UDWiki talk:Administration/Discussion

Hi, I'm not a moderator, so please feel free to move this comment to the relevent place, but where do I go to speak to a moderator about something on the wiki? I have a query about the recruitment page.-GrownUpSurvivor 16:22, 27 September 2006 (BST)

Well, there's Wiki_Questions and obviously Talk:Recruitment, but you might as well ask your question here. --Brizth ^{M T} 16:40, 27 September 2006 (BST)

Thanks. I was checking the Recruitment page yesterday and the 'Red Army' ad has disappeared. It was only 9 days since the last timestamp and the group page hadn't received a warning (although we have received a reminder to update in the past). I wondered if anything else was wrong. -GrownUpSurvivor 17:58, 28 September 2006 (BST)

What seems to have happened is that this edit by some noob reverted the page and timestamps to old versions. And then it was deleted the next day in this edit. In short, Conndraka didn't notice that the page had been reverted and removed the ad by the normal rules. --Brizth ^{M T} 18:26, 28 September 2006 (BST)

Okay thanks. I didn't want to replace it if it had been removed for some vital reason. Clarification appreciated. --GrownUpSurvivor 20:48, 3 October 2006 (BST)

Suggestion

I have a suggestion but dont know how/where to suggest it! I think there should be a new catagory for suvivors, expanding on the construction skills, i think there should be an engineer skill where suvivors can build barricades between buildings. I.e making it impossible for a zombie, suvivor without free running to pass, wether in a building or not, without dismantling the cades. To avoid confusuion, I would call them Diversions, rather than cades. This will help suvivors repair ruined buildings by buying them more time.

The place for this type of thing is the suggestions talk page first, and then the actual suggestions pages if it is likely to be well received. I doubt this will get a good response though, it would be a very annoying addition to the game for newbies (without free running) trying get around the city -- boxy • talk • 14:16 11 October 2007 (BST)

Arbitration

Is not a place where sysops should be involved, too much like a censor and would essentially make them moderators which a whole policy states that they are not. Sysops jobs are not conflict resolution they are administration, arbitrators should either be left public with limitations on what they can do(and limitations on what arb rulings sysops will enforce). Elitism among arbitrators can only cause problems, limiting the options of who can arbitrate creates that elitism and creates a group of wiki elites who can punish people for not liking them, as has been the case in multiple past arbitration cases, mostly because Sysops decided to go along with punishing that person or liked them just as little as the person who ruled on the case, sometimes even because they brought up the arb case.--Karek^maps?! 07:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand what part of Sysop involvement in arbitrator you don't agree with. Is it Conndraka as a Sysop offering his services as an Arbitrator? Is it Sysops having to process arbitrator ruling's breachs as they are now based on their own bias more than an objective look at the ruling? Or maybe both? --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 07:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You could always suggest a policy that removes the section of A/A that calls the breaking of a ruling "vandalism" first, and then institute the A/A equivalent of A/VB. You'd be requiring the ruling arbitrator to promise to be around to sort out any squabbles over the life of the ruling, however. --Karlsbad 07:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It's things like Wikigate. Although the person who arbitrates being the one who punishes isn't too great either considering their mind is made up before the A/VB case is even proposed, it helps establish Arbitration as a part of the user banning process, not the conflict resolution one.--Karek^maps?! 07:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

That is a really good idea, Karl. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 07:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Requests for Assistance

It has recently come to my attention that a zed spy/sympathizer is placeing extremely detailed posts, includeing theories as to where people may be, on several of the suburb in the NW corner of malton. I was curious what the policy was for editing/removeing such posts, or possibly rewriteing them so as to maintain a neutral standing on the page. I know there is a "no deleteing others posts" rule, but these are so blatently target for zeds to know where they may find survivors it's a little irritateing. O and I'm not sure if this is the place to post this or not? Thanks for any info. --Mr NoName001 22:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you post a link to an example, please -- boxy ^{talk • i} 05:14 3 January 2008 (BST)

I hate to say it, but I'm fairly certain that there isn't much that can be done, I think it's a skirting the "gray area" type of thing but here are a few pages where you can find them, there under the news posts.http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Dakerstown and http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Jensentown The individual always seems to scout the suburb "while dead" but from what I have gathered from a few sources this particular individual is never "alive" so I'm just curious if this is crossing the line or if it's fair play. On a side not you all may want to check the Pitneybank page's news. They're getting just a tad off of the "neutral" stance of news ;) Look at it and you'll see what I mean. Thanks for hte help.--Mr NoName001 05:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It all seems to be fair enough to me. The most NPOV stuff is survivor stuff about their groups minor activities. Making a list of which individual building have people in them is pushing it a bit, but posts like this from WanYao are simply reporting on the "state of play" in the area... which is exactly what the news section is supposed to be for. BTW, scouting as a human, to aid zombie hordes is allowable within the rules of the game, and even if it weren't, it's not something that we police on wiki -- boxy ^{talk • i} 05:35 3 January 2008 (BST)

