|
|
| (166 intermediate revisions by 20 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{shortcut|[[A/DS]]}} | | {{shortcut|[[A/DS]]}} |
| {{moderationnav}} | | {{Administrationnav}} |
| {{TOCright}} | | {{TOCright}} |
|
| |
|
| This page is used for sysop-to-sysop communication. For example, if [[Example page|System operators A]] wanted to get the attention of all other system operators, discuss a policy issue, request assistance from a number of other system operators, etc., he or she could do so by posting under the appropriate section on this page instead of having to write on several different talk pages. Additionally, since this page is intended for system operators use only, it is locked so that non-sysops cannot edit it. The talk page, however, is to be kept unlocked so that other users of the wiki can comment as well if necessary. | | This page is used for sysop-to-sysop communication. For example, if [[Example page|System Operator A]] wanted to get the attention of all other system operators, discuss a policy issue, request assistance from a number of other system operators, etc., he or she could do so by posting under the appropriate section on this page instead of having to write on several different talk pages. Additionally, since this page is intended for system operators use only, it is locked so that non-sysops cannot edit it. The talk page, however, is to be kept unlocked so that other users of the wiki can comment as well if necessary. |
|
| |
|
| ==Page Guidelines== | | ==Page Guidelines== |
| Line 9: |
Line 9: |
|
| |
|
| ==Policies== | | ==Policies== |
| | | <!-- ''There are currently no discussions.'' --> |
| | ''There are currently no discussions.'' |
| ==Promotions and Demotions== | | ==Promotions and Demotions== |
| | | <!-- ''There are currently no discussions.'' --> |
| | ''There are currently no discussions.'' |
| ==Deletions== | | ==Deletions== |
| ===Vote counting===
| | <!-- ''There are currently no discussions.'' --> |
| Ok I was digging through the Deletion archives and noticed a few voting and results discrepancies. In cases where there is an equal number of deletes as keeps as well as one vote to merge the rules say the page is suppose to be deleted but there seem to be cases that this hasn't happened. This has left me with a few questions that I would like some more input on. First off what should be done with pages that were improperly kept? Speedy delete? resubmittal through deletions? kill om sight? just keep them? Also is keeping despite the verdict a misconductable offense? I'm think no unless one op has been habitually doing it (not sure if thats the case yet, still digging deeper) - [[User:Vantar|Vantar]] 10:20, 18 May 2008 (BST)
| | ''There are currently no discussions.'' |
| :There were some cases where people were using move as a merge w/ keep that I can think of, but it's probably best to just put them to a vote later and in future cases of the same lead in to a misconduct case.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 10:55, 19 May 2008 (BST)
| |
| | |
| ===Monumental Fuck up Workarounds===
| |
| When a user creates a page titled [[Http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/User:Dan Everyman]], this fucks up the entire page making it very difficult to delete as the software actually takes you to a page titled [[Http:/wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/User:Dan Everyman]] dude to the double slash. I've managed (completely by accident) to find a way to delete them.
| |
| | |
| When you reach the page in question click the edit tab. From there, insert an extra slash (/) into the address bar and you'll be taken to the edit tab of the page you want to delete. From there, just hit delete, and the screwed up page is gone. :) -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 23:59, 15 May 2008 (BST)
| |
| :Nice work, that page has been pissing me off for ages. Die you bastard >:) <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[UDWiki:Image Categorisation|i]]</sup> 15:07 16 May 2008 (BST)</small>
| |
| ::{{*}}stabs the corpse of Http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/User:Dan Everyman relentlessly* That was an incredibly annoying page. Yay.--{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 18:33, 16 May 2008 (BST)
| |
| | |
| You can say goodbye to [[Template:Click here http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Category:User]] too now >:D --{{User:Hagnat/sig}} 19:12, 16 May 2008 (BST)
| |
| :Lol. That is a monumental fuck up of a page. :P -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 00:31, 17 May 2008 (BST)
| |
| | |
| ===Inactive Group Images===
| |
| Look, conn not only deleted [[The 51 Drunkards|mine]] and several other groups that were listed for speedy deleetions, but he also deleted every images associated with these groups. While, yeah, it seams logical that we should delete this unused images, what if the page is undeleted ? Look at my group now, it had a cool picture that i took from the Modern Drunkard Magazine, and that i cant recover now :\ My group now looks all shitty with that groupbox whitout a picture... And that would have happened with any other group... The Mongolian Horde page was deleted a few weeks ago, later undeleted. Luckily the one who deleted the page didnt delelted the images also, or else the mongolians horde page would have lost a lot of it charm.
