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. 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.

Protection Queue

Promotions

Even though it's my version that's been protected, closing that page to edits is counter-productive. How should the community vote when they can't edit? Request unprotection. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:21, 9 October 2008 (BST)

I agree, but the only other option was banning you. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:23, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Lol. =P -- Cheese 23:23, 9 October 2008 (BST)

I've protected this temporarily because of an edit war between myself, Iscariot, Cheese and some other users. I have not reverted Iscariots edits. Please resolve this conflict on the talk page and unprotect this in about an hour, I have to go. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:22, 9 October 2008 (BST)

I believe I am in the right, as obviously illustrated. Am talking with Cheese on IRL and he believes he is right. There is no bad faith, just different interpretations. What I'd forward is the simple logic that leaving the section up there in no way harms anything. In a couple of days the new misconduct case will be completed, Grim will be found guilty and his sysop status revoked. At this time he can and should be removed. Until that point removing it looks like sysops are trying to influence a community vote, after what's happened we need to be seeing an image of the sysops that is completely free of the possibility of accusation. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:29, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Fucking unblock that shit now. If this is about grim being on that page then whoever is trying to keep him on it is being rediculous. He is NOT a sysop and thus cannot stand for a crat election. Simple as. If i'm totally wrong about this, apologies as i'm too shitty at you protecting it over something so pathetic to read up properly :P Now unblock now or i'm taking you all to A/M, except Iscariot. --xoxo 23:27, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Done. :P I've got Iscariot distracted on IRC. Quick!! Steal his cat!! -- Cheese 23:29, 9 October 2008 (BST)

thankyou, now i can post amusing witticisms in response to other people's votes. --xoxo 23:31, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Unless I'm handed a vandalism warning in the meantime, I'll be putting it all back in tomorrow at work. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:32, 9 October 2008 (BST)

You won't, no matter how ridiculous edit wars get a/a not a/vb. gah. --xoxo 23:38, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Requested Edits

Place protected pages requiring edits here.

Template:SugVoteRules

Ive just head a vote struck http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Suggestion:20080814_Give_Ruin_Age_in_ExMilReps&diff=1262004&oldid=1261191

because ive always read point 5.

"It is strongly recommended that voters (especially in the kill/spam sections) justify their vote to help others understand the reason they disagree. Feedback helps new suggesters get a feel for what the community does and does not want included in Urban Dead, and a deeper understanding of the balance needed for a workable suggestion. "

And now i see at the bottom of the page

"Votes that do not have reasoning behind them are invalid. You MUST justify your vote."

Yet even further below, in the examples

"Keep - Best. Suggestion. Evar. --Bob_Zombie 04:01, 11 Nov 2005 (GMT)"

Can we have someting a bit less contradictory? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:42, 31 August 2008 (BST)

I'm not really sure if we're going with "recommended" or "required", but the example is justified, just generic and unhelpful. Bob Zombie is voting keep because he thinks it's the best suggestion evar. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:22, 31 August 2008 (BST)

Fair enough, I thought my vote was generic and unhelpful, yet justified. Also notice that you've got at least one header that includes the word advice. Its not advice, its the only acceptable way of doing things. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 23:57, 31 August 2008 (BST)

Agreed, the two templates need aligning. As people have had votes struck for non justification, this template should be altered accordingly. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:12, 1 September 2008 (BST)

Alright, if anyone has any suggestions on what they want the text to be altered to... --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:01, 2 September 2008 (BST)

Give us a day and ill post some ideas. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:54, 2 September 2008 (BST)

Recent Actions

User:SirArgo/Signature

I would like for my signature page to be unprotected. It's about time I updated my signature and made it useful!--SirArgo ^Talk 21:07, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Also done -- Cheese 21:13, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Namespace pages

User:Grim_s/Suggestions

User:Grim_s/Events

User:Grim_s/Sandbox

User:Grim_s/Sandbox/Testplate/Archive

User:Grim_s/Grims_guide_to_staying_alive

User:Grim_s/Kills

and all associated talk/discussion pages.

