|
|
(258 intermediate revisions by 52 users not shown) |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{Shortcut|[[A/D/S]]}} | | {{Shortcut|[[A/D/S]]}} |
| {{Moderationnav}} | | {{Administrationnav}} |
| {{TOCright}} | | {{TOCright}} |
|
| |
|
Line 14: |
Line 14: |
| Remember that votes must be signed and datestamped (use <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) | | Remember that votes must be signed and datestamped (use <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) |
|
| |
|
| After the two weeks are up, if the page has reached at least a 50% majority in favour it is added to the Scheduled list. If the request fails to get the required number of votes, it doesn't get added. In either case, the closed request can then get shifted to the [[UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Scheduling/Archive|Archive]]. | | After the two weeks are up, if the page has reached at least a 50% majority in favour it is added to the Scheduled list. If the vote fails, it will be cycled as unsuccessful. The closed request can then get shifted to the [[UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Scheduling/Archive|Archive]]. |
|
| |
|
| ==Scheduling requests under consideration== | | ==Scheduling requests under consideration== |
| <!--''There are currently no requests under consideration.''--> | | <!--''There are currently no requests under consideration.''--> |
| ===Unused Images===
| | ''There are currently no requests under consideration.'' |
| Basically the same thing as [[UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Scheduling/Archive#Unused_images|last time]], and with the same reasoning, except with 2 weeks' leeway instead of 1. I have yet to see any image go unused for more than 2 weeks that didn't also make it to a month without being linked somewhere. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 12:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
| | ==Recent Requests== |
| | | <!--''There are currently no recently served requests.'' --> |
| #'''Yes''' {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 12:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
| | ''There are currently no recently served requests.'' |
| #'''Yes''' --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sigcode|DimGray|Crimson}}-- 13:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''No''' Same as last time, same response. One week extra doesn't cut it for me. --[[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]][[User:MisterGame|<span style= "color: maroon; background-color: white">'''''Thadeous Oakley''''']][[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]]</span> 14:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #:then die {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 14:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #::What's that Bob, a death threat? Off to A/VB with you then! --[[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]][[User:MisterGame|<span style= "color: maroon; background-color: white">'''''Thadeous Oakley''''']][[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]]</span> 15:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #:::hm yase a death threat. thats exactly what it was; a literal threat for your literal death posted on a wiki. on a page for the deletion of 1's and 0's. u r smert {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 15:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #::::It's amusing to see how serious you take me sometimes. --[[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]][[User:MisterGame|<span style= "color: maroon; background-color: white">'''''Thadeous Oakley''''']][[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]]</span> 16:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Yes''' - Two weeks is more reasonable.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 15:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Yea''' - Two weeks sounds good to me.--{{User:Giles Sednik/sig}} 17:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Yea''' - As above. One week is really short. --{{User:Haliman111/sig}} 18:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Yea''' - Seems reasonable as an expected implementation time-frame, and may prompt people to concentrate on finishing what they start. -[[User:Wulfenbach|Wulfenbach]] 19:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Yea''' indeed --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 20:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''No''' - As [[UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Scheduling/Archive#Unused_images|last time]]. Once images are gone, they can't be retrieved. It doesn't happen often, but they can become unused without anyone noticing via vandalism, or pages that get deleted and are later requested for undeletion <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 23:59 26 November 2009 (BST)</small>
| |
| #:By "doesn't happen often" you mean "has never happened in the history of the wiki", right? You're theorycrafting ridiculously implausible situations for the sake of being contrary. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 00:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''No''' - As Boxy, I see absolutely no reason why they need to go in two weeks rather than a month. Perhaps the server is straining under the weight of unused images that are three weeks old.... -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 03:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ===Grouped Location Pages===
| |
| Grouped location pages, such as [[Shackleville Schools]], are to be deleted once they have been de-merged and incoming links (excluding those referencing deletion) have been diverted to the appropriate pages.--{{:User:Red Hawk One/sig}} 05:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| #'''Yes''' --{{User:OrangeGaf/Sig}} 00:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
| | ''For older cases, please see the [[UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Scheduling/Archive|archive]].'' |