10-4 :) Thanks for the help Boxy. I was kinda hopeing it could be changed, but I knew I think that it wasn't really wrong. Just makes it a little harder for the survivors to fight back when the bad guys know exactly where your at. Such is life though. Again thanks for the help.--Mr NoName001 05:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the thing a lot of people don't get though, is that the Suburb pages are there just as much for the benefit of zombie players, as they are survivors -- boxy ^{talk • i} 05:57 3 January 2008 (BST)

I have another question. It has come to my attention that a group listed on the stats page of the game may in fact be a massive zerging movement. the group is called KHAOS. There are a supposed 125 members, but almost no mention of them on the wiki and no group page(for so large a group this is highly unusual as you know) not to mention that the average group level is 8. I want to bring this to someones attention but I'm not sure who to write to, I know this is really for wiki admin stuff, but I thought you might be able to point me in the right direction, or at least inform the right people about the apparent potential for a serious abuse of the zerging rules. Anyway just looking for an answer and thought you all might be able to help. Thanks.--Mr NoName001 06:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That's no where near a level of proof that would be worth looking into. Like the FAQ says, let the automatic zerging countermeasures handle it -- boxy ^{talk • i} 07:42 7 January 2008 (BST)

10-4 Thanks for at least giveing me an idea about it.--Mr NoName001 16:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"Category: Human Groups" WTF??

I never noticed that before... The term "human" to refer to survivor groups is yet another example of the blatant pro-survivor bias on the wiki. Zombies are humans: undead humans. The Human Groups category needs to be deleted in full, and all instances replaced with Category:Survivor_Groups. I don't know if this can be done simply or not... If so, make it happen. ASAP. If not, talk to The Rooster about making a bot to do the mass editing required. ;) But... seriously... Category:Human_Groups must go. --WanYao 11:29, 3 August 2008 (BST)

It has to be done manually on each and every page in the category, which is why it hasn't been changed and probably won't for a while, at least probably not until the more important grindy jobs have been done, it's just not high on the list of priorities.--Karek^maps?! 11:59, 3 August 2008 (BST)

There are Human groups and Zombie groups. Trying to claim that zombies are just undead humans is as annoying as insisting on calling people "(blank) Americans." Humans are very different from zombies in this game and you can't argue that. As I see it, the reason we have a basic "human" category is so that we don't add our judgment of a group on their page. We don't deem a group "PKer", "Life Cultist", or "Pro-Survivor". We just say this group is made up primarily of starting class humans.

We don't want bots doing mass editing like that because we need someone to look at the page and make sure it isn't kiddie porn, vandalized, or a crit 1 that needs to be dealt with.--– Nubis ^NWO 13:25, 3 August 2008 (BST)

I should point out we do in-fact have all of those categories you listed_{(except Pro-Survivor)} and then some, and they do see a decent amount of use. --Karek^maps?! 13:37, 3 August 2008 (BST)

I had something about that, but edited it out. I was going to say I never put those labels on a page because I think the group has the right to define themselves. I just want to look at the page and make sure it is "ok" then stick a basic label on it under the belief that as the group grows it will find its' path. Or because some groups just don't quite fit in the smaller pigeon holes. --– Nubis ^NWO 15:37, 3 August 2008 (BST)

Living characters are called Survivors in the game. And zombies are called zombies. There are no "humans" or "PKers" or "GKers" or "death cultists", etc. in Urban Dead. They're all Survivor characters. Now it makes sense to add stuff like PKers, etc. because those are clearly defined playing styles within the greater Survivor moniker, but aren't really "pro-survivor". But... calling Survivors "humans" is pro-survivor bias. However, since no one seems to give a shit... whatever... Have a nice day. --WanYao 23:43, 3 August 2008 (BST)

Wiki home page contents/links need updating

Specifically those tables of content. Many of the links are obsolete and/or rather useless. Sadly, the centering map is one such example. Each external link needs to be checked to see if it's functional. Meanwhile, all links should be evaluated for relevancy, obsolescence, etc. Time for a clean up. Of course, I'd work on it myself... but I cain't... --WanYao 11:32, 3 August 2008 (BST)

If you have any suggestions as to which links should be removed, please do feel free to post them and I will take care of it.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 13:59, 4 August 2008 (BST)

Templated Signatures

Why is that a bad thing? I don't have page load problems either except my page. Next are we going to ban my page? --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 01:31, 28 September 2008 (BST)

For those not seeing problems with templated signatures; remember when some vandal pasted the whole Talk:Suggestions in someone's sig? Ah, good times...
There are also other problems with them, most visible in suggestion voting. Namely: newbies. Often they just approximately copy how others have signed their posts and end up with {{User:Newbie}}. This isn't noticeable if they have no userpage at the moment (it just results in a red User:Newbie). If they later create a user-page, it gets included in the middle of the voting section. Not nice.
However, there is one thing Grim is wrong about. The amount of data that gets transferred is exactly the same regardless of whether the code is in a template-call or directly in the page. What it does, is increase the amount of processing required serverside. The extra processing makes the page generation take longer. Slow connections download the slowly generated content pretty much the same speed as before, but fast connections might have to wait for the page to get generated. Meaning that the effect is more noticeable on fast connections, not slow ones. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 12:28, 3 October 2008 (BST)

I don't really mind about their use/banning its the changeover thats going to cause the shitstorm. You ban them, you post so in wiki news, you remove the sections in help/welcome sections about creating them. Fine.