| |
| | |
| So, i think that when a group page is deleted, all images listed in the page should be listed for deletions only after 30 days passes, thus giving the group a chance to undelete its page without losses. We could create a subsection for the deletions page, whre mods could post the links for these images then. --{{User:Hagnat/sig}} 04:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
| |
| :We have no way to track which images were associated with a deleted group. We only see that they are over a month old and unused. You could keep a link to your favorite images on a user suppage to keep them off the togo list. --{{User:Max Grivas/sig}} 04:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
| |
| ::That's what i am talking about max, a way to avoid this. We could list the images and then erase the group page. More work, but atleast we wouldnt lose some part of the wiki once a mistake was fixed. --{{User:Hagnat/sig}} 04:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
| |
| :::If we are just talking about one image in the group box I would probably play along. Some wacky groups have dozens of little images that would be a terrible mess to try and sort out. Its kind of a work around but downloading the image and uploading it over the top of the old one should reset the date. I really don't want to do that for several images per group but it would not be too hard for one. --{{User:Max Grivas/sig}} 05:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
| |
| ::::Yipes! I Dont think that would be the better way to solve this. --{{User:Hagnat/sig}} 16:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
| |
| :::::Make a template like the {{tl|notorphan}} one and whack it on the image. Oh yeah, and convince Kevan to update MediaWiki. Again. Then we could undelete images (only ones deleted after the upgrade though, if I'm not mistaken). –[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] <sup>[[Special:Listusers/sysop|M]]•[[User talk:Xoid|T]]•<span class="stealthexternallink">[http://urbandeadwiki.th7.net F]</span>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 15:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ===Copyrighted Images===
| |
| Should we delete them if their owners didnt contact Kevan or the moderation team asking them to be deleted? Should we contact them once someone points that the image is copyrighted ? Should we kick akule in the nuts for being a moron and tear apart our fun in the wiki ? --{{User:Hagnat/sig}} 03:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
| |
| :I contacted Kevan on this, and he's replied. I'm waiting for another email in response, but at the moment it looks like he's interested in embracing fair-use in a similiar fashion to Wikipedia — even if the owner ''doesn't'' want them here, if it's fair-use they can get buggered. Good to hear. –[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] <sup>[[Special:Listusers/sysop|M]]•[[User talk:Xoid|T]]•<span class="stealthexternallink">[http://urbandeadwiki.th7.net F]</span>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 03:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
| |
| ===Speedy Deletion -> Deletion===
| |
| Is transferring stuff from the speedy delete queue to the regular deletion queue as needed meant to be handled only by sysops or can anyone do it? The guidelines can be interpreted both ways. - [[User:Vantar|Vantar]] 23:46, 28 August 2007 (BST)
| |
| :If it can be interpreted both ways then it can be done both ways. There's no harm done in a normal user helping on Administrational pages, archiving, moving unrelated discussions to talk pages and more. I did it in the past and I was a pain in the ass, but not a vandal. --{{User:Matthewfarenheit/Signature}} 00:18, 29 August 2007 (BST)
| |
| ::Ok because what I had in mind was asking a few of the users that routinely keep everything if they would mind cycling those pages to deletion but I want to make sure they would be allowed to first - [[User:Vantar|Vantar]] 00:22, 29 August 2007 (BST)
| |
| | |
| ==Vandalism== | | ==Vandalism== |
| Just to make everything clearer on [[M/VB]], should we '''bold''' all official rulings so that they're easy to pick out whenever the page gets larger? --{{User:Darth Sensitive/Sig}} 22:43, 25 September 2006 (BST)
| | <!-- ''There are currently no discussions.'' --> |
| | | ''There are currently no discussions.'' |
| :I am somehow responsable for what happened there. Jjames followed my advice to move his arb cases against several people to vandal banning. No matter how stupid this cases might be, arb was not the place to solve personal disputes of "he called me this and that". The problem is that some people started to create vandal cases in his name, most of them only for fun (gage even reported Amazing). I still hold my point that [[M/VB]] should be a serious place, not the place to make joke vandal reports, place funny templates, or post any kind of stuff that could further drama. --{{User:Hagnat/sig}} 22:49, 25 September 2006 (BST)
| |
| ::Not messing with that at all - it falls under vandalism in my book too. It isn't helping the wiki in anyway. But I'm just wondering if it should be policy to '''bold''' the rulings. That way, nothing gets missed or done twice. --{{User:Darth Sensitive/Sig}} 22:53, 25 September 2006 (BST)
| |
| | |
| ==Protections== | | ==Protections== |
| ===Signatures===
| | <!-- ''There are currently no discussions.'' --> |
| Yay, use for this page! Anyway, after what 3pwv did with his alt's Lakeside's signature (deleted now, was same as Jedaz's Evil Text) I wonder if we should just plainly protect all sig templates. Yeah, the policy isn't even in voting yet, but still. In practical terms sig template vandalism is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial-of-service_attack Denial-of-service attack] and I believe Kevan wants to keep the wiki running. Any thoughts? --{{User:Brizth/sig}} 20:54, 22 September 2006 (BST)
| | ''There are currently no discussions.'' |
| | |
| :Definitely. I think it's pretty uncommon for most people to revise their signatures very frequently, and they could easily be abused as a method of taking down the wiki or mass-vandalizing pages, as you pointed out. It would fly in the face of all of our red tape, of course, but that would only matter if anyone bothered to enforce any misconduct case spawned by that ;) {{User:BobHammero/Sig}} 01:14, 23 September 2006 (BST)
| |
| | |
| ::The policy is already on voting. Lets hope now that it passes. --{{User:Hagnat/sig}} 19:37, 24 September 2006 (BST)
| |
| | |
