User:Linkthewindow/Projects/Protections/2008 12

Protections Archive

2005	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2006	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2007	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2008	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2009	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec

This is an sandbox page to test out an archiving system, and because Linkthewindow is bored. Post any pages requring protections here.

This is the archive page for UDWiki:Administration/Protections.

Protection Queue

More permabanned users

I know that scheduled protections usually aren't requested here, but are permabanned users similar to policies (as in, they are requested here so protection is quick?) Sorry if they usually aren't, I'm still learning (and there isn't over a hundred like with the suggestions :).) Linkthewindow Talk 11:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The_Dead

Talk:The_Dead This is an unusual request, but I would like the Talk page for the Dead protected. It's nearing the anniversary (we started as The Dead of Dunell Hills late December, IIRC). I'm really the only goon left on the wiki (AFAIK ), the last edit was on the 11th and it was borderline vandalism, the group is still "active" and can't be put up for historical consideration and all the page did was cause drama. If need be I can put a link from the Dead talk page on to a section on my talk page for contact. But really I would just like to finish off that part of Goon/UD history. --– Nubis ^NWO 19:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The archive is already locked. --– Nubis ^NWO 19:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you just make another archive and get that protected? --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 20:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Do what midianian suggested. Active group talk pages shouldn't be protected unless they are being persistently vandalised, which isn't the case here.--x o x o 05:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The only other option is to put it up for historical voting, which doesn't seem to want to be done by the Dead. Linkthewindow Talk 05:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

They're still an active group, in fact 4th on the stats page. Closing the talk page for such a group would be unreasonable.--x o x o 10:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Which is why we shouldn't close it. Archiving it would be a much better idea, IMO. Linkthewindow Talk 10:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh right, you were agreeing with me :P --x o x o 11:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested Edits

Place protected pages requiring edits here.

Recent Actions

Example page

Hello Mr. Sysop. I would like this page protected. Thanks! Example User. 03:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Protected Mr. Sysop 03:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

S.O.S.‎

S.O.S.‎ I request protection of this page due to an edit war that I'm involved in. I started by removing (to the talk page) the whole signatures section, but now I'm only removing the extended, and abusive discussion that ensued, but Iscariot still insists on reverting -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:26 21 December 2008 (BST)

This is now subject to arbitration, let's see if Boxy ignores precedent and continues his contentious editing without discussion. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 01:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

We've already been discussing it on the talk page -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:29 21 December 2008 (BST)

You have now reverted twice whilst an arbitration case is open, who's displaying bad faith? --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 01:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The people actually carrying on continued and abusive discussions on someones main page? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:46 21 December 2008 (BST)

Due to a section the page owners set up. If the owners decide to remove it, that's their prerogative, but you have no right to go around this wiki enforcing your opinion as to page content against to will of the owners. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 01:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You weren't even commenting on the subject of the page (which is the only thing you could have thought that section was for), only calling one of the other commenters a zerging scumfuck. Show some respect for people's pages, and take it to the talk page yourself -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:57 21 December 2008 (BST)

I'm quite capable of making my case on Arbitration, perhaps you should as well to prevent filling up other admin pages. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 02:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Page protected. All signatures removed beforehand... they were simply mocking the strike instead of supporting it. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 02:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. None of them were signatories (signer, signatory: someone who signs and is bound by a document) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:51 21 December 2008 (BST)

Actually, I did sign that document, and therefore I am a signatory, according to my Webster's 7th Collegiate Edition (one who signs a document. the "is bound by" is irrelevant because there was nothing to be bound by.) I felt that I had a valid opinion on that page, and as the authors encouraged expression of opinions on the main page, I did so. The section's title wasn't "Pro-Survivor Signatures" or "Striker's signatures", it was simply... signatures. --Pestolence^(talk) 03:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You are sigining up to the basic premise that (and I quote) "we are of the opinion that this game has fallen out of balance. All of the major rule changes for the past year have favored the Zombies." etc. and your statement was "All together now: *Ahem* BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!". Seems your comment means exactly that you do not in any way agree with what you are signing, and that you are in fact mocking it -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:12 21 December 2008 (BST)

