UDWiki talk:Administration/Deletions

Archive

• Archive, from 2006 to 2008

Discussion

Guideline Clarification Requested

Apparently we need some sort of clarification on the deletion guidelines for how long something with three speedy deletes and no keeps needs to be up on the deletions page before it can be deleted. Otherwise we get interpretations like this. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 23:21, 3 August 2009 (BST)

You don't need everything spelled out for you. It met the initial criteria, it had 3 speedy deletes, and there was a 2nd sysop/Crat that would have deleted them himself. The only keep votes weren't based on the content (which is why the pages were up for deletion) and were placed a day later. There is nothing wrong with this. Stop looking for drama.--– Nubis ^NWO 03:50, 4 August 2009 (BST)

No but, you might. That counts as a valid keep and the whole point of that policy is to allow for discussion on the images if a reasonable request for such is brought up. So, basically, it's for exactly the kind of thing Akule was trying to use it for, time frame is irrelevant if you can't reach it before that and if you can then it would have been a legitimate reason to start an undeletion discussion but you didn't. It's a very easy case for misconduct and horribly counter productive, especially if you had tried to strong arm that later on. --Karek^maps?! 04:22, 4 August 2009 (BST)

Those were pages. If they had been images I wouldn't have put them on here because there is a schedule for unused images. These were orphans that have been on that list that anyone including Akule and J3D are more than welcome to try and link. I don't see them doing that.

None of the pages had been updated in the last 6 months or longer.(usually longer but that is a low estimate). A few of them didn't even have parent groups to link back to. What is the point of keeping a recruitment page for a group that no longer exists even as a page saying they no longer exist?

The counterproductive mindset of this overly bureaucratic wiki sucks. --– Nubis ^NWO 13:39, 4 August 2009 (BST)

If you'd have put them on A/SD instead of A/D they would have been long gone. You went out of your way to get the obligatory "disc space = cheep" keep votes, and then ignored them anyway because they weren't to your liking -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 16:15 4 August 2009 (BST)

No, I didn't go out of my way to get any votes. I posted them there (like I said) in case someone wanted to claim them, because maybe they didn't realize their old side project was an orphan and had forgotten about it. That's the thing with orphans. If you don't have them linked you can't always find them.

VVV - HonestMistake, if you are going to be in the conversation can you at least try to keep up? That isn't even close to what I was saying. You missed the part where I pointed out that the recruitment page had no main group to link back to. Hence it "doesn't exist" because it was deleted under crit. 12. VVVVV--– Nubis ^NWO 14:20, 5 August 2009 (BST)

Yeah! Nubis is totally right! What's the point of keeping a recruitment page for a group that no longer exists? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 21:55, 4 August 2009 (BST)

I'm failing to see which group was historical in the list of deleted pages. :/ -- High Overlord and Lead Conspirator of the Administrative Rebellion. Want help? 17:00, 5 August 2009 (BST)

I'm not indicating that one of those groups were historical, I'm merely pointing out the fallacy in the argument of "What is the point of keeping a recruitment page for a group that no longer exists?" --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 21:01, 5 August 2009 (BST)

Hmm, I think a Historical Group is way fucking different. Confirmed inactive non-historic groups are fair game to have their pages deleted.--SirArgo ^Talk 21:19, 5 August 2009 (BST)

Actually, it seems that I do. There's that whole section of the deletion guidelines that says: "If 3 Speedy Deletes are lodged, and there are no Keep Votes, the page will be deleted as per Speedy Deletions." When the keep votes were placed is irrelevant, as you got to it after they were placed, thus it should have gone through the two weeks. Now, where are you getting this idea that the keep votes weren't based on content? I looked over the pages and then voted keep on the ones I felt had enough information to keep for the wiki, and voted speedy delete on the rest. Hence why I asked that we define a specific time between the placement of 3 votes of speedy delete and no keep votes and the actual deletion, because as it stands, it is very open to possible abuse, which you seem all too glad to do. Maybe it's just me (but it looks like other people feel the same), but I believe it is bad form to put something up for deletion and then delete it yourself, regardless of what people voted. As for your drama accusation, we could all head over to misconduct if you feel like it, but I figured time would be better spent defining a time-frame for that part of the guideline and simply undelete the pages in order for them to go through their two weeks. My mistake. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 21:55, 4 August 2009 (BST)

Why does literally everything have to be 100% CODIFIED IN TRIPLICATE WITNESSED BY TWO MONKEYS AND THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD? Is it so hard for you to deal with things on a case-by-case basis? All signs point to yes. Cyberbob  Talk  04:22, 5 August 2009 (BST)

It's not to do with case-by-case basis. And even if you were so inlined to treat it as such, they were borderline crit1s which is why Nubis didn't bother bringing them to A/SD. I don't appreciate him treating them like they were anyway, and I don't like the fact that he threw them on there, ignored keep votes and went against the norm of the deletions process. --ϑϑℜ 04:32, 5 August 2009 (BST)

There's no "borderline" about those pages. They are very very very NO CONTENT pages. There are many pages in the orphan section that have a lot more content on them than those but will never be linked to anything. Those had NOTHING on them. --– Nubis ^NWO 14:20, 5 August 2009 (BST)

Oh I'm sorry, here I was crediting you with the knowledge of the wiki when I really should have just assumed that you were a fuckup who didn't know the difference between A/D and A/SD. You deserve all that you get for A/Ding them then, you fucking imbecile. --ϑϑℜ 17:27, 5 August 2009 (BST)

We may not have a civility policy, but hot damn can we all be a bit more professional? >:| -- High Overlord and Lead Conspirator of the Administrative Rebellion. Want help? 20:31, 5 August 2009 (BST)

Obviously it could have been handled better (by going to A/SD as you say), but I'm not inclined to believe that this is ever going to be something that happens more often than maybe once or twice a year (if that). There's no use in a policy that guards against an action which is controversial at best and is a long shot to really ever happen again anyway. Cyberbob  Talk  04:37, 5 August 2009 (BST)

Do we seriously have to make a policy for it? I mean, I will if I have to, but I was just asking the sysops just sit down and agree on some sort of time-frame on what is and what is not an acceptable amount of time to speedy delete something that has 3 or more speedy delete and no keep votes on the Deletions page. I was hoping that it would be something like the conception of soft warnings. I.e. an unofficial agreement that becomes precedent for future actions, but without having to make a policy for it. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 21:01, 5 August 2009 (BST)

If there's a sysop around the page could get canned right away and it'd be within the rules, so there's no point allowing for extra time on late keeps since it's a matter of chance that they'll even be able to be cast. This minor amendment would do it I think (change in red):

• If 3 Speedy Deletes are lodged, and there are no Keep Votes, voting ends and the page will be deleted as per Speedy Deletions.

Late votes are invalidated so there's no conflict. --  RoosterDragon  22:57, 5 August 2009 (BST)

I'm just pointing out that it could easily be abused in that manner. Example: Say sysop A is elected. He has friends , Users B, C, D, and E. User B puts up RRF for deletion and users C, D, and E quickly vote Speedy Delete and Sysop A quickly deletes it "according to the rules". I am not saying this is what happened here. I am just saying that it could happen. Hence why I was saying that I feel we should have them wait a day before processing for people to see it, and if there is no {{delete}} template on the page, it is not processed until the template is placed onto it. It's not like the A/D is stuffed full of cases, and most content that is supposed to be A/SDed, will be Speedy Deleted, as per those guidelines. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 23:16, 5 August 2009 (BST)

The rules say to delete it according to SD guidelines, so deleting non-SD content isn't inside the rules. There's no loophole there. --  RoosterDragon  00:04, 6 August 2009 (BST)

Yeah I'm pretty sure that's not what you were saying at all Akule. Whoops! Cyberbob  Talk  00:32, 6 August 2009 (BST)

After some IRC discussion with Karek and DDR it appears my initial reasoning was made on an unsound foundation. Instead I'd like to suggest this change which has a minimum timespan:

• If 3 Speedy Deletes are lodged, there are no valid Keep Votes, and voting has lasted at least 48 hours, the page will be deleted as per Speedy Deletions.