| Just make it a scheduled protection. Two weeks voting on a page nobody even bothers to look at. It's almost a certainty that it'll pass. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 04:28, 16 October 2006 (BST)
| |
| | |
| ==Arbitration and Misconduct== | | ==Arbitration and Misconduct== |
| ===Arbitration thingymajig===
| | <!-- ''There are currently no discussions.'' --> |
| Regardless of people's options of his actions I feel that Grim has made a good point about the lack of appeal in Arbitration. Do other think that a appeals system is worth developing?- [[User:Vantar|Vantar]] 03:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
| | ''There are currently no discussions.'' |
| :It seems like a good idea, but there should be a limit to how many appeals can be made. You can start a policy discussion and see how it goes. --<small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;background:#ffffff;padding:1px;">[[User:Zombie slay3r|<b><span style="color:#0000cd;">Z. slay3r</span></b>]] • [[User_talk:Zombie slay3r|<span style="background-color:#0000fa;color:#ffffff"> Talk </span>]]</span></small> 03:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
| |
| ::How about an arbitration committe appointed from among the sysops. People present their casdes, the sysops convene, judge, and then render collective judgement. Make time limits on verdicts mandatory. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]] [[We are Trolls!|WAT!]]</sup> 03:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
| |
| :Why does this need to be discussed here? It's not a sysops issue <small>-- [[User:Boxy|boxy]] • [[User talk:Boxy|talk]] • 23:23 1 December 2007 (BST)</small>
| |
| | |
| ==Requests for Assistance== | | ==Requests for Assistance== |
| | <!-- ''There are currently no discussions.'' --> |
| | ''There are currently no discussions.'' |
| | ==Mediawiki== |
| | <!-- ''There are currently no discussions.'' --> |
| | ===Patrolled Edits=== |
| | How strictly to the team currently use Patrolled Edits to vet suspicious edits, or even those that might seem worthy of looking at via Recent Changes? {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/tcs}} 16:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC) |
| | :I don't use Patrolled Edits. I manually look through nearly every edit (other than my own) in Recent Changes. (I don't want to list the exceptions publicly in case somebody then uses that to sneak stuff by, but am happy to PM you about it.) {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 23:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC) |
| | :I basically ignore the patrolled status of edits (and I more or less don’t use Recent Changes, since I have around 1000 pages on my watchlist), though I will sometimes mark edits as patrolled if we’re in the middle of drama, that way it’s easier to focus on potentially problematic ones for any sysops that actually do use the patrolled status. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 07:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| ==Other== | | ==Other== |
| ===Templated signatures===
| | <!-- ''There are currently no discussions.'' --> |
| I hereby move to ban templated sigs under this [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Signature_Policy|policy]]. To be specific, point 2 in what wouldnt be allowed, reprinted here for lazy people:
| |
| | |
| ''Signatures which generally break the wiki in some way either through formatting or other means.''
| |
| | |
| Templated signatures are the '''only''' reason any page ever experiences a template overload that renders the page completely broken. And its not once or twice, but it happens all the fucking time. I have also noticed that a large number of them also increase page load times. My talk page archives are a good example of some pretty ridiculous load times generated by these things (And one of the reasons i have banned such sigs from my talk page).
| |
| | |
| There is no doubt whatsoever that these signatures do indeed fall under the above point in what should not be allowed. I propose we enforce it. Give everyone a month to switch over, then prohibit their use. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 15:14, 25 September 2008 (BST)
| |
| :I never notice any increased page load times, except Sonny's userpage for some reason. I am for this, but I think a separate policy defining on how long a signature (code wise) should be would be great. My signature is stupid long. <small>[[User:A Helpful Little Gnome|<span style="color: white;background:royalblue;padding-right:8px;padding-left:7px"><small> '''A'''HLG</small></span>]][[User talk:A Helpful Little Gnome|<span style="color:snow;background:skyblue;padding-left:5px;padding-right:2px">'''T'''</span>]][[User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Help|<span style="color:snow;background:skyblue;padding-right:5px;padding-left:2px">'''H'''</span>]]</small> 18:30, 25 September 2008 (BST)
| |
| | |
| I am going to take continued lack of comments as agreement to do this, and issue the notice in three days. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 01:22, 28 September 2008 (BST)
| |
| :Don't just assume a lack of comments to be an agreement. Some people have stuff to do IRL. Like Gnome, I've never noticed any problems. The only major concern is the suggestions talk page. All it means is that we just need to move stuff to overflow more often. And any change like this would need to be discussed with the community as a whole. Just because you got made 'crat does not make you Grand High Emperor of the wiki. That's Kevan's job. Stop acting like you run the place, Grim. It's getting old, very fast. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 20:47, 29 September 2008 (BST)
| |
| ::I wasnt assuming a lack of comments to be agreement. I was, on the contrary, utilising a psychological ploy to draw more people into this discussion because i had seen a considerable number of other sysops active and ignoring this discussion, and i wanted full discussion. You can call me a bastard if you like, but the fact i didnt go through with it when my deadline expired on the first is pretty clear evidence that i had no intention of going through with it in the first place. Also, the fact that such an action would be ''fucking stupid'' should have clued you in, but i digress.<br>Templated sigs do break pages. the suggestions talk page is one example. Now their effects are most obvious on longer pages, where they increase the load times by over 100%. My arcghive pages are a good example of this effect, as are some of the recent and long administrative archives. Its not all that noticeable on good connections, but as this is a simple browser game, accessable to those with even low end connections and browsers, its better to err on the side of caution.<br>In any case, there is no need for a new policy specifically to remove them because under existing policy they are explicitely illegal. Break the page in any way includes overloading the pages template quota through sheer numbers, which is a sad fact of life when you stuick templates in something as commonly used as signatures. Its happened quite a lot. Just because we have turned a blind eye to their use doesnt mean its allowed, it only means that we havent cared enough to do anything, and it doesnt result in the need for new policy. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 11:06, 3 October 2008 (BST)
