UDWiki:Administration/Protections/Archive/2011 06: Difference between revisions
(Re-add {{ProtectionsArchiveNavigation}} – Don't know how we lost it, but don't remove it!) |
(→Template:Unsigned: <!-- Don't remove below this line! -->) |
||
Line 360: | Line 360: | ||
:No worries, I'll handle the rest myself. Cycling – cheers! {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 07:10, 15 April 2011 (BST) | :No worries, I'll handle the rest myself. Cycling – cheers! {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 07:10, 15 April 2011 (BST) | ||
<!-- Don't remove this! --> | <!-- Don't remove below this line! --> | ||
---- | |||
{{ProtectionsArchiveNavigation}} | {{ProtectionsArchiveNavigation}} |
Revision as of 22:55, 4 May 2011
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.
Protection Queue
Everything in Category:Suggestions pages requiring protection
--The General T U! P! F! 20:37, 4 May 2011 (BST)
User:Iscariot
I'm sure it was requested, but can anyone find where? I've checked the relevant A/PT archives and found nothing. It should have been linked in the protection itself and logged here, or at the very least one of those. Yon, Ross, can either of you enlighten me? And assuming it's valid, should we perhaps protect his sig as well?
N.B. I am raising this on a relevant talk page instead of taking this straight to A/M. Because that's what good wiki users do, fucking discuss first. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:30, 2 May 2011 (BST)
- Mmmm, don't know. I can't find any specific things either, Yon may have protected it by accidentally thinking that Iscariot wanted his talk page and his userpage protected. Either that or he did it whilst protecting a lot of other pages that were protected before SA's "coup" and were unprotected upon undeletion. And thanks for being the bigger man and discussing it here, I don't know WHAT would happen if I had to deal with it on A/M! -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 05:42, 2 May 2011 (BST)
- Or it could have been when Izzy requested his page deleted and Cheese and Thad had a QQ and had it undeleted cause he didn't request it on the wiki, so Yon thought the next best thing was protection? Who knows hey, izzys page has been mangled so bad I just don't know, might as well wait for Yon -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 05:45, 2 May 2011 (BST)
- Mmm, with Iscariot on indefinite wiki-break it's not really time-critical, but definitely worth taking the time to review. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 06:45, 2 May 2011 (BST)
- Absolutely. As it stands at the moment, it looks like Yonnua has accidentally protected Izzy's page indefinitely without legit reason. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 07:18, 2 May 2011 (BST)
- Honestly couldn't remember it, so I went and had a look, and it looks like it was part of the SA undeletions and reprotections. I'll unprotect it now (because obviously it shouldn't be protected) and I'll take a warning if you guys (team as a whole) think I should.--Yonnua Koponen T G P ^^^ 13:14, 2 May 2011 (BST)
- There's also the talk page, which Ross protected: what was the deal with that?
And if you want to talk warnings, make a Misconduct case so it's official and shit. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 13:19, 2 May 2011 (BST)- It was all to do with Iscariots vandal data part 503. Was that in Aichons user area? --Rosslessness 13:21, 2 May 2011 (BST)
- this be the talk page request. --Rosslessness 13:28, 2 May 2011 (BST)
- But I don't think he requested a userpage protection as part of that, he asked for deletion. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 14:33, 2 May 2011 (BST)
- It was all to do with Iscariots vandal data part 503. Was that in Aichons user area? --Rosslessness 13:21, 2 May 2011 (BST)
- There's also the talk page, which Ross protected: what was the deal with that?