A sysop deleting a page with a keep vote even if it met the above requirement at some prior point in voting would be acting against the rules. Is this sufficient? --  RoosterDragon  04:57, 6 August 2009 (BST)

2 stoopid

ARE PEOPLE STILL GIVING THIS CASE ATTENTION????? --xoxo 01:03, 25 July 2009 (BST)

	Get This Idiot Off the Fucking Wiki!
	Oh my God. Who the fuck is this jackass and what the fuck do they think they're doing? Get this fucking idiot off the fucking wiki now.

-- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:28 25 July 2009 (BST)

Crit 1

Yes, admittedly, Project Team was a failure. But the snarky comment afterwards was unneeded. I'm still unsure what you were geting at... ----Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}00:03, 21 July 2009 (BST)

I believe what he was getting at in the comment afterwards is that the design of the Project Team page itself is very simple and full of spelling and grammar errors. That doesn't inspire confidence for a group whose aims is to produce well-presented pages.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 14:55, 21 July 2009 (BST)

Boobs (various)

I want to take a minute to bask in the hilarity of this statement for a moment. All right. Now that we are all composed aga-...seriously Bob? You admitted to getting gay porn for your birthday? Really? If that's not template-worthy, I don't know what is.

Ahem.

So, yes. A show of hands for those who didn't see something like this or this coming when Bob was promoted. I know I was shocked to see him continuing his normal habits even while being a sysop. It pretty much follows him whenever he is put in any sort of position of power. Ah well. I warned you. Now let's enjoy this crazy ride as long as it goes on for! Oh, and Bob, to prove this isn't some sort of vendetta, I expect that you'll be going through all of the images in order to find all of the "offensive images". Right?--Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 11:18, 17 July 2009 (BST)

I already tried putting images that were submitted to me up for deletion. Look how well that turned out; you're barking mad if you think I'm going anywhere near those things again until we get something more definitive in place. In the meantime you are more than welcome to assert that I'm on a vendetta if that's what makes you happy. --Cyberbob 11:29, 17 July 2009 (BST)

I would be interested to know what relevance my promotion has to my actions here, by the way. Nothing I've done apart from the actual deletion of those first two images has been anything a normal user couldn't have done. --Cyberbob 11:31, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Also, "technically", Bob deleted these images as he was alerted to them. I see no vendetta.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:32, 17 July 2009 (BST)

"technically" that is not true as Bob was well aware of the existence of all of them long before then. Still no real harm and no real foul as at least he didn't just KOS as he might "technically" be allowed too. (I love the word technically... its great how it always seems to mean almost exactly the opposite of what it actually means :D) --Honestmistake 11:39, 17 July 2009 (BST)

GIVE uz The logs or it did not happen... He didz not know withoutz the logs.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:40, 17 July 2009 (BST)

well I am not going to search deletions to see if he voted last time but I will point out that the boobs thing is SexualHarrisons sig and is on Bobs talk page at least twice (with a reply) so its fair to say he must have seen that one wouldn't you say? Its also in his promotion bid and I reckon he read through that a few times too. --Honestmistake 11:56, 17 July 2009 (BST)

FULLY SICK --Cyberbob 12:02, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Like I implied before (forget where), it is possible for standards and opinions to change over the course of years. --Cyberbob 11:43, 17 July 2009 (BST)

There is a difference between a trusted user and a regular user, thus you are held to higher scrutiny. I'm merely pointing out how nothing has really changed. You're still doing the same things as before, and are clearly starting to cause grumblings in the community, and I note some of the sysops as well. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 11:49, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Sorry but if we're going to be quoting guidelines at each other I hold the trumps card. --Cyberbob 12:01, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Sounds good, but it still talks about that whole trusted user and beholden to the community business. Might want to get that changed before you use your trump card. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 12:10, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Sorry but what you just linked says absolutely nothing about anything to do with what the Sysops are not Moderators policy deals with. Are you sure you didn't accidentally link to the wrong thing? --Cyberbob 12:13, 17 July 2009 (BST)

The drama llama is smileing--DOWN WITH THE 'CRATS!!! | Join Nod!!! 21:11, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Yeah, isn't he though? He seems to be doing that a lot here latly.... -Poodle of doom 00:15, 21 July 2009 (BST)

I figured you wouldn't get it. Read your "trump card". It literally is only a title change, nothing more. Read here specifically. It states that the pages labeled Moderation would change to Administration, Moderator would be changed to System Operator, and Mod to Sysop. The Administration Guidelines, specifically General Conduct on the other hand, remained unchanged by that policy. All of that fancy text in the why section of your document, doesn't actually apply, as the policy failed to do anything in reference to changing the general conduct of the sysops. You still have to be a trusted user, which means that you are still held to higher scrutiny, and you are still beholden to the community. The guidelines say this in black and white. If you choose to ignore it, and do so long enough, I am sure the community will respond. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 00:16, 21 July 2009 (BST)

Old Image Deletion Request

File:Feon.jpg

I notice that both Iscariot and J3D have now included the image on their sub-pages. Wow, don't you guys have anything better to do than "save" images that no one, not even the author, wants -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:14 26 March 2009 (BST)

He already had it? Dammit. Also i would usually have some better things to do, but seeing as they are done i've downsized to saving poor helpless images.--xoxo 12:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Uhhh....

Anything we can do about this? Category:Allied Travellers Organisation. It burns my eyes. --Haliman - Talk 02:53, 13 May 2009 (BST)

What's wrong with it? --Pestolence^(talk) 03:10, 13 May 2009 (BST)

Look at all of the subpages. The categories fine, but those pages... --Haliman - Talk 03:17, 13 May 2009 (BST)

Group Subpages...i.e. off limits unless the group itself is nuked...from orbit....twice. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 03:19, 13 May 2009 (BST)

Not even for Crit 1 not edited since 07? /me goes to cry in a corner. --Haliman - Talk 03:21, 13 May 2009 (BST)

Gaah, two edit conflicts in a row. But yeah, they've gotta stay until ATO is removed. --Pestolence^(talk) 03:22, 13 May 2009 (BST)

I'm seriously gonna be haunted by that category for days to come now. --Haliman - Talk 03:30, 13 May 2009 (BST)

I'm sure you'll be able to sleep at night. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 03:33, 13 May 2009 (BST)

Yes... /checks under the bed for the wiki monster. Alright, enough with the spam. I got my answer. --Haliman - Talk 03:35, 13 May 2009 (BST)

If it makes you feel better, I made all those pages in the ATO namespace back when I was a group-UD-player, so you have me to blame. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 06:54, 13 May 2009 (BST)

May 2009

Bub

Moved from main page.