| |
| | |
| Eh, I just find that templated signatures cause overload problems on the suggestions talk page, and users' talk pages that are overly long. Other than that, I see no other difficulties generated by them. --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 11:18, 3 October 2008 (BST)
| |
| | |
| I won't support your interpretation of the 'sigs that break the wiki' policy in this case, Grim. It was clearly written with individual sigs in mind, not the cumulative effect of hundreds of templated sigs on a page, overloading the system (as happens on Talk:Suggestions). That is a result of the settings of the wiki, limiting the number/data size of sigs that can be called on any individual page. That said, templated sigs do suck, mightily, but it requires a policy for them to be banned across the wiki, IMO <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[UDWiki:Image Categorisation|i]]</sup> 14:23 4 October 2008 (BST)</small>
| |
| | |
| ===Revisions===
| |
| There are too many on the main administration pages. We need to work out a method that will reduce them significantly in the case of future cases needing deletions of select history revisions. As rare as it is. | |
| | |
| There are a few ways to do this, all of them mean more work for us. Probably the best one is to turn the real page, A/VB for example, into a redirect that consists of <code><nowiki>#REDIRECT [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandalism/Archive/{{CURRENTYEAR}}_{{CURRENTMONTH}}]]</nowiki></code> This will keep with the current Archive naming convention, keep each month's revision histories seperate and unique, and save us the time/effort of manually archiving every month. ''However'', we lose the month's cases the moment the month ends, or rather, they are archived immediately regardless of when they are completed and we will have to create the months new page then(although that can be done before hand). This can, and probably should, be done with all Administrative Request pages.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 03:13, 12 August 2008 (BST)
| |
| :It'll also prevent things like what happened to A/Vb in '05/'06 from happening in the future.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 03:13, 12 August 2008 (BST)
| |
| ::I'm not following on the '05/'06 part. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 03:31, 12 August 2008 (BST)
| |
| :::In '05/'06 A/VB was deleted. There were so many revisions that they couldn't be restored. It's why users like Amazing don't have complete vandalism logs that match up with the archives(see the big gap in their coverage).--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 03:34, 12 August 2008 (BST)
| |
| :If we have to create the month's new page manually anyway, why not just have a section that gives links to the "undecided" cases that were left on the old page? For example, at the top of the August page there is a section of just links to July cases. That way we aren't clogging up the new month with bleed over discussion or having a case appear on two months/pages. Keep the discussion on the archived month (leave the talk page unlocked if there are non op users that need to comment) and upon completion just add a summary to the Undecided section of the outcome. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 03:47, 12 August 2008 (BST)
| |
| ::You'd have to manually move them as as soon as the month changes the redirect changes too. Although it's certainly possible, to copy them over and archive cases by when they are closed instead of when they are opened. I'd have no problem doing that.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:26, 12 August 2008 (BST)
| |
| | |
| | |
| If there's no more questions and no objections I'm going to start this soon.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 01:26, 19 August 2008 (BST)
| |
| :I think the best way to do it is to include the archives on the main A/VB via placing <nowiki>{{:UDWiki:Administration/Vandalism/Archive/2008_08}}</nowiki> in the [[A/VB#Vandalism Report Space|Vandalism Report Space]]. That way everything will be on the main A/VB page, but all the editing will be done to the archive page <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[UDWiki:Image Categorisation|i]]</sup> 03:12 19 August 2008 (BST)</small>
| |
| ::This way is easier to have the latest VB cases on the one page during monthly changeovers <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[UDWiki:Image Categorisation|i]]</sup> 03:14 19 August 2008 (BST)</small>
| |
| :::There are call size limits, I severely doubt we would be able to call a full month's full of [[A/VB]] without reaching that limit, especially in the more drama filled months. It is possible to check though. . .--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:38, 19 August 2008 (BST)
| |
| ::::We can throw in a <nowiki><noinclude></nowiki> somewhere on the archives to shorten the inclusion if needed, or does it depend on the total size of the included page, rather than just the included part of it? (Sorry about that A/SD stuff up... twice :-/) <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[UDWiki:Image Categorisation|i]]</sup> 04:42 19 August 2008 (BST)</small>
| |
| :::::Noincludes are counted against the file size limits.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:48, 19 August 2008 (BST)
| |
| :I tried this in my [[User:Boxy/Sandbox|sandbox]], June seemed to be fine, but May was a bit long. Funnily, the templates at the top of the page still worked, and the inclusion of the archived text, but the ones at the bottom (including those inside the archive) stopped working, presumably when the limit was reached. We could make this work, as long as it only affects those at the bottom of the page (those that have already been dealt with), I think <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[UDWiki:Image Categorisation|i]]</sup> 02:20 20 August 2008 (BST)</small>
