From The Urban Dead Wiki

Administration Services

Sysop List | Guidelines | Policies (Discussion) | Promotions (Bureaucrat) | Re-Evaluations Deletions (Scheduling) | Speedy Deletions | Undeletions | Vandal Banning | Vandal Data Protections | Move Requests | Arbitration | Misconduct | Demotions | Discussion

Contents 1 Deletion Scheduling 1.1 Scheduling requests under consideration 1.1.1 Grouped Location Pages 1.1.2 Unnecessary banned user pages 1.2 Recent Requests 1.2.1 Defunct Group Images 1.2.2 Unused images 2 Scheduled Deletions

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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] Scheduling requests under consideration

[edit] 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.--~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | BIC | KRFR} 05:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Yes --Orange^{Harass me | W!} 00:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
2. 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. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
3. 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. -- . 00:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
4. No - Yeah. --  AHLGTH 00:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
5. 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--Giles Sednik ^{CAPD SWA} 00:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
6. 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.--~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | BIC | KRFR} 00:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
7. Yes - Though I'd suggest shelving it if and when it becomes defunct. –Misanthropy ^Talk_{RDD BE} 04:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
8. Yes - Nah. Cyberbob  Talk  04:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
9. 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. --Maverick ^{Talk OBR} 06:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
10. Yes - De facto because of Crit 1, just make it happen.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} 07:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
11. 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. --Mr. Borehamwood -Rosslessness ^{-Wants a new city} 08:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 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 A/VB/B (or their talk pages) should be deleted -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:13 13 November 2009 (BST)

1. Yes -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:13 13 November 2009 (BST)
2. 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.-- SA 01:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Yes Cyberbob  Talk  01:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Yes--~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | BIC | KRFR} 01:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Yea - Just add it to the spambot clause that's already on the Scheduled page, imo. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
6. Yes - Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 04:28, 13 November 2009 (BST)
7. Yea --Mr. Borehamwood -Rosslessness ^{-Wants a new city} 09:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Insert non-formatted text here
8. No - A facetious attempt to add moderation to the process, 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. {{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. -- . 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. Cyberbob  Talk  12:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

   Oh, look. Your example doesn't qualify. And look up the useage of {{tl}} -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:59 13 November 2009 (BST)

   So all you want is it to link to another page? I feel a subpage coming on. -- . 15:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

9. Yea - Why should spambits be immortalized with their own pages? Also, if this change is implemented, there should be a vandalism exemption for adding {{WelcomeNewbie}} to the banned users.--Giles Sednik ^{CAPD SWA} 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 ==Welcome==
{{welcomenewbie}} ~~~~ drones is A-OK in my book. Cyberbob  Talk  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 {{WN}} on a spambot/vandal's talk page will not be vandalism -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:25 13 November 2009 (BST)

   Ah good. Then what are you talking about people getting escalated, Iscariot?--Giles Sednik ^{CAPD SWA} 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 -- SA 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. -- . 15:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

10. Yep I agree. --Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} 15:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
11. Aye - gotta leave nothing for those silly bots --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 20:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
12. YES - I was just about to do this myself. -- Cheese 15:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
13. No - Unless by "Dedicated Vandal Accounts" you refer only to those that are perma'd under the 3 strikes no constructive edits rule. --Honestmistake 10:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

    "Unless by "*insert term that was never used here*" you refer to... --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 11:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

    Oh I am sorry.... I missed the word "alt" --Honestmistake 11:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

    It's cool. I just like to poke fun. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

14. Yes - Obviously we dont want them here, most are "alt" pages. --The Colonel ^{BI | RRF | UBCS} 06:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Requests

[edit] Defunct Group Images

Failed with 3 for and 11 against. Cyberbob  Talk  00:27, 18 October 2009 (BST)

[edit] Unused images

Failed with 1 for and 17 against. Cyberbob  Talk  06:36, 15 October 2009 (BST)

[edit] Scheduled Deletions

Unused Image Removal

Images on the Unused Image list that are a month old are to be deleted. Images that are linked by text only will appear on the unused image list also.

Approved 11 Dec 2005

Image revision removal

Image revisions that are older than 7 days are to be removed.

Approved 16 May 2006

Monumental Screw Ups

Pages in this form: with//////lots//////of//////slashes, and this one: http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Example_monumental_screwup are unable to be moved or edited via normal means. Their content is to be manually moved to a sensible pagename without extraneous //s in its title and the original page is to be deleted on sight.

Note to sysops: A method for deleting these pages can be found here.

Approved 23 August 2006

Unused redirects resulting from page moves

redirects resulting from moves, that only show admin pages in their "what links here" list.

Approved 3 Mar 2007

Copyrighted images

Images that are requested to be deleted by the copyright holder

Approved 10 Nov 2007

Broken redirects

redirects that lead to nonexistent pages

Approved 12 Dec 2007

Personal Information

If a user wants personal information about themselves deleted from the wiki, they should be able to get it speedy deleted. Things like your name, your phone number, your email or home address, your workplace, pictures of your family etc. ^Link

Approved 11 July 2008

Porn is to be deleted on sight.

I like porn, you like porn, but this isnt the place for it.

Approved 22 July 2008

Revoked 2 August 2009

User page redirects

in the main space should be delete on sight as crit 3 or 9 (excluding those redirecting to Kevan).

Approved 26 November 2008

Swearing in page titles

Pages that have swearing in the title that is directed at a user or group (or their actions).

Approved 22 July 2008

Crit 7 by Proxy

If a user leaves a sysop a note on their (i.e the sysop's) talk page requesting deletion of a page that falls under Crit 7, the Sysop may delete the page on sight, making clear in the edit summary that the user requested it via talk page.

Approved 26 March 2009

Crit 11

Userpages/Journals that are in the User: namespace but are non-existent users, and are already duplicated in the appropriate User: or Journal: subspace may be deleted on sight.

Approved 30 June 2009

Adbot-created pages

Pages created by Adbots and Spambots are to be deleted on sight.

Approved 30 July 2009