1. Delete - It's a character page in the mainspace created by someone who isn't its owner. What next? A Petro character page in the mainspace? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:03, 28 May 2009 (BST)

   Kevan. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 12:08, 28 May 2009 (BST)

   Would that be because his name is all over the wiki and the game so is an exception due to owner privilege and common sense. I don't see Bub's name in the same places. We move or delete the characters of normal users to their own user space, but Kevan didn't even create this. The character's got one piece of relevant information, it belongs to Kevan, that's it. Petro's done more to effect this game as a character but we aren't creating pages about him in the mainspace, same with Jorm or anyone else who's had a major impact. Why? Because character pages should only exist if created by the owner and in their namespace. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:31, 28 May 2009 (BST)

   Kevan. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 12:55, 28 May 2009 (BST)

   Kevan. -- Cheese 14:53, 28 May 2009 (BST)

   Kevan.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 14:56, 28 May 2009 (BST)

   Kevan. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 14:58, 28 May 2009 (BST)

   Kevan? -- Cheese 14:58, 28 May 2009 (BST)

   Kevan!--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 14:59, 28 May 2009 (BST)

   Kevan?! D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 15:00, 28 May 2009 (BST)

   Kevan! Living a lie!! -- Cheese 15:03, 28 May 2009 (BST)

   Kevan...--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 15:01, 28 May 2009 (BST)

   This is the indent police, I'm fining you all for overuse of idents. --  RoosterDragon  15:08, 28 May 2009 (BST)

   Timmy!! Kevan!! -- Cheese 15:08, 28 May 2009 (BST)

   hahaha you guys are sooooo rnadum and "lulzy" xDDDDDD --Cyberbob 15:16, 28 May 2009 (BST)

   i no rite? lol!!!1!--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 15:18, 28 May 2009 (BST)--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 15:18, 28 May 2009 (BST)

   The page is there to teach. If no one wants to learn it, it shouldn't be there. But Bub is a celebraty. You know why? Kevan.--TripleU 17:56, 30 May 2009 (BST)

   Dude at least bother to use a tinyurl *sighs* --xoxo 10:39, 31 May 2009 (BST)

Kevan is a redirect, which is what i think Bub should become, are the 3 of you saying you agree with me? --xoxo 08:19, 29 May 2009 (BST)

I think Bub should stay as it's own page because...Kevan.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 13:30, 29 May 2009 (BST)

I remember getting an escalation for spamming up the admin pages for shit like this, odd how it's one rule for some, another for sysops isn't it? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:58, 28 May 2009 (BST)

You honestly can't see the difference? ^{(hint: the difference isn't that you're not a sysop)} --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 18:22, 28 May 2009 (BST)

Pray tell what the difference is Mid. I'm tired right now and I can't figure it out either. v_v --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 13:30, 29 May 2009 (BST)

If you can't see a difference, then you should be giving out warnings to the people involved. Unless, of course, you think Iscariot was unjustly punished? --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 03:35, 30 May 2009 (BST)

The only real difference I'm seeing is the fact of being Iscariot or not. --Cyberbob 04:33, 30 May 2009 (BST)

Either I'm thinking of a different case or you're all blind as fuck. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 15:00, 30 May 2009 (BST)

Actually, right now, I'm blind in my right eye. It kind of sucks. But mostly I'm just tired and I don't want to think.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 15:06, 30 May 2009 (BST)

This? -- Cheese 18:21, 30 May 2009 (BST)

Iscariot couldn't be talking about that. The circumstances are just too different. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 11:02, 31 May 2009 (BST)

Welp, I was thinking of something completely different that when I actually went back and looked at it turned out not to have involved Iscariot at all. --Cyberbob 14:09, 31 May 2009 (BST)

Aug 2009

Image:5oN09.jpg

1. Delete Just because #99 is funny as hell..... -Poodle of doom 23:16, 12 August 2009 (BST)

   Can you tell us all how his arse tastes too? You don't make friends with salad, PoOdLe oF dOoM--CyberRead240 15:08, 13 August 2009 (BST)

   You, calling other people out on brownnosing? Really? Cyberbob  Talk  15:18, 13 August 2009 (BST)

   It's called friendship bob. I know you don't know much about it so i won't blame you this time, but look it up on wikipedia then come back to me.--xoxo 00:36, 14 August 2009 (BST)

   Hahaha, cheers for proving my point. Cyberbob  Talk  00:40, 14 August 2009 (BST)

   Your point is that friends vouch for friends? Wow bob that is a poignant point. --xoxo 00:43, 14 August 2009 (BST)

   It is indeed. Read (and Nick too IIRC) seems to enjoy describing people backing each other up as arse licking or whatever else but the truth is you guys do it more than anybody. That's my point. Cyberbob  Talk  00:45, 14 August 2009 (BST)

   There is a difference. Arse licking (or whatever you want to call it) is more one person sucking up/backing up/siding with another specific person in order to achieve some sort of personal gain or make themselves an ally. It is unnecessary if you're friends because you've already got an ally. Read vouching for me wasn't arselicking because he didn't gain anything from vouching for me that he wouldn't have got if he didn't. Sorry just kinda thinking outloud here..thoughts? --xoxo 00:49, 14 August 2009 (BST)

   I'd say you're right except that I really don't think that distinction ever entered their minds. Cyberbob  Talk  00:55, 14 August 2009 (BST)

   How pathetic are you? You would have seen that comment and tried your little heart out to come up with SOMETHING as a little witty quip. Sadly for you, Jed is my friend and at the time he was very serious about getting sysop. I wanted him to get sysop for 2 main reasons. Reason 1: Jed is a mate and I know it meant something to him (at the time, sysopship is just gay now), and Reason 2: I knew there would be a wave of drama to come until he was eventually going to be demoted by those who couldn't hack that one of "the qlique" had more power than them (see:you), and frankly, I fucking love drama, especially when I am involved in it. So if you think that pOoDlE Of DoOm saying "i vote for ddc coz he is funneh" isnt the ultimate "ive seen this guy around and he looks like people like him (they don't but anyway) so I will try and befriend him because I am in desperate need of friends coz every1 pickin on m3" is the same as "If my already acquainted and long time friend got sysop, it would be an enjoyable moment for me, too" then you are quite obviously a complete idiot, OR, you tried really hard to find SOMETHING to hassle the same old users who simply get under your skin, and you failed at it. Stop hassling regular users for the sake of drama, it doesn't sit well for a sysop. Be reactive, not pro-active. At least boxy only hassled us when we hassled him first--CyberRead240 03:07, 14 August 2009 (BST)

   You really do love people until they become a sysop, don't you? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 04:49, 14 August 2009 (BST)

   Pardon me, I stand mistaken, I forgot to tally up Jed. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 05:24, 14 August 2009 (BST)

   In the post above us right now, in what way did I even mention you? If you are looking at DDC and thinking it means you, it is a deliberate misspell of DCC to outline the noobness of pOoDlE oF dOoM--CyberRead240 05:35, 14 August 2009 (BST)

   I misread ddc as ddr. I apologise. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 05:37, 14 August 2009 (BST)

   While my general nature on this wiki, as you know, is to hate everyone and everything with authoritah, I hope that in the many times we will but heads while you are in sysopship (because we WILL at some point, its unavoidable) I hope you don't take it personally, and you look upon DDR as and alter ego of Charlie, as I look upon SLR as an alter ego of myself.--CyberRead240 05:40, 14 August 2009 (BST)

   r u rselikan????????????????? Cyberbob  Talk  08:55, 14 August 2009 (BST)

   That's how I treat it, I won't be surprised when it happened, just had work so I didn't get time to explain that when I incorrectly read it I thought you were referring to PoD's post on UDWiki_talk:Administration/Bureaucrat_Promotions#August_Election about me, and hence found your comment out of line. Otherwise I'll treat everything as fair game. Bring it on! --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 10:11, 14 August 2009 (BST)