Suggestions/8th-Dec-2005#Not_Have_Zombies--Karek^maps?! 05:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, what has someone trolling the suggestions vote section got to do with this? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:43 21 December 2008 (BST)

I prefer Petition_for_Survivors_to_Stop_Bitching_About_Everything_Else --– Nubis ^NWO 14:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

That's an excellent example of exactly what I'm talking about. Everyone who signed that petition was agreeing with basic premise, that survivors should shut up and stop whinging. If a heap of survivors had taken over the signatures section and posted abuse at the author, what would have happened? An escalation of goon/pubbie insults, resulting in a shitload of A/VB cases -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 23:30 21 December 2008 (BST)

It shows you're actually incorrect about the validity of non-serious signatures and should probably let the group leader decide. I can certainly dig up some strikes, fake strikes, and other group related examples of the same thing if you so wish. The point is there's precedent that mocking and non-serious signatures are indeed representable on the page.--Karek^maps?! 19:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

My point isn't that they're not serious... it's that the main page is for support of the group/policy, and critism (especially mocking or abusive critisism) goes on the talk page. Or if they had wanted to, create another mock SOS page to send them up (like Nubis' link above). Basically taking over a section of a group/policy page like this to insult it's supporters, and then carry on and extended arguement when a supporter objects, is as so close to collective vandalism as you can get -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 23:30 21 December 2008 (BST)

And mine is that there's plenty of precedent the other way. It's the page owner's choice whether or not to squelch irony and sarcasm.--Karek^maps?! 08:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

They are both in error Pestolence, the page editing guidelines quite clearly state that the only 'true' section of a group's page is the paragraph below the main header, that must be NPOV. The signatures header is below that, their argument holds no weight whatsoever. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 04:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Wrong way around. The first paragraph is the NPOV section (for anyone to edit in a good faith NPOV way), the rest is for the group to write their own version -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:12 21 December 2008 (BST)

You see, I read your edit, then mine again in case I made an error, and they say exactly the same thing. The signatures section is below that header, and therefore can be POV, and the group extended editing rights to other users, therefore you have no basis to remove it due to a definition of 'signatories' as the header itself does not have to be truthful. QED. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 04:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You really are having problems with what a signatory is, eh... it's someone who agrees with the basic premise of the document! Not a place for people to dogpile on it -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:24 21 December 2008 (BST)

Really? So the definition of signatory has changed in the last 15 minutes from "one who signs" to "someone who agrees with the basic premise of the document"? The signatures section did not say that all signatures had to be in agreement with the page's statements. --Pestolence^(talk) 04:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

So you all decided it was an open invitation to abuse and mock them, eh? Nice. If you sign the bottom of a document, unless it specifically says otherwise, you are agreeing to be bound by that document. Asking for signatories is asking for people who agree with a policy -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:40 21 December 2008 (BST)

Can you direct me to the dictionary definition or the administration page which states that If you sign the bottom of a document, unless it specifically says otherwise, you are agreeing to be bound by that document.--Pestolence^(talk) 15:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

[1] --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 15:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

UDWiki:Administration/Protections/Archive2008

Page's archive hasn't been updated since October. Linkthewindow Talk 12:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

And for the hatrick. =) -- C h e e s e 12:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Locationblock & Locationblockmerge

I know that most location pages have already been categorised, but this will help with those that are being split off from grouped locations. Could someone add <includeonly>[[Category:{{{suburb}}}]][[Category:{{{location_type}}}]]</includeonly> somewhere in Template:Locationblock & Template:Locationblockmerge? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:02 22 December 2008 (BST)

Also done. =) -- C h e e s e 12:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that needs changing to <includeonly>[[Category:{{{suburb}}}]][[Category:{{{location_type}}}s]]</includeonly>. Notice the plural on the location type. Sorry about that, my bad. It's effect can be seen at Eeles Way (Hollomstown) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:00 23 December 2008 (BST)

User:Anal Spermbank and User talk:Anal Spermbank

Banned user. Blocked in April by Karek, but never protected. Linkthewindow Talk 12:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. =) -- C h e e s e 12:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion:20081106_Projectiles

As discussed in this deletions case, the author never put it through voting, and took it to the Developing Suggestions page after the only non-author vote was made. Please replace {{undecided}} at the top of the page with {{Removed|for revision, by the author}} -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:02 22 December 2008 (BST)

done.--x o x o 02:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Some unprotected suggestions

List is done pending decision on Talk pages.

