well be speedy. This is pretty much just "we don't like your old small groups and suddenly think we need to remove lots of stuff from an informational wiki let's delete tons of groups".--Shortround }.{ My Contributions 09:48, 9 August 2012 (BST)
I am unaware of a Speedy request that has taken more than three days at absolute worst. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 09:54, 9 August 2012 (BST)
Likewise. Evidence for your claim please. --RossWHO????ness 10:15, 9 August 2012 (BST)
Hyperbole --Shortround }.{ My Contributions 10:57, 9 August 2012 (BST)
Thought so. The whole point of the system is that every page goes through this process, rather than a single person making an arbitrary decision. In all honesty it's as bad as operation prune. We will never bring crit 12 back. --RossWHO????ness 12:17, 9 August 2012 (BST)

Reworking deletion vote descriptions

There's been a bit of confusion about deletion votes, particularly when it comes to what Merges represent (and this isn't just a recent thing, though it came up again today). I think we'd all agree that if the majority of people indicate an interest in keeping a page's content, that the content should be kept. But a Merge also counts as a Delete vote (as I'd imagine we'd all agree it should), so it's possible that you can have a situation where the majority of people indicate an interest in keeping the content while a majority also indicate an interest in deleting the page (e.g. the recent 2 Keep, 2 Delete, 1 Merge scenario). As Bob suggested, we should clarify things a bit. What do you guys think about using the following text at the top?

Aichon said:
  • One vote per user.
  • Voting should take place underneath the request, and each vote should be started with a # with no empty lines inbetween votes.
  • There are four vote types:
    • Delete - A vote to delete the page and its content.
    • Speedy Delete - As Delete, while also indicating that the page meets one of the Speedy Deletions criteria.
    • Merge - A vote to delete the page while merging the content into a specified page.
    • Keep - A vote to preserve the page and its content where it is.
  • The specific vote keyword should be bolded within the lodged vote. Any relevant comments are also allowed, but these should not be bolded.
  • At least one Delete vote must be entered by the deadline in order for a page to be deleted. System operators may not use their own vote after the deadline to delete a page.
  • A Merge vote counts as a Delete for the page and a Keep for the content.
  • If the page receives more Delete votes than Keep, the page will be deleted, though if, because of Merge votes, the content has received more Keep votes than Delete votes, the content will first be moved elsewhere. In any other circumstance, both the page and its content are kept.
  • If 3 Speedy Delete votes are lodged, and there are no Keep Votes, the page will be deleted as per Speedy Deletions.

It completely rewords the definitions for the four vote types (I tried to make them much simpler), while adding some extra information regarding how to handle Merge votes to the bottom. The idea is that this wording would better represent the way things are supposed to work by using the (rather intuitive) distinction between content and the page that Ross brought up on Shortround's talk page a few hours ago. Thoughts? Aichon 20:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Reflects my thinking--Rosslessness 20:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
IIRC someone just added that nonsense about merge in because we used to debate it back in the day as not really a valid vote type. If people want content preserved they can totally move it themselves over the course of the request and then vote delete like a normal non-lazy contributor would do. The only notable thing about Merge in terms of how things are done is it is an implicit OK for us to pull the content through Special:Undelete. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 21:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I have two concerns:

  • Whose responsibility is a merge? If the vote falls somewhere in the merge area, is it the responsibility of the sysop carrying out the deletion to merge the content? Or of the person who proposed the deletion? Or anyone? And, what happens if a merge is voted for, but no one carries it out? Can the pages be deleted within a certain time limit?
  • What about ambiguous votes? I think the vote Aichon mentioned is a good example: 2 keep, 2 delete, 1 merge. In that case, only one out of five of people voted to merge the content - it seems illogical that that's the result. I don't see it as any better than the previous system with merges always counting as deletes. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 21:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
First is the same as whoever normally would carry out the deletion, so the sysop. Second seems like the consensus is that the original page is deleted and that the content is moved elsewhere.--Shortround }.{ My Contributions 21:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the second issue, it's one that already exists, as you pointed out. We're not changing that point, merely clarifying how to process it. A Merge vote should not be seen as a third category of votes in addition to the Deletes and Keeps, since that leads to confusion. It should be seen as a Delete that has a caveat about Keeping the content. Put a different way, I think you're maybe getting hung up on categorizing vote tallies at the cost of looking at the intent of those votes. In the 2-2-1 example, three out of the five people intend for the content to be kept, but three out of the five also intend for the page to be deleted.
The only other way I can see doing it would be to go to what Karek was talking about and only allow Delete, SD, and Keep votes, with anyone who wants to merge content instead filing a Delete vote while doing some background work on merging the content during the voting period. Honestly, I'd be open to that idea as well, since it gets rid of any problems we've talked about. I imagine that people added the Merge vote as a fourth option because of wikilawyering and folks saying that it wasn't right to be fooling around with pages while they were up for a deletion vote, but I'd be fine with it, I know. Would that be a better approach? Aichon 00:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd say limit it to the three votes and to hell with merge. It has caused issues in past votes. Only reason someone else couldn't just merge that info before voting is if it is merging it to a protected page or a group or user page. How often is that needed, though? ~Vsig.png 03:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Do it. A ZOMBIE ANT 00:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Bump. Is this going to happen? Bob Moncrief EBDW! 20:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
What did we decide on in the end. Personally, I'm in favor of removing Merge votes altogether and simply putting in some text telling people to merge the content elsewhere if they want to see it happen, that way people know it's condoned and that it's not something they need permission to do (which is already the case). And in the case of Vapor's scenario where a merge can't happen, someone could just file a Keep vote until the merge can be pushed through elsewhere. Aichon 21:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I think this is the best option.--Shortround }.{ My Contributions 22:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree, as I think any system with official merge votes would be vulnerable to disputes like this. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 00:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The Sentinels