| |
| ::I've just done that with [[A/VB]]. Hopefully the fact that it puts them on the archive page after filing a report won't be a big problem.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 03:48, 20 August 2008 (BST)
| |
| :::<S>I'm going to use the Redirect method on [[A/SD]], it'll give us something to compare later.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 03:57, 20 August 2008 (BST)</S>
| |
| ::::The redirect didn't want to work.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:05, 20 August 2008 (BST)
| |
| :::::Well it seems to be working on A/VB for now, however, the way you've got it set up now, as soon as the month ticks over, all the cases from the month before will automatically disappear from A/VB, regardless of whether they have been dealt with or not. I think we need to put in the full links by hand, and only cycle them once all cases in the old month have been dealt with (a couple of days usually covers that). It will mean that for a day or two, we have two archive inclusions on the page, but given that the new months one should be small, it shouldn't cause too much of a problem.<br />We will need to be a bit more ruthless at removing commentary to the talk page, I suspect, to keep the size of the inclusion down <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[UDWiki:Image Categorisation|i]]</sup> 09:13 20 August 2008 (BST)</small>
| |
| ::::::Definitely. And this whole protection thing brings up a seperate can of worms, the Mass Revision main page will need to be Moved to an archive and a new pages set up. Otherwise you still have the problem of the editable 2000+ diff page and while new revisions are limited it still allows for possible abuse.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 13:45, 21 August 2008 (BST)
| |
| :::::::Are we planning on adding the intro templates to the current "archives"? Because right now, they're quite empty. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 23:47, 21 August 2008 (BST)
| |
| | |
| ===[[User:Mobius187|Mobius187]]===
| |
| I think it is high time that we had a look at him. I have recieved several complaints about him in the last month or so on IRC, and recently took the opportunity to probe a little deeper into this mysterious individual that appears to be a sysop.
| |
| | |
| It seems like since he has been promoted, he has taken exactly no interest in maintaining the wiki and the community. Below i shall list the entirety of his eedits in the UDwiki:Administration namespace:
| |
| | |
| *[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Promotions&diff=prev&oldid=758069 In his promotions bid], included merely to demonstrate the massive gulf between this and his first edit on an admin page. 31 July 2007
| |
| #[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Bureaucrat_Promotions&diff=prev&oldid=809363 in Bureaucrat promotions] 4 September 2007
| |
| #[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Civility_policy&diff=prev&oldid=817357 A spelling correction in a policy discussion] 10 September 2007
| |
| #[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning&diff=prev&oldid=882087 Reporting a vandalism case] 2 November 2007
| |
| #[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Bureaucrat_Promotions&diff=prev&oldid=905137 Crat promotions again, retracting candidacy] 19 November 2007
| |
| #[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Discussion&diff=prev&oldid=931675 Editing this page] 8 December 2007
| |
| | |
| Unless i am dramatically worse at counting than i think i am, this count adds up to a grand total of 5 edits in the administration area of the wiki since he was promoted 5 months ago. The contents table of my misconduct page for the same period is longer (100% not guilty).
| |
| | |
| It seems that all Mobius has been doing with his power is moving pages within his own little side project around. Oh, and [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=Mobius187&page= 11 deletions] he performed without going through either [[A/D]] or [[A/SD]].
| |
| | |
| He also skirted on impersonation on at least on occasion recently, [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Rolt_Heights&diff=922206&oldid=921753 editing and rewording signed posts]
| |
| | |
| Im not asking for him to be demoted. Im just asking for opinions, and im asking him to explain his lack of interest in maintaining the wiki, and just what he intends to do to rectify the situation. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]] [[We are Trolls!|WAT!]]</sup> 03:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :As you have asked I would be more than happy to drop by and explain myself, if explaining truly needs to be done here. I should point out that I was originally nominated by [[User:boxy|boxy]] after he deemed that I performed tasks befitting "janitorial work" here around the UD Wiki. I have never had any interest in Wiki litigation, a pursuit shared by most of the hands-on Sysops (along with the more common wikidrama). As such, most of my work has been as Grim pointed out, clean-up (content edits/archiving old news/fixing links) and moving wikipages.
| |
| | |
| :On the matter of deletions, that involved my work on [[NecroWatch]]. Simply put, I inquired originally with boxy as to whether I was required to go through any process to delete redirected wikipages. At the time I assumed that included images, as all of the images listed there were uploaded by yours truly. After Grim popped by and told me to stop deleting, as the required red tape had not been spooled out I stopped and desisted further action along these lines.
| |
| | |
| :On the topic of rewording posts, I agree I did skirt that one. My philosophy is that a signed post is not God's absolute will, as suburb news is public news and we all read it, and as a public wikipage we all contribute to it. No one user should have final say over anything on them. In the past I've always taken a hand to correcting spelling, grammar, and adding links. I don't blame people for being lazy or making simple mistakes. I make them myself from time to time. Also, I never change the meaning of a post. Of course if anyone ever has an issue with what I've done they are free to undo it, and I never step in again as I assume they've made a willing choice to phrase their news post in the "creative fashion" they selected. I even sometimes invite them to my Talk wikipage to discuss the matter further if they have a particular problem with my edits.