Phew. That should be all the undecided suggestions. If it's needed, I should be able to go through the other categories later and sort out the already-protected, from the unprotected, although it would be much more effective if a sysop did that.

Secondly, I would also request that a sysop starts to protect these once they have finished voting, to save having to do them in large chunks, like we do now.

Finally, these are a scheduled protection, since the page says I need a reason.

Sorry for the large list of links, thanks in advance :). Linkthewindow Talk 12:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and don't forget the talk pages of some of them. Linkthewindow Talk 12:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Since there are so many I started at the bottom and will put an @ symbol by the ones I have done until we can move them all to finished. That way there won't be any confusion (I hope).--– Nubis ^NWO 14:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

There are a few talk pages in there as well. Do they need protecting? If someone wants to put their two cents in later, they probably should be allowed to edit the talk pages -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:06 17 December 2008 (BST)

Should we really let people post on the talk page of a suggestion that went through voting? They can't change the outcome. I don't think anyone would keep that on their watch list after it gets decided. --– Nubis ^NWO 14:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the question should be "will it do any harm to let people edit the talk pages". (I've still got my suggestions watchlisted) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:14 17 December 2008 (BST)

I don't care either way. I see both sides, but does this mean we unprotect all suggestion talk pages or is this a "when you cycle" change we should post/vote/whatever.--– Nubis ^NWO 14:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's really only been a short discussion between three people, so I'll put it up on Cat. Suggestions and see what other users think. Linkthewindow Talk 14:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The talk pages arn't covered by the scheduled protections, so I haven't been protecting the few that I cycle. Are there many out there that are protected? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:23 17 December 2008 (BST)

I couldn't find many at all-but I've always assumed that as part of scheduled protections like this, a talk page is covered as well. I've posed the question here at Cat. Suggestions. Linkthewindow Talk 14:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I protected all the other ones. left the list here and the talk pages unprotected until concensus is reached. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 18:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Precedent says no and the vote wasn't for talk pages anywhoo. And, Linkthewindow, since you weren't around I'll bring back up a discussion I had with Akule about a year ago; Scheduled actions should not be requested here unless it's something like policies, suggestions would spam the page horribly because there is so many old ones that need doing. Please post to sysop talk pages, most of us will get them as soon as we see them there if asked(I definitely will), other than that suggestions are mostly only done when issues come up.--Karek^maps?! 01:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer Karek. Since Midianian and myself (mostly Midianian,) cycle the suggestions and keep the Recently Closed Suggestions page updated, simply watchlisting that could allow you to protect most suggestions as they get cycled. Linkthewindow Talk 03:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Userspace

~~User talk:Iscariot/Clifford Spab~~

~~User talk:Iscariot/Doktor Iznotacarrot~~

~~User talk:Iscariot/Elliott Spenser~~

User talk:Iscariot/Damon Young

User talk:Iscariot/Cliff Spab

~~User talk:Iscariot/Cloister the Stupid~~

~~User talk:Iscariot/Damon Young/Culture Tour~~

User talk:Iscariot/New Server Ideas

User talk:Iscariot/New Server Ideas 2

They're all mine, my prerogative. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 05:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not protecting pages that don't exist.--x o x o 06:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

And yes i know etc etc etc so yeah, don't give me the run down please :P --x o x o 06:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

If you create them i will protect them though.--x o x o 06:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Non-existent pages can't be protected, afaik (would be a handy ability to have). Perhaps a redirect to your main talk page would be an idea? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:53 19 December 2008 (BST)

I know I'm not a sysop, but don't you think now would be a good time to go and find out if non-existent pages can be protected? Just a thought....

