|
|
| (442 intermediate revisions by 68 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{Shortcut|[[A/D/S]]}} | | {{Shortcut|[[A/D/S]]}} |
| {{Moderationnav}} | | {{Administrationnav}} |
| {{TOCright}} | | {{TOCright}} |
|
| |
|
| Line 14: |
Line 14: |
| Remember that votes must be signed and datestamped (use <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) | | Remember that votes must be signed and datestamped (use <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) |
|
| |
|
| After the two weeks are up, if the page has reached at least a 50% majority in favour it is added to the Scheduled list. If the request fails to get the required number of votes, it doesn't get added. In either case, the closed request can then get shifted to the [[UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Scheduling/Archive|Archive]]. | | After the two weeks are up, if the page has reached at least a 50% majority in favour it is added to the Scheduled list. If the vote fails, it will be cycled as unsuccessful. The closed request can then get shifted to the [[UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Scheduling/Archive|Archive]]. |
|
| |
|
| ==Scheduling requests under consideration== | | ==Scheduling requests under consideration== |
| | <!--''There are currently no requests under consideration.''--> |
| | ''There are currently no requests under consideration.'' |
| | ==Recent Requests== |
| | <!--''There are currently no recently served requests.'' --> |
| | ''There are currently no recently served requests.'' |
|
| |
|
| === Removal of the porn scheduled deletion ===
| | ''For older cases, please see the [[UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Scheduling/Archive|archive]].'' |
| Title says it all. We remove the porn scheduled deletion. Each time it's been used, it's [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Nubis/2009#26_March|spawned a]] [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Suicidalangel/2009|misconduct case]] so it's clear it isn't working from the "communities" point of view. The most gaping area with the current one is the lack of definition - although I thought about replacing it with "Photographic depictions of human genitalia and female nipples will be deleted on sight" although that just leaves gray area (although it's been reduced,) and we'll get bogged down in definitions ''again''. If someone uploads an offensive image, then they get taken to [[A/VB]]. If the case is ruled vandalism then the user receives a warning and the image is deleted (this is already covered under the fact that all vandalism is deleted.) To warn users about the consequences of uploading potentially offensive imagery, "uploading inappropriate (eg. sexually explicit) images may be deemed to be vandalism and deleted as such without notice" will be added to [[MediaWiki:Uploadtext]] (the text that is displayed when [[Special:Upload|uploading a file]].)
| |
| | |
| To summarize, the porn scheduled deletion is removed on [[A/G]]. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 13:54, 19 July 2009 (BST)
| |
| :[[UDWiki_talk:Administration/Deletions#Reworking_the_porn_scheduled_deletion|Please skim through the discussion regarding this]] before voting. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 14:17, 19 July 2009 (BST)
| |
| | |
| #'''For''' - the current system means that the decision will be made by the one sysop that set the strictest of standards, without the need for any form of consensus <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 14:09 19 July 2009 (BST)</small>
| |
| #'''Yes''' - It will be interesting to see whether people receive backlash for taking people who have uploaded what they perceive to be offensive images, but others don't to A/VB. Having said that this is definitely the lesser of a number of evils. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 14:10, 19 July 2009 (BST)
| |
| #'''Yes please''' - i don't think that'll be interesting at all bob, but finally we have some freedom of image around this dump.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 14:12, 19 July 2009 (BST)
| |
| #:Was just a bit of humourous understatement :\ --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 14:15, 19 July 2009 (BST)
| |
| #'''Yes''' --[[User:DanceDanceRevolution|<span style="color:black"><u><big>ϑϑℜ</big></u></span>]] 14:12, 19 July 2009 (BST)
| |
| #:Edit: Boxy was right. --[[User:DanceDanceRevolution|<span style="color:black"><u><big>ϑϑℜ</big></u></span>]] 14:26, 19 July 2009 (BST)
| |
| #'''Yep''' - As boxy. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]] 15:01, 19 July 2009 (BST)
| |
| #'''for''' we don't want or need actual porn here but some of the stuff that gets called porn is clearly very far from being such. --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 15:22, 19 July 2009 (BST)
| |
| #'''Aye''' - As the box. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 15:51, 19 July 2009 (BST)
| |
| #'''Against''' - This was never really a big problem until ''[[User:Cyberbob240|someone]]'' went batshit insane and put a bunch of perfectly fine images up for deletion as "pornographic". Meanwhile, sysops need the power to delete obviously offensive images on the spot and immediately. Can you say "goatse", kids? --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 16:15, 19 July 2009 (BST)
| |
| #:It was a problem before that, Nubis and SA have both been taken to A/M over it. These misconduct cases were both linked to in Link's introduction to this vote. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 16:22, 19 July 2009 (BST)
| |
| #::I read those. And it's a rare problem. And a "problem" common sense and not being a puritan shithead will solve 90% of cases. Talking it over will deal with the other 10%. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 16:28, 19 July 2009 (BST)
| |
| #:::Rare? Those two misconduct cases represent the only two times the current scheduled rule has been used. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 16:31, 19 July 2009 (BST)
| |