- Honestly couldn't remember it, so I went and had a look, and it looks like it was part of the SA undeletions and reprotections. I'll unprotect it now (because obviously it shouldn't be protected) and I'll take a warning if you guys (team as a whole) think I should.--Yonnua Koponen T G P ^^^ 13:14, 2 May 2011 (BST)
- Absolutely. As it stands at the moment, it looks like Yonnua has accidentally protected Izzy's page indefinitely without legit reason. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 07:18, 2 May 2011 (BST)
- Mmm, with Iscariot on indefinite wiki-break it's not really time-critical, but definitely worth taking the time to review. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 06:45, 2 May 2011 (BST)
- Or it could have been when Izzy requested his page deleted and Cheese and Thad had a QQ and had it undeleted cause he didn't request it on the wiki, so Yon thought the next best thing was protection? Who knows hey, izzys page has been mangled so bad I just don't know, might as well wait for Yon -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 05:45, 2 May 2011 (BST)
The best I've got is. Deletion Request, and Undeletion the day Yon protected it. --Rosslessness 13:50, 2 May 2011 (BST)
Mmkay. Cheers. Would anyone object to me a) emailing Iscariot for confirmation on the deletion, and 2) moving this to A/M so we can continue this official-like? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:13, 3 May 2011 (BST)
- Objection!~ 04:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- … Yes? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 07:21, 3 May 2011 (BST)
- No not really. It's your prerogative. I just wanted to say Objection! I just hope this has nothing to do with the A/VB dramashitfest of yesterday. If you were to take it to Misconduct, I'd give Yon a statute of limitation and likely rule "Not". Plus, Yon's protection comment mentions "re-protecting" and so I can assume he at least thought he had good reason for it, even if it was a misunderstanding. I think you should just let it go honestly but like I said, your perogative. ~ 07:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- … Yes? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 07:21, 3 May 2011 (BST)
- I sure hope the faithful brigade let a crit 7 get deleted when requested off wiki this time -.- -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 07:26, 3 May 2011 (BST)
- He needs to request it here himself. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 08:06, 3 May 2011 (BST)
- There's no reason he can't request it properly, if he really wants it. Has this been dealt with to everyone's satisfaction (so we can move it down)? -- boxy 09:23, 3 May 2011 (BST)
- And why would a screenshot of said email not be good enough? There's really no reason to make him jump through stupid hoops. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 22:12, 3 May 2011 (BST)
- This. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 00:32, 4 May 2011 (BST)
- Only happened because people are stupidly trying to give Iscariot a taste of his own medicine. Hopefully the fact that I'm the one saying it makes how pathetic this whole drama is really fucking obvious. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 02:42, 4 May 2011 (BST)
- Maybe some are, but for me, I just see it as a terrible precedent to set. I have no idea what a user's email is, or what accounts they use on other forums, so how can I reliably evaluate it? And we're not making him jump through hoops. Posting a request on A/SD is no harder than making a post on an outside forum or emailing someone. I'd look at making an exception if there was some reason he couldn't access the wiki, but simply choosing not to is just trying to make us go against clear policy for no good reason -- boxy 03:10, 4 May 2011 (BST)
- If you have any doubt that this is Iscariot, there is a bridge in Sydney that I would like to sell you. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:52, 4 May 2011 (BST)
- … Iscariot ? WTF? Izzy was a girl ? -People's Commissar Hagnat [talk] [wcdz] 12:24, 4 May 2011 (BST)
- Pretty sure Izzy is a woman trapped in a man's body.--T | BALLS! | 13:14 4 May 2011(UTC)
- That sure explains A LOT of stuff. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hagnat (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.
| - He's a guy, Hagnat. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 13:50, 4 May 2011 (BST)
- “… the given name of a male or female.” ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 17:25, 4 May 2011 (BST)
- Pretty sure Izzy is a woman trapped in a man's body.--T | BALLS! | 13:14 4 May 2011(UTC)
- Whether it is or not, doesn't make a bit of difference to the fact that approving this deletion would be opening the way for sysops to delete anything just by saying "the author contacted me off site". It would also open the way for smart arses to request deletions, and then come back crying that it wasn't really them... kinda like they cry about people mock-vandalising their pages at the moment.