Also, redirects go on any of them and you can go right ahead and settle in for your next round of drama. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 06:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Take a break from being a dickhead for a while, would ya. I know we can't protect them here, and no, I'm not going looking to see if there's a mod Kevan can install to do it. And I was suggesting the redirect as an option that you could take, heaven forbid that I touch a page of yours... I could be miscontribulated just for posting there (according to someone who doesn't understand wiki policy) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 07:33 19 December 2008 (BST)

We can't have people learning what they're doing now. That would be horrible. Anyway, yeah, we can't protect non-existant pages unless there's some work around I'm not seeing.--Karek^maps?! 07:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

These people seem to know. Odd how 30 seconds with Google supersedes the knowledge of the entire sysop team. Odd how they didn't think to do this themselves.... --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 07:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

We don't have cascading protections or I would have done that.-Karek^maps?! 08:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I protected those pages that acually exist, and ~~struck~~ those that don't exist atm -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 23:54 19 December 2008 (BST)

SugVoteRules

The following closed suggestions still have the {{SugVoteRules}} template in them, which should have been removed when closing the suggestion.

I request it be removed from the suggestions. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 15:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

All cleaned up. --Daranz^{.t.mod janitor} 17:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The Black Knights

I think it would be wise if we protected this page. It has a long history of vandalism, and attempts to take over the page. I suspect something similar has happened again, here. TheBlackKnight is a new account that is attempting to take over the page from Vidad12 or Keith 921, the actual owners.

Ordinarily the page would probably be crit 1 speedydeleted, but that's only likely to open it up to being recreated by the same person that's been griefing it for well over a year (persistent little bugger). The latest incident discussed here and here -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:48 17 December 2008 (BST)

I must be missing something, why aren't we letting this page be crit 1-ed and then allowing this guy to recreate a group with the same name? The page itself quite clearly states the group has been disbanded, how does one grief a group that no longer exists?

Even if the old group come back after this guy has taken (rightly) their old namespace it's hardly going to take long, given the history, to move the new group into a bracketed namespace and leave the original namespace as a disambiguation page between the two. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 02:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

He didn't want it to actually create a group. He started out PKing this tiny group, and then vandalised their page repeatedly. Nothing but a vandal trying to be annoying, and I feel it would be better if he didn't get his way... but it's up to the other sysops to decide if I've got a case or not, eh -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 05:28 17 December 2008 (BST)

After reading the talk page I say protect it. The real owners know that they can contact sysops to get changes made or unprotect it when they are ready.--– Nubis ^NWO 14:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Done.--– Nubis ^NWO 23:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Template talk:Moderationnav

Anyone mind if i tweak the template as suggested in the link? I'll also sort those suggestion protections in about 3 hours.--Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 13:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry about dumping them all on you sysops in one hit. I was bored :(. Linkthewindow Talk 13:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Changed it. more than willing to see it reverted if it causes problems. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 16:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

UDWiki:Administration Guidelines

I just want this edit undoing. It's nonsensical within the English language to have this extra comma in the sentence. The fact the new comma adds a double interpretation to the clause and will allow for drama. The qualifier has always been 250 edits and and one month per de-escalation. The comma provides for the case being made that a de-escalation is 250 edits per de-escalation (so there could be more than one) provided a month has passed since the most recent escalation. Perhaps we should not be letting people who freely admit "I haz poor grammer skillz. Ye r warned." make edits to the critical English grammar structure of policies arbitrarily. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Zs L 17:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Autoconfirmed Group

No discussion, I archived it. Please protect, as other archived policies.

Linkthewindow Talk 23:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Karek got the main page, the talk still needs protecting. Linkthewindow Talk 04:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

He also got the talk page now. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 15:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:Border-radius

Could someone undo hagnat's drive-by-editing? The reason as I explained it on his talk page is: "...text immediately inside the template (even inside <noinclude>s) is counted against the inclusion limits (ie. how much templates can be used on a page before the templates break). border-radius is a template that is included many times on many pages (even other templates). Any increase to the template page's size is bad.". --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [513,14]} 13:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to stir up any drama, but was there ever a decision on the content? I think it went to Arbies, but it fell off my radar. I'm going to roll it back to Karek's version and we can go from there. Ok? --– Nubis ^NWO 14:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The subject of the arbies wasn't the template itself, it was the pages the template is included on, and there wasn't any discussion about the content after the case. Also, Karek's "edit" there was just the protection of the template. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 14:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

