UDWiki talk:Administration/Protections

On 'Yea'

Just a note, "yay" is an exlamation of happiness, "yea" is an affirmative answer. --Lucero Capell 21:56, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Maybe some people are just happy about the suggestion. :P People seem to confuse the two all the time... I just type Yay to make it easier to count. --Daranz | Talk | 21:57, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Template Issues

I'm not sure if this is the right place, but the wording of the Moderation Services - Protection label seems to be somewhat off. It currently says: " This page has been protected due to an edit war by the Moderation Team." I'm not sure if anybody else reads it this way, but when I see it, it seems to say that the Moderation Team is a part of the edit war. I know that's not what it's saying, but it's still somewhat ambiguous. Maybe a rephrasing? Dinferno 23:49, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)

There. That should make that a lot less ambiguous. -- Odd Starter ^{talk | Mod} 01:15, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Yes, that's a lot clearer. Thank you. Dinferno 02:06, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Revision of fatally flawed protection guideline

It is my belief that the "protections" guideline at UDWiki:Moderation/Guidelines is fatally flawed. Not only is the writing full of typos and grammatical mistakes, and vague in many places, but its intentions appear fatally flawed: essentially, if a Moderator edits a protected page for any reason other than to edit it after heavy vandalism, he/she is committing vandalism his/herself. This is obviously ludicrous; it implies, for example, that I committed vandalism today when I updated some protected Moderation pages to fix dead links due to the recent policy to move Moderation pages into the UDWiki namespace. I have written an updated version of the policy below. Please review it and give me your feedback so that we can hopefully change this obviously flawed policy.

Protection of Pages Protection of pages is restricted to Moderators due to the inherent nature of the action — protections would not be useful if regular users could protect and unprotect pages at will. The following guidelines indicate the rules that govern Moderators and page protection. Moderators may only protect pages that users have requested be protected on UDWiki:Moderation/Protections, or (for a short period, and without the need for a protection request) high-visibility pages that are undergoing repeated vandalism. Before a page is protected, it is expected that the Moderator will ensure that there is good reason for its protection — these include protracted edit wars, and constant vandalism by multiple users on a high-visibility page. Further, except in the instance of heavy vandalism mentioned above, Moderators may not protect a page that they themselves have requested be protected. It is part of a Moderator's responsibility to check these pages often and serve any pending requests, subject to the guidelines above. In the event of protection, a Moderator is expected to protect the page in whatever state the page was in at the time the request is reviewed, regardless of its original state. In some circumstances, protections on a scheduled basis may be required as part of a system on the wiki. In this case, it is not expected that each protection be requested through the Moderation pages. Instead, the schedule should be approved by the Community at the Schedules section of UDWiki:Moderation/Protections. Approved schedules are listed in the following Subsection. Scheduled Protections Suggestion Day Page Protection - Each Suggestion day vote page will be protected after its given voting period, and after the intro template has been replaced. Approved 06:29, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT) Editing of Protected Pages As a subset of their Moderation powers, Moderators also have the ability to edit protected pages. Given that Moderators and Bureaucrats are the only users who can edit protected pages, it is expected that Moderators take care to edit protected pages only in good faith, and not without good reason. Moderators are explicitly given the right to edit a page that has been protected due to constant vandalism, and changes are necessary to revert the vandalism. Requests for a Moderator to edit a protected page should be made on the specific page's Talk page.

–Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 01:50, 12 July 2006 (BST)

I think even this is too restrictive; what about pages that have coding errors or some really annoying typo that isn't meant as part of historical record? We could try to account for all of these special circumstances, but I think that we'll always miss one or two of said circumstances and we'd be back in the exact same position we are currently — doing something "wrong" that nobody except the vindictive would make a Misconduct case over. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 02:42, 14 July 2006 (BST)

"...it is expected that Moderators take care to edit protected pages only in good faith, and not without good reason." Seems like that covers it to me; fixing coding errors or a typo fix would be good reason to edit a page, while (e.g.) randomly changing formatting would not be. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 02:49, 14 July 2006 (BST)

Your rule is basically the current practice of editing a protected page. I see no reason to add something. Just replace the old text with this so the text fits the rule we actually use. --Vista 23:44, 14 July 2006 (BST)

Done. If anyone comes running to chop my head off, I'm going to point at you. ;) –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 00:57, 15 July 2006 (BST)

Archiving

Same as Undeletions, we should probably archive all Protections after a week, just so people can check the main page for a while instead of going straight to the archive to check for recent actions. – Nubis ^NWO 14:39, 27 August 2006 (BST)

Yeah, sounds good. --Brizth ^{M T} 14:46, 27 August 2006 (BST)

Done and done. – Nubis ^NWO 15:42, 27 August 2006 (BST)

Why is the anti-hate policy discussion locked?