Just too open to abuse by too many parties -- boxy 12:31, 4 May 2011 (BST)- I'm fully agreeing to Boxy. What is done on the wiki, should be requested on the wiki where we can undoubtedly confirm that it is really the user in question, and where the original request can be centrally stored (rather than to be stored in offsite e-mail and forums accounts, where we might not be able to retrieve them one day as ops get inactive and vanish from the wiki). Exceptions should only be granted when there is some kind of technical impossibility to get on the wiki, like someone who's home connection breaks down and who can't access the wiki from work. -- Spiderzed█ 13:25, 4 May 2011 (BST)
- … Iscariot ? WTF? Izzy was a girl ? -People's Commissar Hagnat [talk] [wcdz] 12:24, 4 May 2011 (BST)
- If you have any doubt that this is Iscariot, there is a bridge in Sydney that I would like to sell you. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:52, 4 May 2011 (BST)
- Maybe some are, but for me, I just see it as a terrible precedent to set. I have no idea what a user's email is, or what accounts they use on other forums, so how can I reliably evaluate it? And we're not making him jump through hoops. Posting a request on A/SD is no harder than making a post on an outside forum or emailing someone. I'd look at making an exception if there was some reason he couldn't access the wiki, but simply choosing not to is just trying to make us go against clear policy for no good reason -- boxy 03:10, 4 May 2011 (BST)
- Only happened because people are stupidly trying to give Iscariot a taste of his own medicine. Hopefully the fact that I'm the one saying it makes how pathetic this whole drama is really fucking obvious. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 02:42, 4 May 2011 (BST)
- This. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 00:32, 4 May 2011 (BST)
- And why would a screenshot of said email not be good enough? There's really no reason to make him jump through stupid hoops. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 22:12, 3 May 2011 (BST)
Right to vanish, guys. We've long permitted things like unblock requests to be passed along via trusted users; why should this be any different? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 16:05, 4 May 2011 (BST)
- Revenant, I haven't really decided whether I agree with you here or not, but can you please stop linking to wikipedia and pretending it has any relevance to our wiki? It's really annoying when I click the link expecting UDWiki policy and find that it's yet another document which isn't part of our system of rules.--Yonnua Koponen T G P ^^^ 16:10, 4 May 2011 (BST)
- Right. Of course. The world's biggest wiki could have absolutely no relevance to our little fiefdom. Whatever was I thinking? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 17:20, 4 May 2011 (BST)
- Apart of the technical foundation, wikipedia has indeed only accidental relevance for this wiki. We could as well quote the Bill of Rights or the US Constitution or the Grundgesetz or the Bible to make a point. There will be overlaps, but that doesn't make these works in any way relevant for the wiki adminstration either. -- Spiderzed█ 17:45, 4 May 2011 (BST)
- PROTIP: This issue has been relevant since shortly after Ward fucking invented wikis. Go teach your grandmother to suck eggs. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 17:59, 4 May 2011 (BST)
- Actually we've always treated that stuff as relevant. Our wiki was designed to imitate wikipedia when it comes to general user policy. The reason being that they've dealt with all of this before, many times, and generally have a better understanding of best practices. If we can have trusted users verifying that it is Iscariot then there is no reason why we shouldn't delete this. We've done it before but I'd rather not dig up links right now. I'll leave that to Rev if he so see's fit. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 18:10, 4 May 2011 (BST)
- Note that I talk about applying policies or guidelines from elsewhere in general. If we were to use Wikipedia as our constitution, among other things DDR would have to stop contributing immediately I see no issue with Right To Leave in particular, especially since it makes no mention of off-site requests -- Spiderzed█ 18:25, 4 May 2011 (BST)
- Apart of the technical foundation, wikipedia has indeed only accidental relevance for this wiki. We could as well quote the Bill of Rights or the US Constitution or the Grundgesetz or the Bible to make a point. There will be overlaps, but that doesn't make these works in any way relevant for the wiki adminstration either. -- Spiderzed█ 17:45, 4 May 2011 (BST)
- Right. Of course. The world's biggest wiki could have absolutely no relevance to our little fiefdom. Whatever was I thinking? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 17:20, 4 May 2011 (BST)
- Because they are being petty schmucks that would get off on forcing Judith come before them to beg?--T | BALLS! | 16:11 4 May 2011(UTC) |
Administration Templates
Both it and all the listed templates could do with protecting, as they don't need to be edited by normal users. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 10:01, 30 April 2011 (BST)
- I've got some edits planned for both when I have a few minutes actually. So I'mma request this be put off for about a week. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 13:48, 30 April 2011 (BST)
- yeah no harm in Karko having a go. Although in like a week you'll possibly be op anyway eh -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 16:26, 30 April 2011 (BST)
- I wouldn't be protecting the admin archive nav templates (such as Deletearchivenav), as regular users should be able to do the routine maintanence like changing over at the begining of a new month -- boxy 07:53, 3 May 2011 (BST)
Requested Edits
Place pages requiring editing here.