User is perma banned, and these pages should be protected as per standard practice to prevent vandalism and retaliation. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:17, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Apologies if I sound like a jerk, but hes still a sysop according to This page. Could you please show some confirmation of bannage please? Linkthewindow ^Talk

11:29, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Whoops, my bad. Guess hes banned. Heres the ban log if anyone wants proof. Sorry for the inconvenience. Linkthewindow ^Talk 11:30, 9 October 2008 (BST)

He banned himself. But given his sysop status, he can unban himself at any time. It is possible that he will return, so I'll leave these unprotected for now. They're not likely to be vandalised without anyone noticing for a while -- boxy ^{talk • i} 11:32 9 October 2008 (BST)

Ok, thanks for the confirmation. Linkthewindow ^Talk 11:42, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Given that the current Misconduct case is likely to strip him of that status, and he can unprotect them and edit them easily if he decides to unban himself, I'd still prefer these protecting to save them from any recriminations from trolls when the majority of the community wakes up. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:46, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Yeah, protect his user page as that will be a prime target for trolls, IMO. However, the community does deserve their voice so protecting his talk page will just make people more annoyed. I'm gonna imagine that this wiki will be nightmarish when I wake up (and when my US comrades are on their interwebs.) Linkthewindow ^Talk 13:07, 9 October 2008 (BST)

His user page is already protected. It is standard practice to protect the talk page of anyone who has been banned to prevent drama and retaliation. I added the others to pro-actively prevent vandalism. I know of no good reason why these have not already been protected. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 13:09, 9 October 2008 (BST)

I knew it would happen.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 15:49, 9 October 2008 (BST)

It's now open season. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:00, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Done. -- Cheese 21:12, 9 October 2008 (BST)

User:Midianian/Archives/Talk/2007-2008

Change the User:Midianian/Greasemonkey link to User:Midianian/Userscripts in my last comment in the GM Scripts section. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 15:29, 29 September 2008 (BST)

Done. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:00, 29 September 2008 (BST)

User:Cyberbob240/Sig

unprotect plox --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 10:34, 26 September 2008 (BST)

Mmmm, be nice now, Bob -- boxy ^{talk • i} 10:56 26 September 2008 (BST)

lolwut --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 18:21, 26 September 2008 (BST)

Southall Mansion

Requesting page protection as per this edit as my version is the one agreed by multiple group consensus. This will avert an edit war and encourage the arbitration process that has already begun. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:21, 26 September 2008 (BST)

Done -- boxy ^{talk • i} 09:49 26 September 2008 (BST)

UZM

Please add the (delete) template to this page, as a formal deletion request has been submitted. Thanks. --WanYao 18:55, 22 September 2008 (BST)

Cheese. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:46, 22 September 2008 (BST)

UZM

Until the status of this page can somehow be decided upon, I am requesting that UZM be protected to stop the ongoing edit war. I also request that this edit be the version used -- because it is the most recent edit which was not decided upon unilaterally by zeug. Thanks. --WanYao 17:18, 22 September 2008 (BST)

Cheesy did it. I think that's a record for the most undos in that short period of time.... --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:28, 22 September 2008 (BST)

Since the history purge anyway. :P -- Cheese 18:38, 22 September 2008 (BST

Protections Scheduling Queue

Protection Scheduling requests should be requested in the same general format as Deletions. Votes will occur in the same general manner, and like deletion scheduling requests will be voted on for two (2) weeks, as judged by the initial datestamp. Valid votes are:

• Yea - Approval of Schedule Request
• Nay - Disapproval of Schedule Request

Finished Arby Cases

With the new arbitration format, we'll need to protect the pages once the case is closed. Just so we can protect them if someone's forgot to put in a request for us to do so. -- Cheese

• Yea - I'm not sure if this is covered by the archive thingy below since it's a new format. -- Cheese 12:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Yea - i was about to ask this kind of pages to be added to the protection schedule, lol --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 12:57, 31 March 2008 (BST)

  Well thats been over a month and there have been no objections so I'll stick this as scheduled. -- Cheese 23:37, 7 May 2008 (BST)

  When the hell did this go up and why would you not actually check to see that it is already scheduled before proposing it?--Karek^maps?! 05:37, 8 May 2008 (BST)

  End of March...and where? -- Cheese 23:49, 13 May 2008 (BST)

  See below --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 00:06, 14 May 2008 (BST)

  UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Archivewhateva. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:29, 14 May 2008 (BST)