Difference between revisions of "UDWiki talk:Administration/Guidelines"

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
(Editing protected pages)
(STELAR and players)
Line 29: Line 29:
 
==STELAR and players==
 
==STELAR and players==
 
she doesn't care. She plays Karaoke on Thursdays I think somewhere. I won't go to her for help, who would. Your choice into an Aichon replacement was nor here or there. A LOT of players don't trust her. How is wiki ever going to survive? --[[User:Murderess|Murderess]] ([[User talk:Murderess|talk]]) 23:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 
she doesn't care. She plays Karaoke on Thursdays I think somewhere. I won't go to her for help, who would. Your choice into an Aichon replacement was nor here or there. A LOT of players don't trust her. How is wiki ever going to survive? --[[User:Murderess|Murderess]] ([[User talk:Murderess|talk]]) 23:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 +
:I don't care if its not in the proper place... the hate is still live. She decided to dip her toes with PKers and griefers thinking they were the shit. She is now sitting in a land of it. Stelar, you fucked up. Wiki just might be the only place you can be, if they'll have you. Everyone at this point can see how you chose to go with the bad boys. its quite entertaining lol. You can't hold this job. You are not trusted.--[[User:Murderess|Murderess]] ([[User talk:Murderess|talk]]) 23:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:11, 20 October 2018

Can we add impersonation as a bannable offense or at least make it count as vandalism? There have been some truly ridiculous instances of this going on, including one where a troll wrote a fake talk page message pretending to be another user and acting like an idiot, and one where someone edited something that I said to make it seem as if I was accusing another user of being Thor. It's really quite annoying and clearly against the spirit of the wiki. --LibrarianBrent 23:03, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I don't see an issue with making it a vandal offense. As long as we keep a three-strikes policy towards it like we do with vandalism. -- Odd Starter talk | Mod 23:27, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
That's what I intended, yes. --LibrarianBrent 02:01, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)

It is my personal opinion that when someone goes extra tard-hard in editing other people's comments and generally fouling up pages with abandon, they should be banned a lot longer than 24 hours. I'm aware that they usually don't come back at all, but for, say, Teabag23 to just be able to come back tomorrow and do some more is a bit silly.. --Slicer 02:32, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)

It's not that silly. The idea is to give people the benefit of the doubt, and to allow bygones to be bygones. Forgive and Forget, and all that jazz. We don't have a pure system of Forgive and Forget, but we do make the note that if people want to become productive members of the community, we'll happily forgive their past transgressions. No punishment is indefinite, so at the end of their "sentence", we're happy to let them try again to be reasonable users.
I think the sliding ban scale is more than enough. I have no desire to have any excuse to be able to do away with someone I don't like. If they really want to be idiots, eventually they'll have their right to edit the wiki revoked for longer than their attention span, and they'll happily go off and leave us alone. And really, that's the best you can do. -- Odd Starter talk | Mod 03:22, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)


Editing protected pages

I think the guidelines are too restrictive here; they prevent a moderator who notices something screwy in a template from "legally" fixing it. As well as other acceptable edits. While I agree that protected pages are that way for a reason, anything that is not a matter of historical record shouldn't be restricted so heavily. Vandal Banning and getting de-sysop-ed are enough of a deterrent IMO. –Xoid STFU! 15:08, 31 May 2006 (BST)

The wording is far from ideal because we are actually required to update some protected pages, etc. Note that it said that we have to protect them as they are, not that it is not allowed to change them afterwards. But as most of the protected pages are the previously suggested pages that serve as historical record or explicitly protected to make sure that the page is not edited anymore there are only a few pages that would need editing by us. We also must conform to a higher standard of good faith edit on those pages as well because normal users can't edit the page anymore, so all our editing on those pages need to be in capacity as a sysop. If that is the case, there is nothing holding you back. If it doesn't conform to that, there probably just isn't a need to do it anyway.--Vista 17:38, 31 May 2006 (BST)
UDWiki:Moderation/Guidelines#Editing of Protected Pages - Says otherwise here. It's just bad all-round. Until I made an alteration, we were actually supposed to delete pages we were asked to protect. (Yeah, I'm stretching it, but a numbnut could've interpreted it that way.) –Xoid STFU! 17:46, 31 May 2006 (BST)
That is a tad bad yes. It's never been used. mainly because there usually isn't a reason for editing a protected page, or a very good reason to do so. I say scrap the whole thing and tag the following sentence on the main protection article.
"An editor may only edit a protected page if his duties as a sysop require him to."
As it the difference between both the article and sentence is non excistant.--Vista 17:58, 31 May 2006 (BST)
And you sir are now officially Patois. I managed to dredge what you meant out of that, but the syntax you used was… tortured. –Xoid STFU! 18:01, 31 May 2006 (BST)
I'm a dyslexic Dutchman whose computer currently lacks a spell checker, the fact that there is any meaning to discern is a proud testament to my abilities.
You know that fable that an infinite amount of monkeys given an infite amount of time will manage to write a perfect copy of the complete works of shakespeare?
If you give an infinite amount of perfect copies of me a infinite amount of time there still will be spelling and syntax mistakes… (Feel free to improve my grammar and spelling anytime you want. You've got blanket permission.) --Vista 18:11, 31 May 2006 (BST)
Don D Crummitt has an interesting template in that vein. Uncyclopedia has a great page in that vein too, only replace Monkeys with Uncyclopedians. The end effect is about the same, only with more swearing. –Xoid STFU! 01:09, 1 June 2006 (BST)

What about a case such as, for example, a protected template that uses depreciated HTML, or some other sort of structural/formatting problem? Would a moderator be able to correct those errors without issue, or would that be grounds for misconduct? –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 01:15, 28 June 2006 (BST)

I've done it often enough, and haven't been warned or banned yet, so I'd give a tentative "yes". –Xoid STFU! 02:36, 14 July 2006 (BST)
In the editing protected pages section of the guidelines it says that "Requests for a system operator to edit a protected page should be placed under the Requested Edits heading on the protections page." I would love to do this but the section it refers to is does not exist, I'm creating it now but in the event that there is a reason this doesn't exist than that sentence should be changed. Vantar 18:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

STELAR and players

she doesn't care. She plays Karaoke on Thursdays I think somewhere. I won't go to her for help, who would. Your choice into an Aichon replacement was nor here or there. A LOT of players don't trust her. How is wiki ever going to survive? --Murderess (talk) 23:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't care if its not in the proper place... the hate is still live. She decided to dip her toes with PKers and griefers thinking they were the shit. She is now sitting in a land of it. Stelar, you fucked up. Wiki just might be the only place you can be, if they'll have you. Everyone at this point can see how you chose to go with the bad boys. its quite entertaining lol. You can't hold this job. You are not trusted.--Murderess (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Personal tools
advertisements