UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Scheduling

Shortcut:
A/D/S

This page will be used for users to request that pages falling into certain categories be deleted as appropriate by a sysop without having to go through all the red tape of Speedy Deletions and Deletions. A list of pages in the Scheduled Deletions list is located here.

Deletion Scheduling

Deletion Scheduling requests should be requested in the same general format as normal Deletions. Votes will occur in the same general manner, and like normal deletion requests will be voted on for two (2) weeks, as judged by the initial datestamp. Votes in this case shall be as follows:

• Yea - For approval of the deletion scheduling request
• Nay - For disapproval of the deletion scheduling request

Remember that votes must be signed and datestamped (use ~~~~)

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 Archive.

Scheduling requests under consideration

User Page Redirects

User page redirects in the main space should be delete on sight as crit 3 or 9. The community voted against keeping them and in all fairness no one should have one. The exception will be Kevan. Redirects to permabanned vandals do not fall under this as they are for posterity and record keeping.

1. Yea The A/D votes settled it for me. This is the next logical step.--– Nubis ^NWO 14:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
2. Yea - the limited pagenames in the main namespace is not to be used up with hundreds of user page redirects, and neither should it be that popular users should be exempt from the A/SD criteria because they can manufacture A/D votes -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 21:51 7 November 2008 (BST)
3. Yea - Fits in nicely with the scheduled deletion after moves. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
4. Aye - The people have spoken. Let it be so. -- Cheese 22:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
5. Yes - Sounds good. --ZsL 22:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
6. Yes - Can't see a problem with it. Linkthewindow ^Talk 23:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
7. Yea - No user redirects in the main namespace. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [523,07]} 23:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
8. Yea - This has been the case for years. The only reason it's even an issue is because for the first time the idiots trying to buck the system for their own benefit have actually bothered to contest the rulings. One rule for everybody (except Kevan obv). --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 23:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
9. Yes - I spose this should be enforced to the end right? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
10. Yea As much a I enjoy Rosslessness, lets kill em. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 02:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

    We really will need a UHUB, won't we? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

    We sure will... Linkthewindow ^Talk 13:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

11. Yea - makes sense. --Pdeq^Talk* 05:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
12. Yup - Community vote on a few shows they aren't wanted, might as well clear this up for the future then.--xoxo 05:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Attack Pages

Pages made solely to attack/discredit/whatever another user (example: User X is a filthy PKer, we must killz him nao! or the recent Boxy/Ioncannon is a cunt) can be deleted on sight.

1. Aye - Some of this is already scheduled (solely vandal pages) but this just takes care of Trenchy n00bs posting their grievances all over the place because someone killed them. -- Cheese 22:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
2. No - pages may be made, esp. in the group or user sub-page area, to discredit players or other users (ie. this). Pages that use extreme swearing in their titles, however... -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 22:19 7 November 2008 (BST)

   I'm meaning in the main namespace. User and Group pages are fine. I really should have put that in. =p -- Cheese 22:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

   I still think that arbitration or vandal banning are better ways to determine the outcome in attack pages. It can be a tricky area that may need extended discussion, rather than just a single sysops opinion on the intent of a page. The ones titled "xxxx is a cunt" could probably be taken out though, as pure flamebait -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 22:30 7 November 2008 (BST)

3. Weak Yes - Just determine what an "attack" is, and don't delete pages in a user subspace. Linkthewindow ^Talk 23:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
4. Nay - Mostly as boxy. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [523,07]} 23:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
5. Yea - In the cases where the nature of the page is not blatantly obvious (which is the case 99% of the time) common sense should apply. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 23:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

   If something requires a "common sense" decision, it shouldn't be approved for scheduled deletion. Scheduled deletions should be only for things that are black and white decisions, otherwise it should be discussed on A/SD -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:57 8 November 2008 (BST)

   yes 01:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC) unsigned -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:00 8 November 2008 (BST)

6. Nay as mid. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 02:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
7. Nay - As car ick. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
8. No - Covered under vandalism, everything else has an arguable purpose.--Karek^maps?! 20:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
9. No - . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
10. Yes If it is covered under a vandalism delete then there is no reason for it not to be "scheduled". If it is going to be reported as vandalism because it is an attack page it should be deleted. If it is going to be deleted as an attack page it should be reported as vandalism. That simple.--– Nubis ^NWO 22:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

    Sure there is, it's called the No Needless Policies rule. If a law serves no purpose it shouldn't exist, this would serve no purpose and just serve to add to the already large amount of text new users need to read through to find stuff that does actually matter. Vandalism is removable on sight, that alone is more than enough.--Karek^maps?! 16:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

11. Yes You Betcha.. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 02:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Swearing in Page Titles

Pages that have swearing in the title that is directed at a user or group (or their actions) are to be added to the scheduled deletions list. This would include pages like "boxy is a cunt" or "petition to ban that bastard hagnat" but not pages like "Blackmore Bastards". Other examples of swearing in page titles should be taken to A/SD or A/D for removal.

