UDWiki:Administration/Protections/Archive/2012 04
This page is for the request of page protection within the Urban Dead wiki. Due to philosophical concerns, the ability to protect pages is restricted to system operators. As such, regular users will need to request a protection from the system operators. For consistency and accountability, system operators also adhere to the guidelines listed here.
Guidelines for Protection Requests
All Protection Requests must contain the following information in order to be considered:
- A link to the page in question. Preferably bolded for visibility.
- A reason for protection. This should be short and to the point.
- A signed datestamp. This can be easily done by adding ~~~~ to the end of your request.
Any protection request that does not contain these three pieces of information will not be considered, and will be removed by a system operator.
Once the protection request has been entered, the request shall remain on this page, where it will be reviewed by a member of the Sysop team, and action taken accordingly. Once action has been taken, the system operator will add a comment including a signed datestamp detailing his course of action, and the request will be moved into the Recent Actions queue, where it will remain for one week. After that week is up, it may be moved to the archive (see navigation box below). If the Protection has been granted, the system operator should place the tag {{protect}} on the page(s) that have been protected.
In the event of a system operator requesting a Protection, all the previous points will apply, excepting that a system operator other than the requestor shall review and take action on the request.
Pages in the Protection Queue may already be scheduled protections. For a list of scheduled protections, see here.
Protection Queue
Place pages requiring protection here.
Requested Edits
Place pages requiring editing here.
Recent Actions
Good Night Sweet prince
Mis' re-ev page needs protecting.--Shortround }.{ My Contributions 15:10, 30 April 2012 (BST)
- Done by Spiderzed.--Shortround }.{ My Contributions 15:19, 30 April 2012 (BST)
Red Rum
Someone still needs to protect it as a historical group. Might wanna look into their subpages too, though I don't remember the exact procedure for that.-- 
Thadeous Oakley Talk 19:16, 28 April 2012 (BST)
- Got the main page; will probably get the subpages later.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 21:51, 28 April 2012 (BST)
- I was actually deliberately leaving it unprotected (historical groups don't need to be protected), because there's more historical stuff I want to add or link to the page. Seeing as I'm a sysop and (secret?) leader, though, no harm done. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 06:31, 29 April 2012 (BST)
- I would, however, request that you consult with me or another listed leader before doing anything more with our pages. While that active incarnation might be done with, the group itself lives on in other forms, and we've a lot here. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 06:33, 29 April 2012 (BST)
- Yeah they do need to be protected. it's in the rules see protections/scheduled DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:32, 29 April 2012 (BST)
- I'd like to add that if you want to make any significant changes you'll have to go through the procedure, that is "requested edits" on protections. --
Thadeous Oakley Talk 10:28, 29 April 2012 (BST)
- Not only is that not procedure, it's contrary to procedure. Sysops are told to edit protected pages only when they have good reason and are acting in good faith, with no mention of how "significant" the edits are or having to make requests. While some sysops post requests (so that they can avoid using their powers and the chance at misconduct) or document their changes after the fact (as a courtesy), nowhere is that required, as you suggest. I think it's fair to say that because his group's pages were unexpectedly protected without consulting their leadership that they may still have edits that need to be made. And as a leader of the group and a sysop, Rev has both the right and the power to edit the page. Forcing him to request edits serves no purpose other than to stroke the ego of various sysops by making him ask for something that is rightfully his. Don't burden people with bureaucracy just for the sake of doing so, let alone invent bureaucracy. —Aichon— 20:50, 29 April 2012 (BST)
- The page wasn't unexpectedly protected at all, and I never implied this now means a total lockdown; any minor edits that need to made can be easily made by Rev. I would also prefer that you don't lay words in my mouth I didn't say: i.e forcing Revenant to stroke egos or inventing "bureaucracy". Don't use a strawman.