Of course then you're going to spend a few weeks having to constantly police the policy, explaining to every casual player that comes back whats going on and why theyre being warned, even then you've got the sigs of many an abandoned account all over the place catching the eyes of the new, silently calling them to do something crazy.

Or could you just remove the option from my preferences? IN which case it will probably all be fine. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:41, 3 October 2008 (BST)

There's actually a ridiculously easy way of stopping automatic templated sig use. Just edit {{nosubst}} from {{{{{1}}}}} to {{subst:{{{1}}}}}. The sigs will then get automatically substed in (I tested this in my sandbox). Yeah, you could still manually write {{User:Midianian/Sig}}, but you'd have to do that each and every time you sign. You couldn't use templated signatures unintentionally. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 23:06, 3 October 2008 (BST)

Unless you save it as a macro (I have no idea what i just said) But yeah, that would limit it quite nicely. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 08:38, 4 October 2008 (BST)

Communal Accounts

I'm both shocked and amazed that Boxy's looking for a way to ban me(!) Quite simply if the account in question is used for vandalism, block it and escalate me, regardless of IP. I know everyone else who's got access and am happy to take the fall. Though considering the implication, I don't expect the pages to be locked, because that would just be petty. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 05:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You're hardly the first person to have a communal account.--Karek^maps?! 06:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

No, but I'm the first to have a section on this made for when vandalism occurs and we must ban the alt for great justice! Even though you and I have the same number of escalations, it's mine that causes discussion on this page. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I wish I could say that I'm shocked and amazed at your reaction to my simply discussing this. I'm not looking to ban anyone, it's just a situation that (like I said on the main page) I haven't seen come up before, and has the potential to make things difficult if things start going wrong. What are the advantages to such an account? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:38 3 January 2009 (BST)

You've never seen it before? What are the advantages? Why don't you ask the sysops I got the idea off? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't know about that account, but it doesn't seem to say anything about multiple users being able to log on to it, only that multiple users have the right to edit it's sub pages (and only those with prior permission). And I don't like your implication that just because a sysop may have done it, or something similar, it's automatically "a good thang" -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:41 3 January 2009 (BST)

Did you check the IP logs? Did you check the IP logs of the current account in question? If you did you'd better have a fucking good reason, because that's what led to J3D's demotion. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Did I check to see if multiple people were using the account? Yes. Did I check to see who else was using the IP addy? No -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:55 3 January 2009 (BST)

I'd lay money you won't let an impartial user check those logs. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Any sysop can check the logs -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:10 3 January 2009 (BST)

Did you miss the section where I said impartial? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

How impartial do you have to be to see two IP addresses come up when you search a name? --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 12:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Seeing is one thing, expressing that sight to the community that sight is a different thing. Hence why Boxy will not allow an impartial user to view the logs. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You need to have lived in a sealed box your whole life. -- Cheese 12:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

So anyway. Is it designed to have multiple people able to log into the account? It just seems to me to open the door for trouble -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:10 3 January 2009 (BST)

Please link the policy and section that disallow multiple users to an account. Until then feel free to keep 'what seems to you' to yourself. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

FFS, do I have to make a policy discussion about this before you'll even discuss it? I just wanted to talk about it, and see if there was some reason for them -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:20 3 January 2009 (BST)

After your behaviour on A/M? Yeah you fucking do. I have to give you precisely nothing. You're the one looking for avenues to ban this account, fine, bring me the policy and the specific section. Until then fuck off and deal with it. Go ahead and make a policy over it, watch it be ruled non-retroactive like every other policy on this wiki. Quite simply either deal with it, or abuse the position of trust you have been placed in by the community, again, and ban me and this account. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Shoo, you're doing that thing where you don't know what you're talking about again and are just being paranoid and defensive. If the account is used for vandalism then we will act accordingly, until then stop acting like someone is abusing power, we're discussing how to do our jobs in a questionable case before it arises.--Karek^maps?! 17:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Contribs

I'm not sure if this is the right place for this, but if not please feel free to move it to the relevant place. I noticed that my signature on my contribs to the Rolt Heights Suburb here here here here and here have all been removed.

I guess it's a small matter, but I did write the Descriptions for all those Areas that now seem credited to Mobius187 --Sara M 04:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, we had a history purge on the wiki of all the old page diffs/revisions/whatever from a certain amount of time ago in order to reduce the amount of info the server was carrying. Therefore, a lot of peoples' revisions don't show up and it looks like some pages were created quite recently even though they have been around for a while (example: the main page's history). --ZsL 04:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)