UDWiki:Administration/Protections/Archive/2011 06

Shortcut:
A/PT

This page is for the request of page protection within the Urban Dead wiki. Due to philosophical concerns, the ability to protect pages is restricted to system operators. As such, regular users will need to request a protection from the system operators. For consistency and accountability, system operators also adhere to the guidelines listed here.

Guidelines for Protection Requests

All Protection Requests must contain the following information in order to be considered:

• A link to the page in question. Preferably bolded for visibility.
• A reason for protection. This should be short and to the point.
• A signed datestamp. This can be easily done by adding ~~~~ to the end of your request.

Any protection request that does not contain these three pieces of information will not be considered, and will be removed by a system operator.

Once the protection request has been entered, the request shall remain on this page, where it will be reviewed by a member of the Sysop team, and action taken accordingly. Once action has been taken, the system operator will add a comment including a signed datestamp detailing his course of action, and the request will be moved into the Recent Actions queue, where it will remain for one week. After that week is up, it may be moved to the archive (see navigation box below). If the Protection has been granted, the system operator should place the tag {{protect}} on the page(s) that have been protected.

In the event of a system operator requesting a Protection, all the previous points will apply, excepting that a system operator other than the requestor shall review and take action on the request.

Pages in the Protection Queue may already be scheduled protections. For a list of scheduled protections, see here.

e Protections Archive

2005 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Q3 Q4 2013 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Years 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Protection Queue

The Dead's Resurgence

That page seems to become a hotbed of edit warring and general SA shit-stirring. Would anyone mind if it would be protected for a week or so, or until it can be moved to a place of clearer ownership? -- Spiderzed▋ 20:53, 4 April 2011 (BST)

Sounds good to me. ~ _{20:56, 4 April 2011}

Errr being a bit reactionary aren't we? -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:22, 5 April 2011 (BST)

That's not what reactionary means... ;_; --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 08:57, 7 April 2011 (BST)

You're right! Sorry, perhaps the word I failed to articulate was overreacting, but got caught up in a muddle of fail and/or dyslexia. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 09:04, 7 April 2011 (BST)

S'okay. Everybody uses it the wrong way. The only reason I don't is because I was ripped apart in a history essay because I sued the wrong meaning.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 09:07, 7 April 2011 (BST)

Either way, the page will be drama free eventually, SA while picky only really get into it if you actually give them the drama they're trying to create. Undo, leave, discuss reasonably and without argument/acknowledgement of the shitstirring. Best advice I can give. --Karek^maps?! 09:10, 7 April 2011 (BST)

Good call, I just don't agree with the menetality of "it sucks and people are disagreeing with it so lets protect it, stop its hope of becoming decent, then move it away". Seems a bit domineering considering its in such a foetal state right now. While I admit it's not looking good as a future article after days of inaction, at least we are giving it at try at getting better, then justifiably discussing its removal. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 09:14, 7 April 2011 (BST)

I was agreeing with you actually, it's not much of a page now and drama on it, while not really worth the time to escalate but if done with 3pwv type edits is most definitely not worth the time to protect. That would be the opposite of productive in solving the problems. So yeah, I totally agree and felt someone should mention that this is the kind of thing you don't want with SA and the history of The Dead vs wiki usefulness. --Karek^maps?! 09:33, 7 April 2011 (BST)

Requested Edits

Historical Group Voting Policy

Within two weeks of a nomination, the group must be approved by 2/3 of the voters, with a minimum of 15 voters for a nomination to pass. The only allowable votes are Yes and No

is confusing because while voting has always been decided after two weeks, the policy, as written, could be interpreted as a group only has to reach the magic 15 vote number and the 2/3 number within two weeks to pass, which was never the intent. The sentence should be rewritten to something like this:

Voting will last for exactly two weeks following nomination. To be successful, a group must by approved by 2/3 of eligible voters, with a minimum of 15 voters needed for a nomination to pass. The only allowable votes are Yes and No...

-MHSstaff 22:24, 10 April 2011 (BST)

The wording of that part is minimum requirements listing. May was well just change With a minimum to and a minimum and it would clear up any confusion that a wikilawyer would try to use against common sense. The purpose has always been very clear. --Karek^maps?! 23:20, 10 April 2011 (BST)

The problem (to me at least) is the word "within." At the strictest, possible interpretation, it implies that a group only has to reach a certain threshold at any time before the two weeks is up to be successful. I am probably not understanding what you are saying, but I don't see how adding "and" fixes that. Your right though. Everyone knows the real "story/purpose" but the way I look at it, there is no real harm in making it clear. -MHSstaff 23:34, 10 April 2011 (BST)