- Not only is that not procedure, it's contrary to procedure. Sysops are told to edit protected pages only when they have good reason and are acting in good faith, with no mention of how "significant" the edits are or having to make requests. While some sysops post requests (so that they can avoid using their powers and the chance at misconduct) or document their changes after the fact (as a courtesy), nowhere is that required, as you suggest. I think it's fair to say that because his group's pages were unexpectedly protected without consulting their leadership that they may still have edits that need to be made. And as a leader of the group and a sysop, Rev has both the right and the power to edit the page. Forcing him to request edits serves no purpose other than to stroke the ego of various sysops by making him ask for something that is rightfully his. Don't burden people with bureaucracy just for the sake of doing so, let alone invent bureaucracy. —Aichon— 20:50, 29 April 2012 (BST)
- I would, however, request that you consult with me or another listed leader before doing anything more with our pages. While that active incarnation might be done with, the group itself lives on in other forms, and we've a lot here. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 06:33, 29 April 2012 (BST)
- I'll take back that it is procedure, though I would still recommend doing so, it certainly wouldn't be contrary at all. I would like to point out that as far as the wiki is concerned the group Red Rum is disbanded and part of UD history, which means the version of the page when the group was active should be preserved in it's original state as best as possible. Hence why any significant changes to any historical page should be discussed or at the very least be documented first, even if you were (notice the past tense) the leader. If the entire page suddenly gets changed to a picture of a bunny (extreme example but you get the point), then either someone's is getting misconducted or the entire idea behind historical preservation would be moot. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:00, 29 April 2012 (BST)
- Inb4 Revenant replacing the page with a bunny. ;) --Shortround }.{ My Contributions 22:30, 29 April 2012 (BST)
- I have plainly followed the protection schedule. If you have issue with historical groups being on the list of scheduled protections, take it to vote in A/PT/S. Since the removal of Speedy Deletion Crit 12 historical groups has lost its original purpose (keeping inactive groups from being deleted) anyway.
- As for future edits on the Red Rum pages... De minimis non curat praetor. In most cases, documenting changes in A/PT after the fact should be sufficient. -- Spiderzed█ 23:35, 29 April 2012 (BST)
- I'm not suggesting you did anything wrong, because you most certainly did not. I would say, however, that it would have been better to consult or else wait awhile. Even just pinging him on his talk or in IRC to ask if he wanted to make any changes first would have been nice. —Aichon— 00:25, 30 April 2012 (BST)
- It was not my intent to put any words in your mouth at all. The reason I said you invented bureaucracy is because you did. Saying that unnecessary steps are procedure when they are not is inventing bureaucracy. As for the "ego" comment, I admit I phrased that poorly. My intent with that was to point out how useless those extra steps are, since that was the only practical result I could see coming out of them. It was not my intent to suggest that — nor is it my belief that — that purpose was your intent. I think you suggested it simply because you thought it was the proper thing to do. I believe you were mistaken, but that is nonetheless a commendable motivation.
- As for leadership and edits, as far as the wiki is concerned, the once-leaders of Red Rum are still the owners of the page. Ownership doesn't expire when the group expires, and that's true both for regular groups and historical groups. And, as you said, if the page gets replaced with bunnies or the like, misconduct is the proper course of action. Going back to the guidelines, sysops can only edit protected pages with good reason and in good faith. Just because he has the right and the power to change the page doesn't mean he can change it according to any whim that takes his fancy. If you're talking about changes of that sort, then yes, they should go through here. Otherwise, reasonable edits in good faith and with good reason, even if they are significant, shouldn't need to be requested, so long as they are not otherwise misconductable. —Aichon— 00:25, 30 April 2012 (BST)
- Inb4 Revenant replacing the page with a bunny. ;) --Shortround }.{ My Contributions 22:30, 29 April 2012 (BST)
- I'll take back that it is procedure, though I would still recommend doing so, it certainly wouldn't be contrary at all. I would like to point out that as far as the wiki is concerned the group Red Rum is disbanded and part of UD history, which means the version of the page when the group was active should be preserved in it's original state as best as possible. Hence why any significant changes to any historical page should be discussed or at the very least be documented first, even if you were (notice the past tense) the leader. If the entire page suddenly gets changed to a picture of a bunny (extreme example but you get the point), then either someone's is getting misconducted or the entire idea behind historical preservation would be moot. --
- I caught the remainder. All done. -- Spiderzed█ 12:13, 29 April 2012 (BST)
User:Vapor
Semi-protect, please. See history. ~
06:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
User:The General
Please semi-protect.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 13:05, 25 April 2012 (BST)
- Carried out by Karek already -- Spiderzed█ 22:11, 26 April 2012 (BST)
- BTW, as a sysop you can protect/delete/whatever pretty much anything within your own userspace and it counts as de facto "User Request", so next time be bold and just do it yourself.
ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 05:43, 27 April 2012 (BST)
User:Urbandead
No reason for anyone to need to edit this.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 13:05, 25 April 2012 (BST)
Ackland Mall
Damn spambots are having too much fun for my liking. Check the history to see what I mean. ~~ Chief Seagull ~~ talk 18:21, 17 April 2012 (BST)
- Probably due to it being one of the first mainspace articles alphabetically. I'd say a good candidate for semi-protection. ~ 19:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm a bit reluctant to protect mainspace pages just due to a brief spike in spamming. Hence, I have just semi-protected it for two weeks. If the problem arises again afterwards, we might look at longer protection. -- Spiderzed█ 20:56, 17 April 2012 (BST)
- To be fair, I don't see it posing too much of a problem, as most new users won't be editing it anyway. If they need to update the status, most use the Danger-Reports anyway, rather than editing the page itself. Doesn't seem like it'll cause too much mayhem.--Shortround }.{ My Contributions 21:06, 17 April 2012 (BST)
User:Generaloberst and User Talk:Generaloberst
Both pages require wiping aside from the banned user template. -- Cheese 01:35, 15 April 2012 (BST)
- Done. Page history has been kept for posterity in the vandal banning case. -- Spiderzed█ 01:42, 15 April 2012 (BST)
- Actually, we've been known to occasionally keep a relevant version of the page in some rare cases. This seems pretty clearly to be one of those where the evidence itself in hardlink form(the final userpage) would both be appropriate and make sense so I've left that with the templates. It's also far superior than a diff link for referencing the case in the future since those occasionally die. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 09:47, 15 April 2012 (BST)
The Blitz and Battle of Buckley Mall
Has been protected for 1 month by me as arbitrator in order to prevent edit-warring and channel the resolution towards arbitration. -- Spiderzed█ 11:32, 11 April 2012 (BST)
- As the arbitration ruling has been declared and covers future edits by the involved parties, the protection has once again been removed by me. -- Spiderzed█ 01:27, 14 April 2012 (BST)
User:DanceDanceRevolution/sandpit/9
Heya, I'd like this protected just for now. No real reason other than I don't want to forget about me doing the radio cleanup that long ago (and edit over it). DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:08, 9 April 2012 (BST)
User:Krazy Monkey
Hallooooooo, can you unprotect the following pages:
I have big plans. -- Cheese 09:16, 5 April 2012 (BST)
- Karek unprotected-conflicted me...Damn you Karek.
--•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 11:00, 5 April 2012 (BST)
- :D --Karekmaps 2.0?! 11:02, 5 April 2012 (BST)
- I'm sure there's some bots you can get since I'm off for now. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 11:04, 5 April 2012 (BST)
- I'm enroute to class. About to head underground. No service in those subways. I'm sure someone else will get to them. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 11:06, 5 April 2012 (BST)
User:Axe Hack/Archive 6
Requested by me, carried out by me. Just thought the request should be documented here. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 13:39, 3 April 2012 (BST)
Archives
|
Protections Archive | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