   Not ddr assuming everything is about him, surely!! --xoxo 12:28, 14 August 2009 (BST)

   Quiet you, we already established that I misread what he said as an uncalled for personal attack, which I was wrong. You're the ego around here ;) --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 12:30, 14 August 2009 (BST)

   That is a lot of words. And no, I don't think I will stop harassing you if you insist on being such a complete fuck towards anything and everything you deem to be stupid. I'm sure there's a saying about heat and kitchens that applies here. Cyberbob  Talk  08:55, 14 August 2009 (BST)

   lol, if I can't stand the heat coming from some random 18 year old from Melbourne who throws insults at people via a free text based MMO online web based browser games free wiki run by random people from all around the world who hold a position of power as some sort of esteem when really their main purpose is to keep the pages free of vandalism and edits that don't improve the wiki as a factual online book of information aimed at aiding the enjoyment and playability of the free text based MMO online web based browser game, then I should probably not be living. The fact that you take it as if it is your life path to govern this wiki is laughable enough on its own right, but you then go and tell me (no wait you don't, you try to be witty by vaguely saying it LOL) that if I cant handle the heat I should get out of the kitchen. HA. Sorry man, there never has, and there never will be, any activity in your furnaces. And I mean that both literally and figuratively.--CyberRead240 09:02, 14 August 2009 (BST)

   Woah, another big chunk of angry words! You sure do like to write angry words. Cyberbob  Talk  09:04, 14 August 2009 (BST)

   Woah, another reply that strolls away from the fact that you were once again made to look like a fool, in an attempt to have the last word--CyberRead240 09:06, 14 August 2009 (BST)

   The point I'm making is that clearly you give some kind of a shit if I can get you to write so many words with so few of my own. You're trying way way way too hard to make me, some random 18 year old from Melbourne who throws insults at people via a free text based MMO online web based browser games free wiki run by random people from all around the world who hold a position of power as some sort of esteem when really their main purpose is to keep the pages free of vandalism and edits that don't improve the wiki as a factual online book of information aimed at aiding the enjoyment and playability of the free text based MMO online web based browser game, look like a fool. Cyberbob  Talk  09:08, 14 August 2009 (BST)

   The point I am trying to make is, no matter how many times I say anything, no matter how long I go away for, no matter what I do, you can't resist it. We get under your skin, and you hate that there are a few people on this wiki who are able to break you over trivial issues. This isn't even over policy, or nothing. But you keep coming back, and back, and back, for more. Any issue, you can't stand it. You have to win, and you just can't with us. Have the last word, have many of them. But I can walk away from this wiki at any time, and come back knowing full well that you will be hear, and ready to take the bait so that I can have a bit of fun for 2 hours before I have to go out for dinner. Cya.--CyberRead240 09:13, 14 August 2009 (BST)

   Woah, looks like some random 18 year old from Melbourne who throws insults at people via a free text based MMO online web based browser games free wiki run by random people from all around the world who hold a position of power as some sort of esteem when really their main purpose is to keep the pages free of vandalism and edits that don't improve the wiki as a factual online book of information aimed at aiding the enjoyment and playability of the free text based MMO online web based browser game has managed to extract another big chunk of angry words (dressed up as contempt of course) from you once again. Cyberbob  Talk  09:17, 14 August 2009 (BST)

   Wtf it isn't angry in the slightest? It's jovial if anything, and regardless, I need to now have a shower, Dinner is at 7.--CyberRead240 09:21, 14 August 2009 (BST)

Keep --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 18:28, 13 August 2009 (BST)

Nnnnooooooooo! Don't meddle with my attempts to stereotype you!--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 23:37, 13 August 2009 (BST)

Actually this was to counter Thad's vote as he has a known anti-umbrella bias. If Umbrella wants to look "idiotic," I say let them. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 00:32, 14 August 2009 (BST)

Oh I'm sorry, but you really don't know what your talking about there see.--Thadeous Oakley 23:54, 16 August 2009 (BST)

I know about as much as your two groups throwing sand at each other a while back for both sides being uncreative and/or lazy by using an established (though fictional) corporation's name. Parasol would've been a cooler group, though it sounds a bit like Paradox. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 02:36, 17 August 2009 (BST)

1. Delete - It's sad to see them making an event like the 5th of November suck as hard as Umbrella -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:01 13 August 2009 (BST)

   PURITAN!!!!!1 Cyberbob  Talk  14:30, 13 August 2009 (BST)

   I'll will forgive your ignorant view on that. --Thadeous Oakley 23:57, 16 August 2009 (BST)

   GTFO -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:04 18 August 2009 (BST)

   The fact you thought Boxy wasn't using the term "umbrella" as an umbrella (no pun intended) term for both fail groups, is ignorance in itself. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 04:43, 18 August 2009 (BST)

   You really can't judge a group that you barely know let alone just on it's apparent cover. Maybe it's me, but I really can't remember the last time Boxy experienced any Umbrella activity, forum, members (apart from me, and remember there are about 50 others) or basically have any view on how we operate. You don't have a clue about Umbrella, yet you and so many others are never to slow to judge us. Spend some time with us, and then come back with some actual judging properly backed up by arguments. And that goes for pretty much every group. --Thadeous Oakley 00:34, 19 August 2009 (BST)

   Blah, blah, blah -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:15 19 August 2009 (BST)

   I was going to say something to that tune but then I figured it'd be talk page material (so I'd have to move it) and I was distracted by those cursed MMOs. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 04:26, 19 August 2009 (BST)

Reworking the porn scheduled deletion

Recent cases have shown the lack of definition for porn has become problematic in regards for the porn scheduled deletion. There's no clear "definition" for porn - which is problematic when sysops can define anything remotely sexual as porn. In short, the porn scheduled deletion needs a rework to remove the huge gray area that's in the current version.

As I see it, we've got four ways to solve this:

1. Leave it - obviously not my preferred way of going foward, considering the problems with the current one. But if the community wills it...
2. Change the current porn deletion to include a definition of porn (ether in the wording of the deletion itself or in a linked-to page.) This doesn't cover sexually explicit material which isn't porn (the current gray area.) I wouldn't call goatse porn, but it still should be deleted on sight.
3. Change the current porn scheduled deletion (as above,) but include a speedy deletion criterion for sexually explicit material. This means that another sysop will have to check the item before deletion, and the community has time to vote keep on it if they don't think it's too explicit.
4. Remove the scheduled deletion, and summary delete all porn under the TOU (probably the worst idea, as the TOU can be quite vague and we still haven't figured out how to interpret a lot of it.)