| |
| | |
| :In summation, my interest in the UD Wiki revolves around the contents on the suburb and location wikipages. It has and always will. The most Sysop-related work you can expect from me will likely be vandal reports or again, moving wikipages as required (to date, other than my own, I have moved one group wikipage). If you have anymore direct questions feel free to send them my way. --[[User:Mobius187|Mobius187]] 05:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
| |
| ::Well, actually, I think you've moved a few suburb archive pages around... but that was all in the name of conformity of treatment of suburb archives. It seems you've stopped doing the one major thing I had qualms about (deleting pages, made by you, without going through [[A/SD]]), when confronted about it. The suburb news report isn't actually anything to do with sysops powers... it's a straight edit conflict issue. Grim sites complaints given via the back door... this is a wiki... complaints go [[A/M|here]] (seeing as the community has made it clear that syspops don't get reviewed unless they do something clearly wrong) <small>-- [[User:Boxy|boxy]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|talk]] • [[UDWiki:Image Categorisation|i]]</sup> 12:12 22 December 2007 (BST)</small>
| |
| :::Correct, I did Move the suburb news archive wikipages in order to conform them under the same name. That was earlier this year not long after I became a Sysop, as it was something that always bothered me... that lack of conformity in such a standard wikipage (i.e. used by every suburb). Personally I would hope that should someone take issue with anything I've done that they would come to me first to discuss the matter like gentlemen. I certainly would do no less. Public complaints should really be a last resort after a clear resolution, or possible concessions by both sides, have not made any headway due to an inability to work out the reason for the misunderstanding or where ill-will (i.e. vandalism) has been proven. When there is no malice of intent, then there is simply a misunderstanding of purpose. --[[User:Mobius187|Mobius187]] 14:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::Thats why i came here boxy. I dont want to toss him out on his arse. That would be silly. What i want is for him to start pulling his weight on admin tasks, especially considering his activity on this wiki. I felt that a public calling out here would be more effective than a private consultation on his talk page. It takes all of five minutes to do a sweep of all the admin pages, far less (As long as it takes the page to load) if you have them on your watchlist like i do, and not much longer to climb up off your arse and cycle a few of the things. Take myself for example: Im underactive at the moment (By my standards). I get, on work days of late, about three hours online (Bout half of which i spend here off an on) and yet i still find the time to do my part, live the dream, do the damned job i was promoted to do. It irks me to see others entrusted with that responsibility to shirk it as thoroughly as you have Mobius. Also, the part about other peoples signed posts being sacrosanct. Thats not subject to opinion, thats subject to policy and precedent on this wiki, and you would do well to remember that in future. The only reason i took no action on the matter when it was brought to my attention is because it was three weeks ago, which according to this assuredly accurate time-comparographer is almost definately larger than my cutoff of two weeks for a case. Keep in mind that future occurances will be treated as vandalism, and strive to ensure that there will be no such occurances. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]] [[We are Trolls!|WAT!]]</sup> 14:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::Shirking duties? I don't recall shirking anything I never agreed to in the first place when [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/UDWiki:Administration/Promotions/Mobius187 I accepted boxy's nomination]. And I quote, myself, "''Long story short, my goal, if made Sysop would be to simply keep doing what I'm doing right now, working on wiki-projects and sorting things out in hopes of improving the UD Wiki''". Now if there is a problem with my complete lack on interest in performing other Admin duties here on the UD Wiki, then let me know and I will respectfully step down from the position. I would hate to think of all the harm my inactivity was doing to the role of Admin. The implication that I simply do not take the time to perform my duties is erroneous, as I prefer to spend my time working on wiki projects which consume most of my time here, as I'm sure my [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Special:Contributions/Mobius187 Contributions] will attest. On the matter of news posts, if Wiki policy forbids editing another user's post, on the single merit that they have signed it, and to do so is deemed as "impersonation", may I inquire as to what you would recommend as the best course of action to resolve poor spelling/grammar here on the wiki when it is posted on public wikipages? If the conflict here is simply one of impersonation, then would one solution be to delete/replace their signature with your own after editing the news post? Of course in doing so it implies you posted the news item, but at the very least everyone would know who was behind the current version. Or would you suggest that the corrected version be posted below the original news item. Of course that may be viewed as belittling the original user's post. I could do that, but that goes against my standards as I prefer not to publicly point out others mistakes in that manner (no more so then I would like the same done to me). Or was perhaps some other solution has already been reached in this matter to which I am unaware. If so, please feel free to inform me, as knowledge is power. --[[User:Mobius187|Mobius187]] 17:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
| |