The Sentinels

Category:Survivor Groups

This group page appears to be inactive, it's a waste of space, the leader of the group dosen't even have a user page anymore and I want this title for my group. Rupert Lang 18:58, 6 April 2013 (BST)

Responded on your talk page. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 20:14, 6 April 2013 (BST)

User:CarelessWill

discussions were moved from A/D

  1. Keep - Deal with it. -- Spiderzed 21:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
    Hmmm. Pardon me, so I understand correctly, but I admit I am a bit shocked by the response from someone in the Sysop position. Was I in error expecting this process to be more of a procedural review against potential equaility/conduct/harassment violations?
    Spiderized, Is there a personal reason for you to choose not to give this decision a more balanced assessment?
    If I am mistaken in my perception of your answer, then please forgive me, but I thought this was a for review to determine which guidelines/regulations the page is violating. If other players are not allowed to disparage other groups, then this page should not be allowed to disparage ours.
    Or is this vote simply based on personal opinions?
    I would appreciate some illumination on the subject.
    Obliged. The Jack Yocum (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
    I am merely a user in the A/D procedure (ops hold no special rights here), and as a user I think that you are a massively butthurt faggot for even opening this request about another user's user page. Deal with it. -- Spiderzed 21:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
    Lol, Ah ok. Class act then. Says alot about you on here, and in game as well.
    Well done. :) The Jack Yocum (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Keep - Its not your page, the original UD accounts listed on the page are still active and wearing Jack Yocum tags so the list is actually valid. --EmPathetic Bill (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Disagree/Retort to Against
    Active or not it's making false claims, and casting undeserved disparaging comments.
    Seems like those are, by definition, violations of this site's intended usage and representation?
    As I said I'd be equally fine with having only the inforation against us excised.
    And so it's said. I'm aware of our less than sterling reputation by some parts of the community. Sometimes perception trumps reality. #:Unfortunately, that opinion should not allow a page violating guidelines to be allowed kept in it's present form just to take measure against a group one may feel a personal bias against. RIght?
    And Emp, I am familiar with your own questionable tactics/reputation in game as well. ANd it's just as questionable if not more.
    Yet we both deserve the same amount of fair/equal treatment on here. The Jack Yocum (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
    I know we have a terrible reputation and its all well deserved. We have attracted a lot of impersonators over time who just couldn't get enough of us and had to resort to less than stellar tactics to try and stop the Bills, but alas the train a kept a comin. Never seen someone ask for the wiki pages to be wiped before but I guess a lot of pages seem to talk about you. I guess Rosslessness never made it to that PC. Anyway say Hi to your pals impersonating me - The alwayz keep me entertained ! --EmPathetic Bill (talk) 08:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Keep - User pages are neither required to be factual nor NPOV. It may be misinformation, but that's the prerogative of user and group page owners, provided they don't break any other rules in the process. Without a better cause, we shouldn't be deleting user pages. Aichon 22:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
    To Aichon:
    So I understand correctly...
    If I, hypotheticially, believed emPathetic Bill is a zerg cheat then I could post the same things about him on my user page?
    The Jack Yocum (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, you can totally do so in your own userspace. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 23:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
    Wow. Ok, that's awesome. I have a TON of alt abuse info I'll be sure to post on there.
    Will be great to make the list public.
    Up until now I thought that type of commentary was not allowed as considered griefing or some such.
    Anyone able to point me to a sort of "EULA" of this site too?
    Just wanna make sure there aren't violations I failed to report for lack of knowledge too.
    Have to admit it is a bit disconcerting that known cheats can make up lies about a group when they can't beat them ingame. Given that Spiderized and emPathetic Bill were so quick to vote Against, without review, also speaks volumes.
    Everything comes out of the light though.
    But I digress on that topic.
    Thanks for the info Bob! Gonna get a fresh start on updating my User page. :) The Jack Yocum (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
    Not sure on an official EULA, but let me point you towards the Deletion Schedule, Speedy Deletion Eligibilities and Vandalism Policy as examples of what is disallowed. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 00:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
    As Bob said, yup, you are free to do so in your own userspace (i.e. pages that begin with "User:The Jack Yocum"). There are some restrictions on things that can be posted (e.g. no doxing other folks), but you'll find most of them enumerated either in the links that Bob provided or in the various case histories posted in the archives of Vandal Banning and Arbitration. Sysops aren't moderators, so we don't have any sort of official power or the ability to make official judgment calls about who's right when it comes to zerging allegations. Sysops are just janitors that keep things moving. We expect people to act like adults and sort their disagreements out between themselves.
    Main space pages (i.e. ones not in your userspace) have different restrictions placed on them, since those pages are generally not considered to be "owned" by any particular individual, which means they need to maintain a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) so that they remain useful to everyone that plays the game, so we will step in at times when it comes to that sort of stuff, though even then, we generally prefer to let things run their course and have the disputing parties sort it out in A/A.
    Also, in addition to Ross' reminder to sign your posts, I'd like to advise using the "Show preview" button before you press "Save page". Many of us here look at every edit going through these pages. Having to read through 20 edits that build off of each other just to figure out what you said means we'll be less inclined to respond than if you had one edit that was done right the first time. Aichon 15:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Keep far worse stuff has been kept in userspaces before. If you have a real issue (in mainspace) bring it up here or at Arbitration. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 23:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  6. Keep - I'm sorry that someone is being slanderous towards your name. I once had similar problems from in-game antagonists when I started UD, but I learned quickly that they are allowed to say anything on their userpage, as are you. So unfortunately for you his userpage shan't be deleted. A ZOMBIE ANT 04:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Right you two, neither of you have even read the page you are arguing over properly. If you had we would have none of these against votes. Make a vote clear, everything else goes on the talk page. Want to argue with each other, take it to arbitration. I will be formatting and clearing this page as soon as I am at a real computer. Jack, sign your posts. RosslessnessWant to complete a dangerous mission? 22:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Will do. Still learing here, so apologies for that, but correctng that now.
And thank you for your help The Jack Yocum (talk) 22:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