Recent Actions
Still more suggestions pages
- Suggestions/8th-Apr-2007
- Suggestions/7th-Sept-2006
- Suggestions/7th-Oct-2006
- Suggestions/7th-Nov-2006
- Suggestions/7th-Mar-2007
- Suggestions/7th-Feb-2007
- Suggestions/7th-Apr-2007
- Suggestions/6th-Sept-2006
- Suggestions/6th-Oct-2006
- Suggestions/6th-Mar-2007
- Suggestions/6th-Feb-2007
- Suggestions/5th-Oct-2006
- Suggestions/5th-Nov-2006
- Suggestions/5th-Mar-2007
- Suggestions/5th-Feb-2007
- Suggestions/5th-Apr-2007
- Suggestions/4th-Sept-2006
- Suggestions/4th-Oct-2006
- Suggestions/4th-Mar-2007
- Suggestions/4th-Feb-2007
- Suggestions/4th-Apr-2007
- Suggestions/3rd-Sept-2006
- Suggestions/3rd-Nov-2006
- Suggestions/3rd-Nov-2006
- Suggestions/3rd-Mar-2007
- Suggestions/3rd-Feb-2007
- Suggestions/3rd-Apr-2007
- Suggestions/31th-Aug-2006
- Suggestions/31st-Mar-2007
- Suggestions/30th-Sept-2006
- Suggestions/30th-Nov-2006
- Suggestions/9th-Sept-2006
- Suggestions/9th-Nov-2006
- Suggestions/9th-Feb-2007
- Suggestions/9th-Aug-2006
- Suggestions/9th-Apr-2007
- Suggestions/8th-Sept-2006
- Suggestions/8th-Nov-2006
- Suggestions/8th-Mar-2007
- Suggestions/8th-Feb-2007
- Suggestions/March2007
- Suggestions/April2007
--The General T U! P! F! 20:06, 3 May 2011 (BST)
If I may suggest
In the interests of efficiency, why not just slap a unique category on 'em, say Category:Old Suggestions or similar, and then link that here and let us know when you're done? That way we can also easily move 'em to the correct namespace. This is one of the things categories excel at. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 23:21, 3 May 2011 (BST)
- Not a bad idea: I'll do that for the rest of them. Just to note, though: I don't believe they actually need to be moved into a new namespace.--The General T U! P! F! 00:05, 4 May 2011 (BST)
Yet more Suggestions pages
- Suggestions/20th-Apr-2007
- Suggestions/1st-Sept-2006
- Suggestions/1st-Oct-2006
- Suggestions/1st-Nov-2006
- Suggestions/1st-May-2007
- Suggestions/1st-Mar-2007
- Suggestions/1st-Feb-2007
- Suggestions/19th-Sept-2006
- Suggestions/19th-Oct-2006
- Suggestions/19th-Nov-2006
- Suggestions/19th-Mar-2007
- Suggestions/18th-Sept-2006
- Suggestions/18th-Oct-2006
- Suggestions/18th-Nov-2006
- Suggestions/18th-Mar-2007
- Suggestions/17th-Sept-2006
- Suggestions/17th-Oct-2006
- Suggestions/17th-Nov-2006
- Suggestions/17th-Mar-2007
- Suggestions/17th-Feb-2007
- Suggestions/17th-Apr-2007
- Suggestions/16th-Sept-2006
- Suggestions/16th-Oct-2006
- Suggestions/16th-Nov-2006
- Suggestions/16th-Mar-2007
- Suggestions/16th-Feb-2007
- Suggestions/16th-Apr-2007
- Suggestions/15th-Oct-2006
- [[Suggestions/15th-Nov-2006]i]
- Suggestions/15th-Mar-2007
- Suggestions/15th-Feb-2007
Checked through the first 200 now (only 400 more to go!)--The General T U! P! F! 10:50, 3 May 2011 (BST)
- Out of interest, what's the go with these? I'm very sure I protected everything under the Suggestions namespaces a while ago :( -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 12:06, 3 May 2011 (BST)
- Not sure, they're archives from the previous system: Some of them are protected, some of them aren't. I'm guessing that you missed some.--The General T U! P! F! 12:43, 3 May 2011 (BST)
- It's because they aren't technically "in" the Suggestions namespace because they have a forwardslash instead of a colon. I went bonkers on the ones I found in the namespace but the slash vs colon thing is something I didn't think of. Anwyays, done. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 12:57, 3 May 2011 (BST)
- That would be correct: They aren't technically in the namespace.--The General T U! P! F! 13:34, 3 May 2011 (BST)
- It's because they aren't technically "in" the Suggestions namespace because they have a forwardslash instead of a colon. I went bonkers on the ones I found in the namespace but the slash vs colon thing is something I didn't think of. Anwyays, done. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 12:57, 3 May 2011 (BST)
- Not sure, they're archives from the previous system: Some of them are protected, some of them aren't. I'm guessing that you missed some.--The General T U! P! F! 12:43, 3 May 2011 (BST)
More suggestions pages
- Previous Days Suggestions
- Suggestions/10th-Apr-2007