1. Yea - flamebaitery via page creation should be deleted on sight -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 22:37 7 November 2008 (BST)
2. Yes As Boxy. Linkthewindow ^Talk 23:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
3. Nay - If the only objectionable thing is the title, you could just move the page. Moves can be done on sight, you know. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [523,07]} 23:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
4. Yea - If the title of the page is flamebait-y, its content is hardly likely to be in good faith either. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 23:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
5. Aye nuff said already --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 00:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
6. Yes - As Cyberbob. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
7. Yea. As DDR. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 02:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
8. Aye - As Ross. -- Cheese 19:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
9. No - You need to show bad faith first; No vandalism without vandalism. As Midianian who speaks more sense than all these sysops that don't seem to know what they can already do.--Karek^maps?! 20:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
10. No - Not a cut and dry issue, should be taken to A/D for community discussion. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
11. No - All of these should be discussed. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
12. Yes As Cyberbob.--– Nubis ^NWO 22:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
13. Yea As my sweet Aunt Esther Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 02:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
14. Yea --Toejam 04:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Attack Images

As the attack pages heading pretty much, except that images are a radically different beast due to their ability to be placed anywhere.

1. Yea - Reasoning already given. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 23:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
2. No - not unless you can give a satisfactory definition of what an attack image is -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:05 8 November 2008 (BST)

   That image would not be considered an attack image because of how obviously a satire it is. I'm thinking of something like a derogatory portrayal of what the uploader might think the subject might be IRL, or maybe a photoshopped version of a photo of them or something of that nature. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 03:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

   Perhaps a little reading would be appropriate, as Grim and Bob knew what I had meant, hence the reason why it was on their pages. Now then. I believe the types of images that Bob is referring to is like the one in this vandal banning report. You know, the image and template that called for a specific user's death? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 16:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

   Sarcasm: witty language used to convey insults or scorn. Sarcasm is a witty form of attack, Akule. Just because Grim sees and collects attacks on him as some sort of badge of honour, doesn't make it less of an attack. I know what Bob is getting at here, but there is no clear way to draw a line between unacceptable attacks on a persons character, and sarcastic wit. Take it to A/SD -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:20 9 November 2008 (BST)

   Yet, you were unable to read from my link and had to look elsewhere to get your definition. 2 :trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly . There is a simple different between poking fun at someone and threatening their life (even in jest). I think that is a pretty clear distinction, don't you? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 01:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

   Yes but, a few sysops have already notably made that mistake. --Karek^maps?! 20:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

   Perhaps some distinction should be made in order for people to determine the difference. You know, like some sort of line in the sand stating "This is okay, but this is not." --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 01:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

3. No - As Boxy. Linkthewindow ^Talk 13:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
4. No - Everything that needs covering under this already is covered and removable on sight. This argument has already been had out multiple times, just dig through Boxy's archives if you want to find at least two of them.--Karek^maps?! 20:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
5. No - . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
6. Nay - As Karek. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [522,08]} 22:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
7. Yes Peace... Land... Bread... Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 02:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Unused Templates

If a template is not linked to any other page in the wiki, and the last edit to such template was made more than 3 months ago, it can be removed on sight.

1. Aye --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 00:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

   So... does that "linked" really mean "linked", or do you mean "included"? --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [502,08]} 02:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

   If a template is even just text linked that will show up on other links, unlike with images. If an image is just text linked it won't show up.--– Nubis ^NWO 22:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

   Yes it will, if you look at the whatlinkshere page for the image -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:13 9 November 2008 (BST)

   Not always. Right now on my sandbox I have a text link to Lady xXx Death.jpg and it doesn't show up on the what links here and the image still shows up on the Unused Files page (no. 4 at this time).--– Nubis ^NWO 04:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

2. No - not all unused templates should be deleted. Often ones that are only used to "subst:" onto a page come up as unused. Giving sysops carte blanche to just wade into the unused templates list and start deleting will see these taken out with no record of why, or what was on the page for regular users to decide if they should ask for it to be restored -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:54 8 November 2008 (BST)
3. No - Let's not get carried away with all these scheduled. As boxy. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
4. Nay Take the current list of unused as an example, put them all up for deletions. They wouldnt all be killed. Theres quite a few that are subst-ed in. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 02:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
5. No - Should be put on A/SD first. Some people may have the subst-ed in. Linkthewindow ^Talk 13:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
6. No --Karek^maps?! 20:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
7. No - Is it stupid ideas day? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
8. Nay - Deleting unused templates only makes them inaccessible. There's little point in deleting them unless their content is objectionable. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [522,08]} 22:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
9. Yes Because the number of unused useful templates (Template:HistoricalEventVoting) to "attack" templates (Template:Saromu is Devil (improved)) to retarded templates (Template:Tomatoes) is ridiculous. (yes, I know tomatoes is in use, but that is the type I am talking about.) --– Nubis ^NWO 22:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
10. No - Because this is clearly just an attempt to justify Nubis's template deletion in retrospect. -- Cheese 18:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

    NO, this is me following the advice of those who said that if i am unhappy with the system, its better change the system (rather than yell at it and keep ignoring it) --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 18:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

    Cheese, that isn't a justification for not scheduling templates for deletion. That is an accusation and assumption of motive. Also, you should realize that even if they are voted as scheduled it wouldn't be retro-active and couldn't be applied to the case. Vote on the suggestion not the suggestor.--– Nubis ^NWO 04:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

11. Yesjust because I can...Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 02:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)