| #'''Yea''' - It might not get used frequently, and only by a select few ops, but why the hell not. Basically, '''a)''' they are already crit 1's, and the more black-and-white sort of crit 1's, not "policy says c1's are 2 lines of text but this has 3". '''b)''' Anyone who attains sysop status will already know the correct procedure so it isn't like we will mess it up, and it isn't the sort of task that an unknowing sysop would do on a whim anyway, there is a lot of work involved beforehand. '''c)''' Even in the case of an op going rogue there is practically null way any sysop could abuse this as part of some personal vendetta etc. so I don't see why we shouldn't add this to get rid of the red tape to make it easier for location pages to conform with existing policy. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sigcode|red|black}}-- 00:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''No''' - Removing all the links is a monotonous task and it would be easy to miss some in the endless repetition of changing them. The oversight from sending it to A/SD ensures that nothing is missed. I see absolutely no great gain to be achieved in scheduling this and a potential problems if we change from the current system that works fine. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 00:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''No''' - Yeah. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 00:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Nay''' - As DDR mentioned, crit 1 speedy delete means these group pages get nuked anyway. And since unmerging is so involved, it's a good idea to have at least one other person review the links for errors. Finally, all of the group locations will be gone soon anyway, and this scheduling policy will then be defunct--{{User:Giles Sednik/sig}} 00:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Yes''' - Forgot to vote. While the nays do bring up good points, I still feel that the sysops who participate in demerging (who would benifit from this) are trustworthy enough to do a thourough job.--{{:User:Red Hawk One/sig}} 00:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Yes''' - Though I'd suggest shelving it if and when it becomes defunct. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 04:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Yes''' - Nah. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 04:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Yea''' - I had been wondering about these kinds of pages for a while but never really gave it much thought. There will be a lot of links to check and double-check, but I think that generally this is something that probably should have been done a long time ago. --{{User:Maverick Farrant/sig}} 06:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Yes''' - De facto because of Crit 1, just make it happen.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 07:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''No''' If you've copied and pasted everything to relevant pages its already covered under crit 1, and i think its prudent to double check the likes of dunell hill streets. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 08:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''No''' As Ross. Beeeeeee! --[[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]][[User:MisterGame|<span style= "color: maroon; background-color: white">'''''Thadeous Oakley''''']][[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]]</span> 20:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #:Holeee Fuck. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 21:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Nope''' - It would be best to use A/SD in order for another user to double-check. --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 23:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''No''' - I don't think this is necessary, given that there arn't [[Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Locationblockmerge|that many of them]] anyway <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 02:00 25 November 2009 (BST)</small>
| |
| #'''Yes''' A job needed doing--[[User:C Whitty|C Whitty]] 17:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Yea''' - Saves time. --{{User:Haliman111/sig}} 18:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ===Unnecessary banned user pages===
| |
| The User: pages of permbanned spambot and dedicated vandal alt accounts that have no contributions showing (due to history wipe or spam/vandalism deletion) and no links to the page except from [[A/VB]] and [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Bots|A/VB/B]] (or their talk pages) should be deleted <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 01:13 13 November 2009 (BST)</small>
| |
| | |
| #'''Yes''' <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 01:13 13 November 2009 (BST)</small>
| |
| #I didn't actually read it but I thought it would be a good idea to just '''sheep whatever boxy picked AKA YES YOU COCKS'''.--[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> SA</span>]] 01:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Yes''' {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 01:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Yes'''--{{:User:Red Hawk One/sig}} 01:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Yea''' - Just add it to the spambot clause that's already on the Scheduled page, imo. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sigcode|red|black}}-- 02:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Yes''' - '''[[User:BobBoberton|<span style="color: #FF4500">Bob Boberton</span>]] <sup>[[The_Fortress|<span style="color: #6B8E23">TF</span>]] / [[The_Fortress/Dark_Watch|<span style="color: #778899 ">DW</span>]]</sup>''' [[Image:Littlemudkipsig.gif]] 04:28, 13 November 2009 (BST)
| |
| #'''Yea''' --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 09:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)<nowiki>Insert non-formatted text here</nowiki>
| |