- Suggestions/10th-Feb-2007
- Suggestions/10th-Mar-2007
- Suggestions/11th-Apr-2007
- Suggestions/10th-Sept-2006
- Suggestions/10th-Oct-2006
- Suggestions/10th-Nov-2006
- Suggestions/11th-Feb-2007
- Suggestions/11th-Mar-2007
There's more to come, I'm just saving this while I switch computers.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 23:23, 2 May 2011 (BST)
- Suggestions/13th-Feb-2007
- Suggestions/12th-Sept-2006
- Suggestions/12th-Oct-2006
- Suggestions/12th-Nov-2006
- Suggestions/12th-Mar-2007
- Suggestions/12th-Feb-2007
- Suggestions/12th-Apr-2007
- Suggestions/11th-Sept-2006
- Suggestions/11th-Oct-2006
- Suggestions/13th-Mar-2007
- Suggestions/13th-Nov-2006
- Suggestions/13th-Sept-2006
- Suggestions/15th-Apr-2007
- Suggestions/14th-Oct-2006
- Suggestions/14th-Nov-2006
- Suggestions/14th-Mar-2007
- Suggestions/14th-Feb-2007
More.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 23:28, 2 May 2011 (BST)
Sweet Jeebus I thought I'd never get through them. Hurry up and run for op, General. ~ 00:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- There's still a lot more to come. I've only checked through the first hundred or so :P.--The General T U! P! F! 08:53, 3 May 2011 (BST)
Suggestions pages
- Suggestion:20070226_Armor_Piercing_Bullets
- Suggestion:20051113 Bullhorn
- Suggestion:20070418 CCTV
- Suggestion:20060712 Chunks for Syringe Manufacture
- Suggestion:20070202 Cigarettes
- Suggestion:20060807 City Map v1
- Suggestion:20070419 City Map v2
- Suggestion:20061003 Digital Camera
- Suggestion:20060601 Ear Plugs
- Suggestion:20051113 GPS Phone
- Suggestion:20060427 Heart Monitor
- Suggestion:20070424 Jukebox
- Suggestion:20051129 Money
- Suggestion:2007042007 Movie Posters
- Suggestion:20051231 NecroTech Access Cards
- Suggestion:20070413 Telescope
- Suggestion:20051223 Watches
And while we're at it, these Previous Days Suggestions pages should probably be protected too:
- Suggestions/18th-Apr-2007
- Suggestions/19th-Apr-2007
- Suggestions/3rd-Oct-2006
- Suggestions/24th-Apr-2007
- Suggestions/14th-Apr-2007
- Suggestions/13th-Apr-2007
--The General T Sys U! P! F! 17:58, 1 May 2011 (BST)
I've protected the individual suggestion pages. Probably do the others later. --Rosslessness 18:08, 1 May 2011 (BST) Done --Rosslessness 13:39, 2 May 2011 (BST)
Shortcuts
Every shortcut listed on that page could do with protecting, as they don't need to be edited by normal users. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 10:01, 30 April 2011 (BST)
User:The General/sig
Might be good to remove the "system operator" spantext in order to avoid outright impersonation.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 15:17, 30 April 2011 (BST)
VandalismDone. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 15:22, 30 April 2011 (BST)- Can de-protect it for you, if you want? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 15:23, 30 April 2011 (BST)
- olol, Thad deprotected it, I made the requested change. Lol Misconducts? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 15:36, 30 April 2011 (BST)
- I don't particularly mind if its protected or not. The reason I didn't actually request unprotection is because I don't edit it that often and the sig is included in quite a number of admin pages, which potentially makes for easy vandalism.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 16:32, 30 April 2011 (BST)
A/PM Stuffs
- Template:A/PM/06
- Template:A/PM/07
- Template:A/PM/08
- Template:A/PM/09
- Template:A/PM/10
Template:A/PM/11This one isn't protected yet.- All need category Category:Nav Templates added to their pages.--Karekmaps 2.0?! 10:05, 23 April 2011 (BST)
Template:Locationblock
Shouldn't this be categorised under Category:Location Templates?--The General T Sys U! P! F! 18:01, 19 April 2011 (BST)
Template:Verdict
These changes should probably be implemented to make it into this more code conservative version. Hopefully there won't be any opposition to it, and should it be necessary the colored text can be added to Template:V if it's really felt that it's worth pushing the limits(We've got 40,000 lebensraum on A/VB) to have it and this change should save ~400 per template call. --Karekmaps?! 08:25, 15 April 2011 (BST)