Thoughts? Linkthewindow  Talk  03:13, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Redundant. Remove it, pretend like that scheduled deletion vote never happened. Actual porn or unsavory material gets deleted anyway. The scheduled deletion is entirely pointless. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:18, 7 July 2009 (BST)

^^^^^ --Cyberbob 03:27, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Option 5 is that it becomes a scheduled deletion after the upload of the image is deemed to be vandalism on A/VB. This catches "real" porn quite easily, and borderline cases like those that get taken to misconduct are discussed and a majority of the sysops is required for the deletion -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:10 7 July 2009 (BST)

If an image is even vaguely ambiguous it should be able to get nuked on the spot (my keep vote on the other thing was keeping the current criteria in mind) IMO. As for vandalism... I wouldn't mind seeing that become an option but there would need to be a fairly explicit warning against uploading images of such a nature somewhere (not the welcome template as it's pretty obvious that nobody reads it). --Cyberbob 04:15, 7 July 2009 (BST)

(this does not extend to non-sexual portrayals of the nude body - I'm thinking classical art and whatnot here) --Cyberbob 04:19, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Obviously inappropriate images should be nuked, no argument, but not ambiguous ones. If the sysop has doubts as to whether any other sysops may disagree, it should be discussed. We can put a warning about inappropriate images on MediaWiki:Uploadtext -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:25 7 July 2009 (BST)

That's a point. The MediaWiki idea is good too. --Cyberbob 04:29, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Sounds good. Obvious porn is vandalism and is sent to A/VB then deleted, while ambiguous cases are sent to A/D. Linkthewindow  Talk  05:28, 7 July 2009 (BST)

I would have thought A/SD rather than A/D? --Cyberbob 05:30, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Don't care ether way. If a community member (or sysop) doesn't think it's porn, then they can just vote keep and send it to A/D. Linkthewindow  Talk  05:39, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Again, this is a wiki about Urban Dead. There should be nothing sexual on here at all. If it is questionable enough that a reasonable sysop wants it deleted then it should be deleted. You can't justify anything sexual on here. Violent - yes. Sexual - no. Violence and sex are not the same. The game won't even let you spray paint obscenities on the walls, why should you be allowed to post pictures of dicks and boobs on the wiki? --– Nubis ^NWO 03:29, 7 July 2009 (BST)

I really hate to knock you on it Nubis, but we cuss all the time here. You know as well as I that if we start using the "This is the game's wiki. We need to keep it as clean as in there" card, people will push those sorts of things to be enforced and no one will be happy.--SirArgo ^Talk 04:29, 7 July 2009 (BST)

There's nothing stopping you from swearing ingame as long as you don't do it on the radio. I guess you could draw a parallel between the radio and policy documents? --Cyberbob 04:30, 7 July 2009 (BST)

I propose we accept a certain definition for automatically deletable images, but anything outside that definition that is veiwed as offencive to someone could be put up to vote.... not unlike it is now but, we need a stricter (As in set in stone, not as in less stuff is allowed), and Administration has to abide by the way the people vote.... unless kevan wants it off his wiki which is perfectly acceptable after all i believe the wiki is his property --Imthatguy 04:39, 7 July 2009 (BST)

ur dumb --Cyberbob 04:55, 7 July 2009 (BST)

That the best you can come up with?...... 'ur dumb'......... how pathetic that you have sunk to such a level--Imthatguy 05:30, 7 July 2009 (BST)

but.....you are dumb so i dunno what you're on about? --Cyberbob 05:40, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Nubis that's ridiculous. If what was allowed and only what was allowed in the game was allowed on the wiki then i could say NIGGER all over the place because hey, you can do that in the game. Go undo my 2 vandalism cases then call me and we'll talk--xoxo 11:15, 7 July 2009 (BST)

You're so bitter --in before bob.11:15, 7 July 2009 (BST)

well if you would just stop being "so bitter" i wouldn't have to keep saying it now would i --Cyberbob 11:38, 7 July 2009 (BST)

i can't help that everything nubis did to me is in contradiction to the way he is acting of late...--xoxo 12:45, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Stop being an idiot. You can say Nigger. You can't spray paint Nigger. There is a difference. You can "say" all kinds of (text)underage rape shit, but does that mean it is appropriate here on the wiki? Please post child porn to prove your argument.--– Nubis ^NWO 13:29, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Ah see but can i say underage rape shit here? --xoxo 14:38, 7 July 2009 (BST)

No, because it Violates T.O.U. This server doesnt even allow IRC to host on it to avoid a number of issues. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 16:31, 7 July 2009 (BST)

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Alim. Should these be pruned too Newbis? The image that started all this (this time) was a simple pictogram suggesting that fort dwellers were wankers... a sentiment that most wiki goers probably agree with. The problem with deleting everything sexual is that it would be an endless process. The bouncing Boobs gif in someones sig, the scantily clad zombie chick on my user page, the use of any vaguely sexual imagery including text? Do you make different levels of censorship apply in different areas? Its all going to get pretty damn confusing pretty damn quick. The game itself must have thousands of obscene names in it by now so just purging the wiki seems pointless. Of course real porn should be an absolute no-no but wander around in the actual game and tell me with a straight face that smut has no place here. --Honestmistake 09:34, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Smut has no place here.--– Nubis ^NWO 13:21, 7 July 2009 (BST)

If smut has no place here you will be banning a lot of groups and users whose characters are little more than dirty jokes or obscene descriptions. --Honestmistake 17:51, 7 July 2009 (BST)

This just in, Mistake misses the point. Again. Completely. Film at 11.--– Nubis ^NWO 19:48, 7 July 2009 (BST)

WAH WAH! They won't let me post my fucking porn on the wiki and now I have to wank it to underwear ads and pop ups crying and wishing I could touch a real girl. I love the stupid fucking argument that something like Cockburn is offensive because your retarded little 12 year old brain thinks anything that sounds dirty is porn, but when it is an actual picture then THAT'S FUCKING ART AND SHOULD BE SAVED!!1!one!!. God, you jackoffs are pathetic.-- #99 ^DCC 13:36, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Honest struck me as being pretty desperate for porn on that misconduct case of Nubis'. Good to see he hasn't changed (though literally nothing else about him has so I guess I shouldn't be surprised at all) since then. --Cyberbob 13:48, 7 July 2009 (BST)

My point hasn't changed Bob (its called being consistent, you should try it with something other than trolling) What was deleted in the last case was not porn and what was deleted in this one wasn't either but its not misconduct to delete because the rules are so messed up that sysops have the power to over rule everyone else if they decide they don't like something.

Everyone knows that this rule was only intended to allow sysops a quick way to get rid of actual porn (you know the stuff that is actually pornographic) rather than stuff like asci art, risque pics and line drawings.--Honestmistake 17:51, 7 July 2009 (BST)

And what do you know, most of that doesn't have a place on the wiki. Fancy that.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 18:15, 7 July 2009 (BST)

If that kind of stuff has no place on the wiki then I can expect to see a move to have SexualHarrisons sig sent for a mastectomy soon can I? Or how about the entire Dribbling Beavers group page? Maybe the Dead Bunnies? Hmm VPoD were pretty rude too and as for all those zombies "ramming banananahz".... well it just should not be tolerated, I mean there are children out there. --Honestmistake 18:43, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Classic HM argument, eh? "on noes if we remove this we should remove everything else because it makes sense in my mind!"

Porn check.

• Harrison's sig? Negative. Not even the "merest hint of aureole"
• Dribbling Beavers? Still no sign of graphic representations of the naked body. Nor any classical art for that matter.
• Dead Bunnies? Again, not a single tit or dick on the page
• Village People? Fuck man, where do you come up with this shit Honest?

There's no real problem with text, just pictures and the manipulation of text to create a nude body. Grow up honest.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 18:51, 7 July 2009 (BST)

• I was a member of the group... the wiki page is very tasteful... all the smut was in game, there was a fair bit of it but nothing compared to the various "Yiffers" out there.--Honestmistake 20:41, 7 July 2009 (BST)

There is just no point arguing with you on this. I don't consider the image you deleted to be porn and don't think many others do either but consider one of Nubis's statements at the start of this...

• "Again, this is a wiki about Urban Dead. There should be nothing sexual on here at all."