| ::::To be blunt, you dont require sysop abilities to do anything you are already doing (Jorm pointed this out in your promotions bid). If anything needs moving, we have the lovely move requests page. If anything needs deleting, theres [[A/SD]]. Being a sysop carries certain powers, true, but it also carries the attendant responsibilities. You, as a sysop, have a responsibility to help in the upkeep of this wiki in an administrative role. I would vastly prefer it if you decided to take up this responsibility instead of avoiding it, or even withdrawing your status as a sysop. If you dont want the responsibility, then i fail to see why you need to keep the abilities and status you have. As for editing signed posts: Typo correction is fine, as is fixing existing links if broken. As for everything else, do not change it. They are their words. If you dislike the wording, leave it or, if it seriously irks you, take it up with them on their talk page. Removing a persons signature and signing your own is also not kosher. How would you feel if you typed a wonderfully eloquent post clearly and irrefutably rebutting a major sticking point, and then i came around, fixed a few small parts of wording, then deleted your sig and replaced it with my own. You would be miffed (At the least, and probably report me for vandalism), especially since you wouldnt get the credit for your intellectual work. Your lack of information on this subject is alarming, to say the least. All this should be plain common sense. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]] [[We are Trolls!|WAT!]]</sup> 02:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
| |
| :::::Alarming? You sir sound like an "alarmist". ;) In your above example you imply that the only purpose this would serve is taking credit for another user's hard-earned news post, when in fact what I speculated was a possible solution for a situation wherein a user posted news that showed a particularily poor grasp of the English language, so much so, that it would be better for someone to step in, reword it, but rather than "impersonate" the original poster, use their own signature. I would hate to think this is a lose/lose scenario. Either one edits the post, but leaves the original poster's signature only to be blamed for vandalism and/or impersonation, or one claims it for their own after the edits and is accused of stealing the original poster's (albeit poorly worded) work. Perhaps you might suggest a percentage of total content requiring replacement within a post prior to such a claim of new ownership being made? Perhaps 51% or more? Regardless, I am glad to see that it's not against the UD Wiki to correct typos or broken links. What about capitalization? If a user consistently uses lower-case throughout their news post, would I have permission to capitalize appropriate words? On the flip side, what if a user misused capitalization in their news post? Also, on the matter of links, what if a user references a location or group, and neither location has previously been linked to in that day's news post, would I have permission to turn the text into a link (i.e. "The BAR defeated the zombies." to "The [[BAR]] defeated the zombies.")? On the more important issue of Sysop duties, I would need to take some time to mull this over. Even so, I certainly cannot disagree with your analysis, or simply put, I certainly do not ''need'' Sysop powers in order to perform my current work on the UD Wiki. --[[User:Mobius187|Mobius187]] 04:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ===Admin IRC===
| |
| We now have an IRC channel, #udwiki on irc.nexuswar.com . Also, at the time of writing, there is a matter that needs discussion there. Please sign in. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]] [[We are Trolls!|WAT!]]</sup> 03:34, 20 October 2007 (BST)
| |
| :Real life dragged me offline, and Thari took off a minute after i did for other reasons, leaving no one to fill everyone in on the situation. Im back online now. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]] [[We are Trolls!|WAT!]]</sup> 07:45, 20 October 2007 (BST)
| |
| | |
| ===Rebuild===
| |
| I just rebuilt the archive pages for both [[UDWiki:Administration/Protections/Archive|protections]] and [[UDWiki:Moderation/Move_Requests/Archive|move requests]] (As well as a massive amount of other maintenance tasks, which, all together took me just over two hours to do). Anyone have any particular suggestions for improvement to these new archives, or are they fine as is? Any objections? --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 18:02, 1 October 2007 (BST)
| |
| :It looks good, nice work - [[User:Vantar|Vantar]] 18:53, 1 October 2007 (BST)
| |
| ::You have done such a nice job in these archives. I know another page that could do a little of archiving, care to work on [[User_talk:Grim_s|it]] ? --{{User:Hagnat/sig}} 19:25, 1 October 2007 (BST)
| |
| :::Not a chance in hell. My talk page shall never be archived, for it is in itself a living archive. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 21:40, 1 October 2007 (BST)
| |
| ::::but.. but... you know it want it. --{{User:Hagnat/sig}} 21:58, 1 October 2007 (BST)
| |
| :::::Unfortunately i underestimated the amount of posting thyat would be happening on my talk page when i set up the system. Originally it was intended to be a single style to keep everyones comments bunched up nice and neat, but when creating it i neglected to factor into this the impossibility of archiving such a system while retaining the elements for which i chose it. As a result, it has become something of a living archive, and people who read it can walk back in time 17 months, and see the exchanges, for good or for ill, that i had with other users of those eras. Also, it cements me in place as a living fossil, i like that factor as well ;) Anyhow, back on topic: Any suggestions for improvement to what ive done, or anger that i acted without consulting you lot? --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]] [[We are Trolls!|WAT!]]</sup> 00:54, 2 October 2007 (BST)
| |
| | |
| ===Rounded corners in templates===
| |
| I've noticed that a large number of the templates we have here now use the -moz-border-radius property to create rounded corners in Mozilla-based browsers. I personally preferred the way most of these templates looked with square corners. Any other thoughts? {{User:BobHammero/Sig}} 01:16, 23 September 2006 (BST)