- Note This template has been called 17 times, and that would increase the free space something on the order of 20% if my maths are right. --Karekmaps?! 08:29, 15 April 2011 (BST)
- I'm going to hold off on doing this until its done being discussed on its talk, but to me this looks good.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 11:16, 15 April 2011 (BST)
Template:Shortcut
{{Shortcut}} is used mostly on high-visibility admin pages and isn't likely to need editing anytime soon. Seems like a prime candidate to me. Opinions? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 02:36, 16 April 2011 (BST)
- Well, I actually just mutilated it but now it should be totally good. --Karekmaps?! 04:27, 16 April 2011 (BST)
“ | 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. | ” |
Historical Group Voting Policy
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:
-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. --Karekmaps?! 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)
- It's simple English. It means the following criteria need to be met within the next two weeks for the page to qualify. Anyone that tries to argue that is kinda a douche really and not worth considering. The And would clarify it as a list, not that the commas don't already do that and would just be better English. Something like this.--Karekmaps?! 23:48, 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)
- But it doesn't matter if they qualify on Day 1, Day 2, Day 10, or any day "within" two weeks. It only matters if they have qualified (through meeting the required number of votes and reaching 2/3 yes votes) at the end of voting after two weeks. There is no reason, at all, to have the word "within" anywhere in the policy. My point is the word only adds to the possibility of confusion, and if we are going to change it, well, we might as well make it right from the beginning. Why keep it if you don't have to?-MHSstaff 00:08, 11 April 2011 (BST)
Damn it Jim, I'm a sysop, not an English major. Tell me what, if any changes to make and I'll do it. ~ 02:24, 11 April 2011
- I'll defer to your sysop judgment. It's basically item 3 on the Adding to the Category section. I wouldn't mind seeing it rewritten to what is shown in the OP above to make the letter of the law more clearly match the spirit of the law. Not really an earth-shattering change though.-MHSstaff 01:31, 12 April 2011 (BST)
so does this mean the ck bid was successful? -- The preceding signed comment was added by these amazing looking
bitch 03:16 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I think that guy was just being a nitpick, I don't think this is necessary at all :( But I won't mind if people really want to change it just to clarify. I guess. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 05:05, 11 April 2011 (BST)
- Sorry DDR, but my point was made in perfect seriousness. Policies which can be misinterpreted and read in multiple ways are bad policies and must be struck down. The "within" in the policy as it stands serves to make two weeks the maximum time voting must run for as opposed to being the prescribed voting time it was intended to be. I think MHS' alternate wording is a vast improvement. Gordon 20:33, 11 April 2011 (BST)
Holy fuck, GTFO! The policy's intent is clear. The vote goes for two weeks, and as long as it gains the required number of votes, and required percentage, it passes. It is not closed earlier just because it suddenly gains the right percentage at any point in time before two weeks is up... that would just be batshit insane. Basically, change it as Karek said, or leave it be, and keep the current (correct) interpretation -- boxy talk • teh rulz 13:17 14 April 2011 (BST)
- And the harm in actually "writing that out" is...? There is no real downside to making something more clear. Karek's change doesn't really address the misleading part, which is the decision is actually made after two weeks, and not within two weeks. What is hilarious is actually making the change would take less time than going back and forth on this. -MHSstaff 07:37, 15 April 2011 (BST)