Yes he later mentions images but there are a hell of a lot of legitimate game related reasons to post zombie stripper type pics or crude phallic insults aimed at an opponents team, saying that the game does not support rude images is a pretty shitty argument as the game does not support any images at all (the bloody eye being an exception) Look again at those examples and tell me there is nothing that might fall into the category of sexual. --Honestmistake 20:36, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Sexual references in text? Yeah. Pornogrpahics? No. Not even the "classic art" kind. My definition of porn isn't the same as Nubis's, and his isn't even as strict as you're trying to paint it as. Seriously. Everyone needs to stop taking these weak ass interpretations of what someone says to try and justify their shity little jokes and grow the fuck up. The averge cock is six inches, now can we please move the fuck on from the dick related jokes?--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 21:24, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Mistake, you have reached a new low of stupidity. Those first two lines up there can not be topped. Yes he later mentions images THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION WAS ABOUT IMAGES FROM THE START. I never said the names or text (except to form an image) was a problem because THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION WAS ABOUT IMAGES FROM THE START. I'm not offended by the name Dribbling Beavers but a picture of one (a VAGINA) would be over the line here because THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION WAS ABOUT IMAGES FROM THE START. Ok. I'm done. I no longer believe that you are capable of making any intelligent contribution to any discussion. --– Nubis ^NWO 15:59, 9 July 2009 (BST)

When the fuck did you ever believe that he was? Serious question. --Cyberbob 17:43, 9 July 2009 (BST)

I never really did, but like monkeys throwing shit on typewriters sometimes he popped out an interesting statement that actually applied to a discussion. Or maybe Nubis was more of an optimist than I am. I realize those days are over. --– Nubis ^NWO 03:28, 10 July 2009 (BST)

Lolz; you guys are just the funniest! --Honestmistake 09:16, 10 July 2009 (BST)

No, you didn't just try that one on for size. Chalking it up to some kind of glitch with your computer. --Cyberbob 11:25, 10 July 2009 (BST)

I eLove you so hard right now.--– Nubis ^NWO 19:48, 7 July 2009 (BST)

UDWiki:Think about the children, nuff said. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 20:58, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Just a point...the most elaborate court system on the planet (The U.S. Supreme Court) Hasn't been able to define what is "Pornography" in over eighty years of trying...The best they can come up with is Physical community standards and that when telecommunication crosses multiple communities the most restrictive must be used. Now since this is an international online community and the laws that govern the wiki are British, I'm not saying anything important other than good luck because anything that ends up qualifying as an offensive image is either going to end up being deleted by a sysop or reported to the host and then deleted regardless of what others may think about it. (Personal non-sysopy opinion follows) AScii drawings of Penis can be art but if you want to show them off, host them off the wiki, not all images that can be related to UD are suitable for UD and the wiki is not to be a substitute for an image host-server. 4chan is a much better place for this kind of crap folks..take it there. Also....The Game ya win yet? Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 11:58, 8 July 2009 (BST)

The UD wiki is going to be governed by real-world laws now? Ut-oh! --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 11:23, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Generic Header

I've just skimmed through the above discussion. Unless anyone's got any complains, I'll put up for voting the removal of the porn scheduled deletion.

At the same time MediaWiki:Uploadtext will be changed to include the following words:

Upload Text said:

Images judged to be pornographic will be deleted on sight and a (warning/ban) issued to the offending user.

So instead of an image being deleted on sight, it must first be judged to be vandalism on A/VB. It may be worth making porn an immediate ban.

Thoughts? Linkthewindow  Talk  12:43, 16 July 2009 (BST)

The idea of deleting porn on sight is so that no one else has to see it, etc, and waiting for consensus is just destroying that. I do want the porn scheduled to go, in favour of something more cement, but I think it needs to be done with a definition of porn in the guidelines so that users don't have a fit like the last Nubis and SA case, and similarly so sysops will have a more objective basis when judging suspect images. --ϑϑℜ 12:48, 16 July 2009 (BST)

"Images that clearly show male or female genitalia will be deleted on sight and a (warning/ban) issued. Ambiguous images will be taken to A/VB" Linkthewindow  Talk  12:54, 16 July 2009 (BST)

That sounds good. --Cyberbob 12:58, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Should be "uploading inappropriate (eg. sexually explicit) images may be deemed to be vandalism and deleted as such without notice", IMO. It should be clear that risque does not automatically mean deletion -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:00 16 July 2009 (BST)

Yeah, that's good. --ϑϑℜ 13:01, 16 July 2009 (BST)

"Images that are inappropriate (eg. sexually explict) may be deemed to be vandalism and deleted on sight." << for the mediawiki upload text.

"Images that clearly show male or female genitalia will be deleted on sight and a (warning/ban) issued." << scheduled.

That should hopefully catch all obscene images that need to go as soon as they are seen and leave ambiguous images to a vote. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:05, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Sounds fine to me, though it should certainly be the case that ambiguos images are not eligible for sysop KOS until the vote is done. --Honestmistake 13:08, 16 July 2009 (BST)

They wouldn't be anyway - they wouldn't be scheduled and vandalism is only removed once it's ruled to be vandalism. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:12, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Out and out porn should be KOS just as it is now. Borderline cases like askii art or tasteless nudity are not real porn though and should be subject to A/VB or even just a full deletion vote without a sysops ability to over rule a clear majority. The problem (as we all see) is that definitions of where that divide falls vary as much as is possible when dealing with a world wide audience. --Honestmistake 12:57, 16 July 2009 (BST)

How can you say they aren't real "porn" when they meet the criteria of visible genitalia? Just to cover the bases and have a fair definition there should be no nudity at all including "art". Yes, Malton may have museums, but that doesn't mean that every page about one needs a painting showing nipples or tits. That way there is no question about "is this porn?" Nipples, dicks, and vaginas are deleted onsight. That's pretty damn simple. --– Nubis ^NWO 15:06, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Because nipples are not genitalia and they are not porn. I have no problem with deleting porn but I do dislike the idea of deleting anything risque just because some people cannot distinguish between sexual obscenity and mere titillation. The whole "OMFG I can see nipple" thing is done and consensus says it should go so go it does. My concern would be definition creep, without something a bit clearer than we currently have we will have folk calling cleavage porn, naked silhouettes porn or even photo's of inanimate objects porn... Many such images will be inappropriate and should go, that discussion should be taken by a consensus rather than a single person. We obviously have different views on what is acceptable, hell i think every single member of the sysop team has different views, what I am saying is that in cases where one or more people think it is borderline then no one person should be able to decide. --Honestmistake 15:24, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Shall porn be a 24h ban (in the way arbies escalations work,) or a mere warning? Obviously porn is different to regular vandalism. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:02, 16 July 2009 (BST)

I would say only a warning for the ambiguous stuff (esp if it really was a close called thing) but all the obvious stuff should go straight to a 24 hour ban and/or single escalation. --Honestmistake 13:05, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Single escalation for both. --ϑϑℜ 13:12, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Vandalism is vandalism, it gets an escalation (except for the 3 edit rule) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:19 16 July 2009 (BST)

what boxy said pretty much --Cyberbob 13:22, 16 July 2009 (BST)

"Images that clearly show male or female genitalia will be deleted on sight and a (warning/ban) issued." Are you guys retarded? This little line was the crux of the whole argument last time with the image with the nipples "almost" covered by some sort of power tool vs. the Statue of David. When we argued that that there was a clear difference in intent and usage the old IF YOU BAN THIS THEN WHAT'S NEXT? crew came in. You can't have a blanket statement like that and call it a reworking. I am not being prude about this. It's just the only fair way to do it. You want a group with nudity in your logo? Host it somewhere else. --– Nubis ^NWO 15:06, 16 July 2009 (BST)