| |
| | |
| :Not all templates have round corners. Not only because it would be dumb to make all of them round, and the long work it would need to have it done, but also because pointy corners look better sometimes. I have only added the rounded border tag to those templates i found that could do good use of it, like navigational and moderational templates. They should stand solo where they are, and call for attention. IMO, this just adds to the wiki. --{{User:Hagnat/sig}} 19:41, 24 September 2006 (BST)
| |
| | |
| ===Suggestions===
| |
| New template in place makes it redundant to include the bolded '''keep'''/'''kill'''/'''dupe'''/'''spam'''. Can we get away with just changing the rules at the top to make these unnessecary? Because there are currently a bunch of votes that are illegal as written. --{{User:Darth Sensitive/Sig}} 22:45, 25 September 2006 (BST)
| |
| :Since it's under the "keep/kill/dupe/spam" heading, the first word is "keep/kill/dupe/spam". Creative interpretation, Darth. It's a huge timesaver. ;-) {{User:Xoid/sig}} 04:52, 16 October 2006 (BST)
| |
| ::Knew that - wasn't going to go all jackbooted - but I was hoping to get a mini-consensus that changing it without a vote would be OK. --{{User:Darth Sensitive/Sig}} 22:35, 16 October 2006 (BST)
| |
| | |
| ===[[User:DangerReport]] and [[User:NTstatus]]===
| |
| Recently, {{usr|Kevan}} installed a extension called "Keep Your Hands to Yourself" which prevents users from editing other users' main pages. This conflicted with the pages in the title above and the danger reports for suburbs, malls, and other places. I wanted to get everybody's thoughts on whether we should just leave the extension uninstalled, or should we move ''all'' the Danger Reports to subpages of [[:Category:Danger Reports]]? --[[Image:ZombieSlay3rSig.png]]<sup>[[User talk:Zombie slay3r|T]]</sup> 16:29, 6 April 2007 (BST)
| |
| :I'd say move them, eliminating a whole category of possible vandalism is a mighty fine thing. No more proctection needed on sig-pages as well. There are probably more reasons as well. I'm not sure why these pages are in the User namespace anyway.--[[User:Vista|Vista]] 16:59, 6 April 2007 (BST)
| |
|
| |
|
| :Wow... one incident of User page vandalism on the current [[A/VB]] page... and that was in February. Is it really worth the effort, given the low incidence of user-page vandalism? (But yeah, why the hell were they put there in the first place... what's wrong with [[Template:DangerReport]]? -- [[User:Boxy|boxy]] <sup>[[User_talk:boxy|T]] [[User:Boxy/Locations|L]] [[Zombie Squad|ZS]] [[Location Nuts|Nuts2U]] [[Dead Animals/Redux|DA]]</sup> 17:12, 6 April 2007 (BST)
| | ===Example (User)=== |
| :Seeing as they aren't supposed to be on a user page in the first place, should we move them to a template or somewhere else? --[[Image:ZombieSlay3rSig.png]]<sup>[[User talk:Zombie slay3r|T]]</sup> 17:57, 6 April 2007 (BST)
| | I didn't realize nobody had ever registered the user account at [[User:Example]]. Someone now has, so I pointed all the links there over to [[User:Example User]] instead, and copied the contents onto [[User talk:Example User]]. Just wanted to post here for our records and in case anyone wants to double-check me/has comments. {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 12:29, 14 December 2018 (UTC) |
| ::It used to come up a lot in early 2006. But then again we used to have 3 to 5 vandal reports in one day, not one report in 3 to 5 days. We should ask hagnat why it is in User:Dangerreport, It's his editing alt I believe--[[User:Vista|Vista]] 18:12, 6 April 2007 (BST)
| |
| :::a discussion from early april and only now i see it... darn. Anyway, back in teh good ole days, where we lacked a lot of this neat features the new mediawiki have and amazing was running amock, there was little knoweledge about the whole exploit in pages as templates. Most of us though you could only exploit the User namespace and were quite happy about that. And, the older mediawikis had a bonus, that made me abuse the exploit... by using the exploit that page wasnt linked while editing as a used template like they are now. So, a page like [[Suburbs]] wouldnt be filled with a crapload of more than 200 or more templates, but only a few that were in the template: namespace. Thats the main reason why User:DangerReport was created... --{{User:Hagnat/sig}} 01:59, 11 May 2007 (BST)
| |
| ::::Was this issue ever resolved? I ask because I recently created something (read: a whole lot of subpages) along these very same lines, by using DangerReport as an example of how I assumed that it was supposed to be done. As I'm all about conformity I thought it best to use the same method. If it has been decided that User wikipages shouldn't be used to house subpages in this manner, let me know and I'll move them to however they should be grouped (i.e. sub-page of the location wikipage?). --[[User:Mobius187|Mobius187]] 21:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
| |
| :::::Well, the "keep your hands to yourself" extension was turned off, so that isn't a problem, however the template namespace is the place for templates (like dangerreports and the like)... it's just that it's not worth the trouble to move every danger report template over, and fix all the links to them. If I was starting a new project from scratch though, that would be where I'd put them. Oh, and Hagnat, don't template calls from the user namespace also break pages when they hit the 200 (300?) template limit? I thought sigs (in the user namespace) were the main problem <small>-- [[User:Boxy|boxy]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|talk]] • [[UDWiki:Image Categorisation|i]]</sup> 23:41 8 December 2007 (BST)</small>
| |
| ::::::Its template calls in general, not just userspace templates. Its just that the userspace templates are by far the most often used, and on really long pages they can build up to critical mass. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]] [[We are Trolls!|WAT!]]</sup> 10:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
| |