I went with Karek's suggestion. Basically, there didn't seem to be any misunderstanding when the policy was voted upon and until now there have been no misunderstandings in the 5 years since the policy was enacted. A very slight clarification is all that is really warranted. If any person truly feels the wording of the policy goes against the spirit of the policy, then they should put it up to vote via A/PD. ~ 07:31, 15 April 2011
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? -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 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. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 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. --Karekmaps?! 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. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 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. --Karekmaps?! 09:33, 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. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 09:14, 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. --Karekmaps?! 09:10, 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)
- 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. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 09:04, 7 April 2011 (BST)
No discussion in over a week. Consensus seems to be no protection is needed. Cycled Unprotected. ~ 07:04, 15 April 2011
Misconduct Archives
Karek made the archives but it needs the following link archive code on the main page.
*[[UDWiki talk:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/2008|2008 Archive]]
*[[UDWiki talk:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/2009|2009 Archive]]
-MHSstaff 01:54, 15 April 2011 (BST)
*[[UDWiki talk:Administration/Misconduct/Archive|Main]]
**[[UDWiki talk:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/2007|2007 Archive]]
**[[UDWiki talk:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/2008|2008 Archive]]
**[[UDWiki talk:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/2009|2009 Archive]]
- Actually, here's what's used on the other archives. --Karekmaps?! 02:05, 15 April 2011 (BST)
Template:Vndl
All of This. --Karekmaps?! 02:27, 15 April 2011 (BST)
Template:Bot
I'm done with it, and everyone else with editing interest in it is a Sysop. It should be protected like the other Administration Templates. I can request it through here if any more quick changes come up. --Karekmaps?! 02:31, 15 April 2011 (BST)
- Protected ~ Red Hawk One Talk | space for lease 04:40, 15 April 2011 (BST)
Administration/Misconduct/Archive/2008 and Administration/Misconduct/Archive/2009
New Archives for the talk page. Although we'd probably be better served with Archive 1 Archive 2 formats for actual page discussion a format is a format.--Karekmaps?! 01:46, 15 April 2011 (BST)
- Protected ~ Red Hawk One Talk | space for lease 04:40, 15 April 2011 (BST)
Some of my user pages
Re-protected my user page, sig and archive. =3 -- Cheese 12:49, 14 April 2011 (BST)
UDWiki:Administration
Needs {{shortcut|A}} added to the top of the page. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 02:52, 12 April 2011 (BST)
Template:Unsigned
Would be improved by linking default "at an unknown time" text to page history. Also, documentation could use improving via template docs (c.f. Wikipedia). ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 02:52, 12 April 2011 (BST)
- Also changing of the category to Wiki Templates might not be the worst idea ever considering it's more of a notice than a general use utility. --Karekmaps?! 03:20, 12 April 2011 (BST)
- I linked "unknown time" to page history and updated the category. Not sure what you had in mind for the documentation. Now that you have butans, I'm sure this is only a mild inconvenience. ~ 05:57, 13 April 2011
- This comment left intentionally unsigned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vapor (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.
- I linked "unknown time" to page history and updated the category. Not sure what you had in mind for the documentation. Now that you have butans, I'm sure this is only a mild inconvenience. ~ 05:57, 13 April 2011
Are we there yet? -- boxy talk • teh rulz 13:17 14 April 2011 (BST)
Protections Archive | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|