^This. Also; this and this for those looking for more information on it. Our mediawiki version is outdated and still falls under what they are talking about in the second link.--Karek^maps?! 17:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Whitehouse

Kindly remove all content from the page as the template is now incorrect. - User:Whitehouse 19:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. If you don't like that I will change it. Do you just want the page unlocked? --– Nubis ^NWO 19:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, just leave it like that thanks. No need to unlock, else I might be tempted to add stuff. - User:Whitehouse 21:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Suburb Archives

Protect as other archive pages. Linkthewindow Talk 23:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

A few more:

Linkthewindow Talk 00:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

2/3rds done. As a general rule of thumb we don't protect current archives if they aren't admin edit only.--Karek^maps?! 06:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Okies. Thanks. Linkthewindow Talk 06:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Archived Bureaucrat Promotions

It's a scheduled protection, but I thought you needed some reminding :P.

-- Linkthewindow Talk 22:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and this arby case. Linkthewindow Talk 22:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

All done (in theory, ive set protection to default settings and haven't protected the talk pages as they appear to be blank. correct?) --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 22:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

They aren't protected-I could still edit if I wanted. Must be using the wrong button. Linkthewindow Talk 22:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Foolishly i set protection level to default and not sysop only. currently being rectified. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 22:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Protected now :). Linkthewindow Talk 22:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Malton Uprising

I would like to place a request for the Malton Uprising to get a protective, magic seal. Also, it could be noted that Malton Uprising/Archive can be deleted. --Secruss^|Yak|Brahnz!|CGR|PKA||EMLN|Templates|RRF|RFTM|Crap|WHOZ||MU|GN|C2008||20:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Protected. You should file the archive on deletions though, i'm reluctant to delete it since you just blanked it and it has had other editors.--x o x o 05:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Can't crit 8 be used if it's a group leader that wants it killed? Linkthewindow Talk 05:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

UDWiki:Administration/Promotions/Rosslessness

Promotion discussion finished, archived. Needs protection.

Linkthewindow Talk 10:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Dun. I moved the talk from promotions talk and protected that too.--x o x o 11:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:M/VB Intro

Could you change "This page, Vandal Banning, deals with breaches of official policy" to "This page, Vandal Banning, deals with bad-faith breaches of official policy" on Template:M/VB Intro please? It's worth clarifying that we're not out to get people who made honest mistakes. --Toejam 11:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

~~But we are!~~ Got it. --Zs L 03:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

~~I knew it!~~ Thanks. :) --Toejam 10:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

we're not out to get people who made honest mistakes. - of course not, we have nothing against honestmistake parents. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 10:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Amnesty

Just been archived, as no real discussion since the 8th (except for SuicideAngle asking if it was dead, and me saying that I was archiving it.)

Please protect, as other dead policies.

-- Linkthewindow Talk 21:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Karek got the main page, but the talk page still needs protection. Linkthewindow Talk 12:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Karek just got the talk page, too. --Zs L 03:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Protections Scheduling Queue

Protection Scheduling requests should be requested in the same general format as Deletions. Votes will occur in the same general manner, and like deletion scheduling requests will be voted on for two (2) weeks, as judged by the initial datestamp. Valid votes are:

Yea - Approval of Schedule Request
Nay - Disapproval of Schedule Request

Finished Arby Cases

With the new arbitration format, we'll need to protect the pages once the case is closed. Just so we can protect them if someone's forgot to put in a request for us to do so. -- C h e e s e

Yea - I'm not sure if this is covered by the archive thingy below since it's a new format. -- C h e e s e 12:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Yea - i was about to ask this kind of pages to be added to the protection schedule, lol --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 12:57, 31 March 2008 (BST)
Well thats been over a month and there have been no objections so I'll stick this as scheduled. -- C h e e s e 23:37, 7 May 2008 (BST)
When the hell did this go up and why would you not actually check to see that it is already scheduled before proposing it?--Karek^maps?! 05:37, 8 May 2008 (BST)
End of March...and where? -- C h e e s e 23:49, 13 May 2008 (BST)
See below --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 00:06, 14 May 2008 (BST)

UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Archivewhateva. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 03:29, 14 May 2008 (BST)