What would you propose in terms of a useable guideline? --Cyberbob 15:18, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Nipples are not part of human genitalia... Full on frontal nudity (even partial if it shows Nipples) should be included in the definition for clarity. --Honestmistake 15:28, 16 July 2009 (BST)

"Photographic depictions of human genitalia will be deleted on sight." That's as close as I can get without including the word "porn." Linkthewindow  Talk  01:33, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Unless anyone complains, I'll take "Photographic deplictions of human genitalia and female nipples will be deleted on sight" to schedlued deletions soon, and insitute a vote over the new upload text somewhere (probably General Discussion.) Linkthewindow  Talk  12:00, 18 July 2009 (BST)

One word: hentai. --Cyberbob 12:09, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Change photographic to realistic then? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:12 18 July 2009 (BST)

Perhaps not a bad idea, but "realistic" is a potentially subjective word. It's hard to pin down exactly what "realistic" is (and I want to keep subjectivity out of this.) If we've got hentai, delete all image calls to it and then send the uploader to vandal banning. Linkthewindow  Talk  12:16, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Most photo's of genetalia is going to get the uploader sent to VB too, nipples less so, I guess -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:28 18 July 2009 (BST)

Yeah, that's true. This is more here so it can do the intended job of the old schedueled deletion without the pesky gray area. They'll get sent to VB too once it's been deleted. Linkthewindow  Talk  12:30, 18 July 2009 (BST)

I'm going to have a bit of a problem voting vandalism on a red link :p -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:32 18 July 2009 (BST)

True, maybe just remove the deletion and just make porn vandalism (get rid of the scheduled deletion.) This however takes us back to the original problem of "anything really bad should be deleted on sight." Linkthewindow  Talk  12:35, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Straw poll proposed MediaWiki upload text change

Basically, we add "uploading inappropriate (eg. sexually explicit) images may be deemed to be vandalism and deleted as such without notice" to MediaWiki:Uploadtext. In practice, this will mean that if anyone uploads something that someone else thinks is inappropriate, they will be taken to A/VB and the image will be deleted if the case is ruled vandalism (they will also recieve a warning.)

I'll advertise this on Wiki News if we don't get enough votes to be considered useful in judging consensus. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:17, 18 July 2009 (BST)

I'd like to point out that of anyone here on the wiki, I have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that most people don't read the MediaWiki:Uploadtext, nor do they care about it. It'd be a good step, however, if/when it is added, that we enforce it. That'd put some validity in the warning of MediaWiki:Uploadtext. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 19:49, 31 July 2009 (BST)

This was made a little redundant by this ;) Linkthewindow  Talk  23:14, 31 July 2009 (BST)

Not really Akule, more that most people aren't copyright lawyers and can't stand of bring themselves to care about copyright law. Different issue entirely. This should be added, no discussion needed as it's a statement of fact on the wiki, even without changing it this does happen it's just providing more notice that it will. --Karek^maps?! 23:18, 31 July 2009 (BST)

As karke said, we don't need a discussion. Porn while not deletable on site is still against the rules, and our half assed interpretation of the TOU.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 23:40, 31 July 2009 (BST)

Yes, but I proved that Kevan cared about it, since he is liable for any possible lawsuits. It's the community who said: "Eh. Fuck em. We don't care about it." I'm just saying that if you don't actually police the porn guideline, people will do exactly the same with the copyright issue: The majority won't care, and the minority can't do anything about it. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 23:15, 3 August 2009 (BST)

The minority can because Porn is a vandal offense, whilst copyright is not. Porn can still be deleted as vandalism on sight. --ϑϑℜ 23:22, 3 August 2009 (BST)

Kevan was backing this rule. The sysops said they wouldn't. Kevan lets the sysops run the wiki and keeps his hands off for the most part. Hence, it is not backed in the rules, even though it is a rule. (You can see some of Kevan's comments on the matter here.) --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 23:29, 3 August 2009 (BST)

In addition to here:

Kevan said:

Two: one angry lawyer demand over use of the name "Medical Defence Union" and one obviously reasonable request from Packard Jennings about the mall pictures. The wiki bureaucracy should be able to support the speedy deletion of any future such requests; if you want to thrash out a good wording, that's fine - but given that this is purely an issue of what I decide to host on my own server, this must be enacted in some form, and I'll press the "carte blanche" button when it's ready to go.

Which was promptly ignored, much like the policy (or something similar it) that he was talking about. Like I said. Kevan wanted something like it, was waiting for the sysops to do something, and is happy to be still waiting. Hence, if the sysops don't enforce your proposed change (like they didn't with copyrights), no one will care and will do what they have done, like always. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 23:38, 3 August 2009 (BST)

Well, since the actual discussion above is irrelevant we may as well talk about this. That's not exactly proof posit of your argument, it's certainly not justification of a "Oh screw him" view. What Kevan said there, aside from "Why not develop something that represents this" is that The wiki bureaucracy should be able to support the speedy deletion of any future such requests;. He's saying that reasonable copyrighted item removal requests should be able to be deleted by wiki bureaucracy, this doesn't mean user x can go around yelling about copyright and everything will get deleted, it means that if the copyright holder does, as is necessary to pursue copyright claims in the first place, express a wish to have their content removed from the site we remove it. It's not carte blanche on preemptive harassery. Of course, the real issue here with enforcing this is that we can't see appropriately made requests as users or sysops, they have to go through Kevan. --Karek^maps?! 01:04, 4 August 2009 (BST)

I know. I'm not pursuing that. I've actually mentioned that I might follow Kevan's request and make some sort of policy proposal to allow for a Speedy delete criteria that is requested by an author of an image. Hagnat and I worked out a few things on what to do with Copyrighted images. The thing is, at the time (as you may recall), the majority of users did not care in the slightest what effects copyrighted images might have on Kevan. The idea was: "No one will pursue it, so it is a non-issue", despite a case of a cease and desist notice and an author request for removal being placed. The general user doesn't understand copyright law, much less how it applies to websites, and thus could care less that every edit window says DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION. My argument is that apathy also applies to the content that users upload. If the sysops actually police what is uploaded and uphold that rule, it will work. If not, then it will be exactly like the copyright content "rule". --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 23:04, 5 August 2009 (BST)

On an only slightly related topic can we change the link to image categories to the link that actually takes you to the page where you can copy paste them? Seems better to me. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:31, 5 August 2009 (BST)

"DISK SPACE = CHEEP"

Can we make votes using this and this alone, or any other similarly stupid reasoning, strikeable? It's seriously giving me the shits and I know it annoys a bunch of other people as well. Cyberbob  Talk  05:36, 19 August 2009 (BST)

ahem Cyberbob  Talk  12:31, 19 August 2009 (BST)

We shouldn't strike them (as that would just be a recipe for drama,) but it's a completely retarded argument. Firstly, you're not paying for the disk space, and when you're not paying for it, it's pretty much automatically cheep. Secondly, if disk space is truly cheep, then why delete anything, such all the one-liner "group" pages that are around and spam pages? Linkthewindow  Talk  12:40, 19 August 2009 (BST)

The people that use it don't actually care about whether it's a good argument or not - they're just doing it to be "lulzy". That's my point. If we can enforce the use of actual reasons in Suggestions of all places surely we can (and should) do so here. Cyberbob  Talk  12:42, 19 August 2009 (BST)

It was a semi-relevant argument back in the crit 12 days, when stuff that shouldn't be deleted was up for deletion - such as perfectly legitimate group pages, etc. But, yes, now in most cases, it's a pretty retarded argument. We shouldn't be striking votes at all unless they're obvious troll votes or voted to be vandalism (for some reason.) Yes, "disk space=cheap" is a retarded argument, but if people aren't making this argument, they'll be making another one. Linkthewindow  Talk  12:48, 19 August 2009 (BST)