It is vital to have open discussion on this subject so those who have not yet voted can see both side of the issue.Jjames 00:24, 30 August 2006 (BST)

Because voting is closed, because the policy is withdrawn. Not that it matters anymore. You don't like me, so just take me straight to M/M. That's an order. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 00:26, 30 August 2006 (BST)

Categories for Protected Pages

I'm trying place the following pages into Categories but due to their protected status I can not do it alone Could someone added the following pages in to their category

• Crabapple into [[Category:Crabapple]]
• Ludwig Controversy into [[Category:Diplomacy]]
• Assault on Stupid Survivors/Archive into [[Category:Assault on Stupid Survivors]]
• Assault on Stupid Survivors/Recruitmentinto [[Category:Assault on Stupid Survivors]]
• Assault on Stupid Survivors into [[Category:Assault on Stupid Survivors]]

Thanks Vantar 04:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Should be done.--Gage 04:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Vantar 21:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The Black Knights

Should i protect thios ;oll?--xoxo 03:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)--xoxo 03:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)--xoxo 03:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)--xoxo 03:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)--xoxo 03:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)--xoxo 03:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

brb church --xoxo 03:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

LOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO --Nallan03:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Just because you're a sysop now doesn't mean you've free reign to shit up the admin pages. If you don't know whether to protect it or not, leave it for someone else -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 05:23 17 December 2008 (BST)

Bahahhaa. You amuse me to no end. If only you could say the same for me i'd be much happier...--xoxo 16:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Archive this like A/SD?

At the moment, this page is manually archived. Is there any reason that it isn't archived like A/SD, with the request space actually being a template, and at the end of the month, the template is simply removed and a new one added?

If there is a glaringly obvious technical reason, ignore this, but it would be a lot easier to have this archived like A/SD. If the problem is that no-one can be bothered fixing the archives, I'll help with that :). Linkthewindow  Talk  04:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The main reason, I think, is that this page hasn't historically got as much use as A/SD and A/VB -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:51 24 December 2008 (BST)

That's what I was thinking-as to why it hasn't been done like that yet. However, the A/PT archive at the moment is nightmarish to navigate, and archiving by months would make it a bit more orderly, IMO. Linkthewindow  Talk  05:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Editing by month's is less than preferably for easy of discovery. The archives are kept so we can find older reports for whatever reason, having them set by month doesn't help us do that and is actually only done because of the size of the pages in question.--Karek^maps?! 10:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The other systems are intrinsically flawed, they give newbies the impression it's fine to edit pages marked archive. If anyone had thought about the system then they'd have the pages labelled as months and then moved to a new page headed archive after that month and all the cases on it were completed. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of this problem (or at least put that way.) Has it been an issue in the past? Linkthewindow  Talk  05:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Rarely happens, especially seeing as the admin ones get consistently protected now. It's mainly an issue if people start editing archives in the user namespace, I guess, but I haven't seen any increase in that lately -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 05:20 24 December 2008 (BST)

Anyway, I don't see any great need to have Archive in there anyway. Nothing wrong with UDWiki:Administration/Protections/2008_12, given that it'll have a template with all the other A/PT archives on it anyway -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 05:22 24 December 2008 (BST)

I was thinking along those lines too. As long as they get protected at the end of the month (which always seems to happen at A/VB or A/SD.) Linkthewindow  Talk  05:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It actually originally was going to be like that but we ran into some problems. I might look into it again in the future but that may be many months from now.--Karek^maps?! 10:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm on holiday, hence why I brought it up now. Unless anyone says otherwise, I'll be able to get it done in two weeks. Are said problems crippling? Linkthewindow  Talk  10:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

If memory serves they were. You can get the gist of what the original system was going to be by visiting the sysop discussion area linked in the admin nav.--Karek^maps?! 11:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't appear to find said discussion, and nothing in the page's history. Anyway, I'll see if I can get anything resembling a working model in my user subspace, and if I can, then we'll see. Linkthewindow  Talk  11:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, said working model is looking something like this page. Do you remember more details on the bug, Karek? Linkthewindow  Talk  11:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

UDWiki:Administration/Discussion#Revisions was where we discussed the original system. There's still another alternative to address the revisions issue but that would require making sure all the sysops completely understood the new method before trying to archive it, as it would require page moves.--Karek^maps?! 14:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Archive this page

can someone please archive both the recent actions and this talk page ? There is discussions dated from 2005 in here, and main page is getting rather lenghty... i would do it myself, but imagoinghomenowkkthxbie --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 21:15, 8 June 2009 (BST)