View source for UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Scheduled protections and deletions changes

As it is now, scheduled protections and deletions are voted on on the [[A/PT]] and [[A/D]] page respectively and not publicised at all, and thus receive very little feedback. It's important to point out that '''no scheduled deletion or protection has so far received more than 5 votes, even when they have the strength of a policy''', can be voted by everyone and are included on the [[A/G|Guidelines]] after approval. In this state, they are currently very prone to abuse.

This policy proposes that all scheduled protections and deletions are to be voted from now on as any other [[A/PD|Policy discussion]]. Being a matter of general interest for all wiki users, it's the right thing to do, and more so so they will receive all the exposure an announcement on the [[Main page]]'s [[Template:Wiki News]] can give.

== Voting section ==
{{PolicyVotingRules}}

=== For ===
# The policy basically adresses a loophole, so why not? --{{User:Matthewfarenheit/Signature}} 05:43, 3 September 2007 (BST)
# --[[User:Duke Garland|<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>]] [[LCD|<nowiki>[</nowiki>]][[User talk:Duke Garland|Talk]][[Signature Race|<nowiki>]</nowiki>]] 07:42, 3 September 2007 (BST)

=== Against ===
#'''Nay''' - This isn't clear, will they have to be passed through policy discussion or will it be forced that they get the same level of exposure? I don't think that it should be put through policy discussion. Theres also nothing stopping you from adding it to community announcements or the wiki news template. Anyway I don't see how this could be abused. Sysops wouldn't protect or delete anything ''just'' because it's in a protection/deletion schedule. If anything looks suspicious then they will investigate before acting (or at least they should). - <span style="font-size: xx-small; color: #CD9">If [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] =<span style="color:#777"> 07:56, 3 September 2007 (BST) </span>then pi = 2 [[Signature Race|+ 1]]</span>
#'''Against''' This type of policy is limited to maintenance tasks already and moving it to policy discussion would added two more layers of red tape to wiki jantoiring. They are place where they are so that the people who regularly use those pages can have their say- [[User:Vantar|Vantar]] 09:01, 3 September 2007 (BST)
#'''Against''' - Vantar says it well. Putting them up for policy vote makes it the communities choice if any page gets protected or deleted regardless of who actually uses the page.--{{User:Karek/sig}} 12:57, 3 September 2007 (BST)
#'''No''' - For small wikis like this, it doesn't make sense to insist on large numbers in votes. --[[User:Pgunn|Pgunn]] 18:03, 3 September 2007 (BST)
#'''Against''' - [[A/PT|It's as easy]] as [[A/D|clicking on a link]]. There is no need for the red tape --[[User:Ryiis|Ryiis]] 20:32, 3 September 2007 (BST)
#Read those above votes. --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 21:18, 3 September 2007 (BST)
#'''Nie''' - As Vantar -- [[User:Pavluk|Pavluk]] 23:41, 3 September 2007 (BST)
#As above.--[[User:ShadowScope|ShadowScope]] 05:39, 4 September 2007 (BST)
#What everyone else said.  --[[Image:ZombieSlay3rSig.png]]<sup>[[User talk:Zombie slay3r|T]]</sup> 17:02, 6 September 2007 (BST)
#---[[User:Jorm|Jorm]] 17:18, 6 September 2007 (BST)
#If people were trying to abuse the system, I may agree, but all scheduled protections/deletions so far have been needed. It's not hard to kick up a fuss if you see something controversial trying to be forced through <small>The preceding signed comment was added by [[User:Boxy|boxy]] ([[User talk:Boxy|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Boxy|contribs]]) at 09:42 9 September 2007 (BST)</small>
# --{{User:Max Grivas/sig}} 02:21, 11 September 2007 (BST)