Please explain your obvious troll vote and how it is different from exactly what Bob is saying? If they spell "cheap" right does that make it less of a troll vote? Is that your point? Look at the history of people that consistently use that justification, too.--– Nubis ^NWO 18:26, 20 August 2009 (BST)

Once again that is my point. Nobody uses DISK SPACE = CHEEP these days in anything but a facetious, trolling fashion. Cyberbob  Talk  12:50, 19 August 2009 (BST)

Who cares. It's just yet another phrase that's pushed too hard. If it wasn't that it'd be something equally useless and annoying. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 12:45, 19 August 2009 (BST)

"votes using this and this alone, or any other similarly stupid reasoning" Cyberbob  Talk  12:50, 19 August 2009 (BST)

You want to censor unjustified stupidity/silliness on the wiki. This won't work. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:19, 19 August 2009 (BST)

I wouldn't be suggesting it if we didn't already have such a system in place with Spam votes on suggestions. That works, doesn't it? Cyberbob  Talk  13:28, 19 August 2009 (BST)

Using a voting system such as spam isn't the same as allowing us to unilaterally invalidate comments simply because the user puts a stupid comment on there, which anyone could easily ignore. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:33, 19 August 2009 (BST)

So just removing the disk space is cheap justification? Don't see why not. We already have server load is not a good reason to vote kill on suggestions. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 13:57, 19 August 2009 (BST)

Server load IN GAME is not a justification. This is a separate entity. We don't have to save every page made. We are supposed to be maintaining an organized and useful resource, not some horder's closet where every thought spewed onto a new page is really useful. I am saying that there needs to some connection with something to justify keeping a page. Letting a page get saved by the DS=C vote goes against the ENTIRE point of voting on the CONTENT of a page in the first place. Why do we have guidelines for submitting something for deletion if that is all it takes to save it? --– Nubis ^NWO 18:26, 20 August 2009 (BST)

We have it, but it isn't enforced. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 14:02, 19 August 2009 (BST)

The comment can be ignored, but the vote can't. I'm not saying that we should go around NO YOU CANNOT VOTE ON THIS SORRY MOVE ALONG CITIZEN - people would be able to remove strikes on their votes when they actually justify them with something other than a crappy catchphrase. Cyberbob  Talk  14:05, 19 August 2009 (BST)

We should be treating votes as the focus of a user's contribution on A/D, not the comment that follows it. I won't be for this, it just provides unnecessary anguish onto A/D where it isn't needed. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 14:13, 19 August 2009 (BST)

I would argue that there would be a minimum of anguish due to the fact that strikes can easily be removed, and also that it is needed. Cyberbob  Talk  00:47, 20 August 2009 (BST)

Sometimes it's a valid vote, I've used it to mean that the page has relevant content, and just because it's of little interest to most people, disk space is still cheap. Just because retards like Thad use it on crit 1 pages, to prove how idiotic and annoying they can be, doesn't mean we should ban it altogether -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 21:53 19 August 2009 (BST)

You'll recall that the "DISK SPACE = CHEEP" was the common cry that eventually took down the Crit 12 for A/SD. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 22:54, 19 August 2009 (BST)

Why do you insist on being so thick? Eliminating DISK SPACE = CHEEP as a reason altogether is not my goal. Eliminating stupid facetious votes in general is, and DISK SPACE = CHEEP just happens to be the phrase that is being thrown around at the moment so that was the one I used as my main example. If people were able to use disk space being cheap as justification for keeping a page without coming off as being a silly troll then that would be fine. Cyberbob  Talk  00:47, 20 August 2009 (BST)

The guidelines don't actually say that any justification is needed when voting. "The specific vote keyword should be bolded within the lodged vote. Any relevant comments are also allowed, but these should not be bolded. " Now, it sounds more like you want to change that section to include some sort of a justification with the vote. I note that we don't really even do that with suggestions, as we explain what good voting practices are, but on each of the pages, the voting box just says: "The only valid votes are Keep, Kill, Spam or Dupe. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote." It does mention justification, but it doesn't explain anything about it. If we want to make justification required for voting (suggestions and deletions), we'd have to come up with some sort of format and run it by the community. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 22:50, 19 August 2009 (BST)

When did I say that that that wasn't my intention? The point of this discussion is to sort of get the ball rolling in terms of raising awareness about the fact that the problem exists, not to act as a substitute for a policy vote. Cyberbob  Talk  00:47, 20 August 2009 (BST)

Removing this kind of justification is retarded since, as pointed by akule, no one is forced to provide a reason for their votes and, as pointed by cyberbob himself, the intent of this is to strike out the comment without invalidating the vote. Its simply drama for drama sake. If you dont like 'disk space == cheep' votes, simply ignore them. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 23:30, 19 August 2009 (BST)

That's was pretty much a reason why I put that vote there in the first place. It's so petty, why even bother for something like that. It's the vote that should count not the justification. Oh and Boxy, you can call me retard but continuing to make personal attacks like that only shows your inability to properly discuss things. The contributing factor of name calling like that equals zero. If you don't like me then just ignore me, and I really don't get what your problem is but whatever.--Thadeous Oakley 00:04, 20 August 2009 (BST)

What you did was relevant to his point and it was retarded and annoying, at leased in my opinion as well. He was using you as an example of its misuse, so it hardly demonstrates an inability to discuss things on topic. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:35, 20 August 2009 (BST)

No Hagnat, the strikes would strike the vote too - I thought that DDR was saying that a strike would basically be permanent and the person wouldn't be able to have their vote count on that deletion request ever. I will also thank you not to make statements like "drama for drama's sake". You may disagree with me but I'm sure you have it in you to do so without assuming I'm acting in bad faith. Cyberbob  Talk  00:47, 20 August 2009 (BST)

I agree with Bob that that is a horrible vote when it is the only reason given. I would also like to see votes that are a conflict of interest struck. For instance, a group putting up another group's page (like in the propaganda wars where the pages created aren't "hate" pages that fall under vandalism, but were clearly put up on A/SD as a revenge move or for griefing.) Also, I think that forum shopping should be restricted. If a page fails A/SD for a legit reason then you can't move it to A/D and meat puppet it through. We've had this problem before.--– Nubis ^NWO 18:26, 20 August 2009 (BST)

fucking fascist commie, git your filthy sysop hands off mah freedums Cyberbob  Talk  18:34, 20 August 2009 (BST)

I never use it to 'troll' most of the time i use it to mean that something is revelent ir someone put it up for deleteion for a stupid reason--DOWN WITH THE 'CRATS!!! | Join Nod!!! 18:49, 20 August 2009 (BST)

If you think they've put it up for deletion for a stupid reason the best response is to say so, rather than using a silly catchphrase that makes you look just as bad. Cyberbob  Talk  18:59, 20 August 2009 (BST)

If I may interject. Rather than striking DISKSPACE=CHEEP, I suggest that you come up with a similarly convenient retort. Something to the effect of YOURDISKFACE=*BLEEP*, or whatever. And have that response be a link to a page which explains how fallacious their one-line argument is. By providing a superior argument in a manner that catchy and easily repeatable, you will ultimately prevail over the forces of darkness.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 19:47, 20 August 2009 (BST)

Your mom's disk-space is so overbearing, her hosting company dropped her website without using the proper channels to notify her. She in turn sent them to court with an injunction. Catchy enough?--SirArgo ^Talk 00:15, 21 August 2009 (BST)