I guess nobody figured out that emPathetic Bill..."caring" Bill= CarelessWill? That same silly style of prose matches as well. It's obvious certain parties circumvent the rules here, much like ingame, but is there any sort of further investigation that can be done to review this connection? I mean we all know who the real cheating sect is here/ingame, and that we all have to operate under the faux innocent until caught paradigm, but perhaps all that is required is providing the necessary bread crumbs... Again, please remember I', learning here, so this question is just as much informational/instructional as it is a request. The Jack Yocum (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


Thought I'd state here, in public, that there has been a griefing attempt on our user page. I reverted it, but the person (SexualHarrison) is fully aware they should not be editing our page (as they said so in their edit). . I would appreciate, and request, the sysops monitor our page as stringently as Pathetic Bills, Save the Yeti, and even ...apparently...The Goth Store (I'll post up our response on that page too). Consider this an official request. Thank You The Jack Yocum (talk) 14:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jack, I don't think you understand how userpages v talk pages work. Your userpage is for you to edit and modify as you wish, with outside intervention only to prevent things like leaking personal information, breaking wiki formatting, etc. Your talk page is generally a place for others to leave you messages, and others are allowed to edit, but you can remove their comments as you wish. Harrison did nothing against any rules by leaving a message on your talk page; if you have an actual issue with him, the place for it is Arbitration (although I really don't recommend it). Bob Moncrief EBDW! 15:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Bob :)
You are correct that I am not fully aware of of the nuances of the site yet. It will be slow going as my RL doesn't allow for closer inspection as I'd like.
However, I was under the impression that outside comments are meant to be directed to the "discussion" part of the page?
If not, that's fine. Live and learn right? :)
And I was just about to respond to you on Aichons page, partly in relation to this particular query.
Didn't want you to think I had forgotten to respond on Aichon's page, but this was the first real chance I had to respond. Haven't even had time to really do more than log in here and ingame, though I've heard my teammates have done an "admirable" job filling in for me over Broadcast chat (for the record I never broadcast in game, as I find it pointless to involve myself with innae chatter, but some of my group do love to troll. Lol).
Thanks again The Jack Yocum (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, just to mention it, I don't know about the other sysops, but at least for me, I don't monitor pages unless I either have a personal interest in them or have been alerted to some sort of problem with them. In the recent cases, it was all the latter for me. If there's a problem, alert us to it on the appropriate page, let us know what the nature of the issue is, and we'll be happy to respond to it appropriately. Aichon 18:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Personal tools
advertisements