| #'''No''' - A facetious attempt to add moderation to the process, [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_11#User:Malikronthedouche|yesterday's entertainment]] isn't a spambot nor can check user find an current account here so it's not a 'an alt' either, do you think Boxy will try to delete it under this criteria? How about [[User:God]]? You going to delete that as a vandal alt of [[User:Amazing]]? It fits your poorly written criteria. {{[[Template|BannedUser]]}} exists purely to be placed on the pages of banned users without pages. Deleting a page takes precisely the same amount of effort as protecting it, the difference? No-one's been escalated for adding banned user to vandal pages, people have been escalated for adding {{[[WelcomeNewbie]]}} to banned vandal pages. Is Boxy going to alter his criteria to grant immunity to anyone doing mass welcomes? Didn't think so. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 09:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #:I did have some concerns about the inclusion of regular vandal alts as well as bots in this, but it wouldn't cover ones that make "normal" comments on people's talk pages (to gloat or whatever) and they're the only ones that people would ever visit anyway. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 12:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #:Oh, look. Your example doesn't [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/User:God&limit=100&from=0 qualify]. And look up the useage of {{tl|tl}} <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 12:59 13 November 2009 (BST)</small>
| |
| #::So all you want is it to link to another page? I feel a subpage coming on. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 15:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Yea''' - Why should spambits be immortalized with their own pages? Also, if this change is implemented, there should be a vandalism exemption for adding [[:Template:WelcomeNewbie|<nowiki>{{</nowiki>WelcomeNewbie<nowiki>}}</nowiki>]] to the banned users.--{{User:Giles Sednik/sig}} 13:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #:No there shouldn't. Welcomenewbie is a stupid template that only exists so that people can pad their edit counts. Anything that would make life a little bit harder for the mindless <code>==Welcome==<br /><nowiki>{{welcomenewbie}} ~~~~</nowiki></code> drones is A-OK in my book. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 13:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #:Ummm, this scheduled deletion doesn't mean that creating the pages is automatic vandalism, only that a sysop can nuke them on sight. Inadvertently putting {{tl|WN}} on a spambot/vandal's talk page will not be vandalism <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 13:25 13 November 2009 (BST)</small>
| |
| #::Ah good. Then what are you talking about people getting escalated, Iscariot?--{{User:Giles Sednik/sig}} 13:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #:::I think he means how some users purposefully put the template on multiple banned users pages. Not sure though. He'll probably along any minute to yell at me and say he can argue his own things though. :C --[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> SA</span>]] 15:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #::::Users were escalated incorrectly for adding the welcome newbie template to red linked user talk pages. As this deletion holds no such exemption I'm thinking that it shouldn't go through until good faith users are protected against the warping of A/VB by certain people. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 15:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Yep''' I agree. --{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 15:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Aye''' - gotta leave nothing for those silly bots --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User_talk:Hagnat|[talk]]] [[wcdz|[wcdz]]]</sup> 20:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''YES''' - I was just about to do this myself. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 15:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''No''' - Unless by "Dedicated Vandal Accounts" you refer only to those that are perma'd under the 3 strikes no constructive edits rule. --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 10:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #:"Unless by ''"*insert term that was never used here*"'' you refer to... --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sigcode|red|black}}-- 11:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #::Oh I am sorry.... I missed the word "alt" --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 11:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #:::It's cool. I just like to poke fun. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sigcode|red|black}}-- 00:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Yes''' - Obviously we dont want them here, most are "alt" pages. --{{User:The Colonel/Sig}} 06:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Yes''' - As long as the vandal alts are recorded under the main accounts in A/VD, I don't see much of a problem with this. --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 23:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Yes''' - A no brainer really?? --[[User:C Whitty|C Whitty]] 17:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ==Recent Requests==
| |
| ===[[UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Scheduling/Archive#Defunct Group Images|Defunct Group Images]]===
| |
| '''Failed''' with 3 for and 11 against. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 00:27, 18 October 2009 (BST)
| |
|
| |
|
| ===[[UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Scheduling/Archive#Unused images|Unused images]]===
| | == [[UDWiki:Administration/Deletion Schedule|Scheduled Deletions]] == |
| '''Failed''' with 1 for and 17 against. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 06:36, 15 October 2009 (BST)
| |
|
| |
|
| {{UDWiki:Administration/Deletion Schedule}} | | {{UDWiki:Administration/Deletion Schedule}} |