| #::::Stop edit conflicting me. Anywaaaay... So this is a new crit or what? Please linky me to the date it was implimented, because I seem to recall it being here forever. And tell me, how were the goatse images deleted in the past? And is there another method for immediately deleting obviously offensive images? I'm talking goatse here... Or obvious porno, i.e. depictions of intercourse, masturbation, etc. etc.? If there is, I support removing the porn crit.... if not, ''something'' needs to stay. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 16:35, 19 July 2009 (BST)
| |
| #::::22 July 2008. Wording ripped off from barhah.com's rules. Interesting.... But ''something'' has to be in place to remove gravely explicit and offensive images... Propose a change/replacement... then we'll talk. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 16:39, 19 July 2009 (BST)
| |
| #:::::He probably won't bother until you and your following manage to get majority on this vote. --[[User:DanceDanceRevolution|<span style="color:black"><u><big>ϑϑℜ</big></u></span>]] 16:49, 19 July 2009 (BST)
| |
| #::::::My following?! Now ''that'' was droll! --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 16:50, 19 July 2009 (BST)
| |
| #:::::::Indeed. --[[User:DanceDanceRevolution|<span style="color:black"><u><big>ϑϑℜ</big></u></span>]] 17:48, 19 July 2009 (BST)
| |
| #::::::DDR...please don't. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 16:58, 19 July 2009 (BST)
| |
| #:::::The biggest problem with immediately deleting a completely obvious porno shot these days - whether we have a policy allowing it or not - is that there is a much higher chance of drama being generated over it because "how do I know it was what you say it was?" than there used to be. All someone needs to do is give the shit they're uploading an innocuous-sounding name and all bets are off, particularly since the sysop that deleted the image is often the only one that saw it. Can you imagine trying to sell an A/VB case on a user who uploaded "sunshine.JPG" for uploading explicit porn? Ideally we should just be able to rely on common sense for deleting obvious porn on sight and A/D for the more ambiguous things but look where doing either of these things got us even with a policy in place. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 16:51, 19 July 2009 (BST)
| |
| #'''Yes''' - Alleviating dramaz. --'''[[User:BobBoberton|<span style="color: #FF4500">Bob Boberton</span>]] <sup>[[The_Fortress|<span style="color: #6B8E23">TF</span>]] / [[The_Fortress/Dark_Watch|<span style="color: #778899 ">DW</span>]]</sup>''' 16:47, 19 July 2009 (BST)
| |
| #'''For''' I know this has been an issue for some time,.... like when gage was still here as a moderator, he did some of that ASCII art, of a naked woman. This went back and forth.... it's nice to see this revision. -[[User:Poodle of doom|Poodle of doom]] 18:00, 19 July 2009 (BST)
| |
|
| |
|
| === Adbot related pages === | | == [[UDWiki:Administration/Deletion Schedule|Scheduled Deletions]] == |
| Any page created by an adbot, or created to reference a particular adbot, or any comments about a banned adbot, are to be deleted. This includes the deletion request of such pages/comments itself (after a period of three days after the deletion request was proccessed) --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User_talk:Hagnat|[talk]]] [[wcdz|[wcdz]]]</sup> 18:19, 15 July 2009 (BST)
| |
|
| |
|
| #'''Yes''' - remove all of their spam, and all reference to them, so that even bots that advertise their wares in their user name get nothing... NOTHING! They are scum of the earth, give them no quarter <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 10:33 16 July 2009 (BST)</small>
| | {{UDWiki:Administration/Deletion Schedule}} |
| #'''Yes''' Not even an eighth. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 10:36, 16 July 2009 (BST)
| |
| #'''Against''' - because there are perfectly legitimate reasons for speaking about a banned adbot (such as if we want to contact the creators.) I would be fine with this if it only banned those that mentioned the product they are selling in their username (such as the last few,) but deleting all comments about ''any'' adbot is overkill. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 12:23, 16 July 2009 (BST)
| |
| #:Not a bad idea, just links or comments quoting the names of the ones advertising with their username <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 13:08 16 July 2009 (BST)</small>
| |
| #'''No''' - Too draconian, and almost impossible to completely enforce. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 12:24, 16 July 2009 (BST)
| |
| #'''Against''' - as link (plus [[Spambit Hunters|this]]). --[[User:DanceDanceRevolution|<span style="color:black"><u><big>ϑϑℜ</big></u></span>]] 12:32, 16 July 2009 (BST)
| |
| #'''weak against''' remove the "comments about banned adbots" and this would be a '''Yes''' --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 12:46, 16 July 2009 (BST)
| |
| #'''Yes''' - When did we start creating user pages for these guys? =/ -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 21:44, 16 July 2009 (BST)
| |
| #'''No''' - Adbots aren't some eldritch abominations from beyond time and space. The mere mention of their name is not going to bring down their wrath upon our heads (or make people want to buy their products, or improve their search rankings). Not even ones that have a product in their name. This is pointless censorship. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]] 15:37, 19 July 2009 (BST)
| |
| | |
| ===Adbot-created pages===
| |
| Since Hagnat apparently thinks we need to codify the scheduled deletion of adbot pages, and I don't see any particular reason why we shouldn't... I propose that any and all pages created by adbots be officially KOS. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 17:32, 15 July 2009 (BST)
| |
| :adbot created pages are already supposed to be KOS. I meant that pages, links and comments referring to adbots should be KOS. --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User_talk:Hagnat|[talk]]] [[wcdz|[wcdz]]]</sup> 17:43, 15 July 2009 (BST)
| |
| ::You make the bloody vote then. Leave this one alone though. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 17:50, 15 July 2009 (BST)
| |
| | |
| #'''Yes''' --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 17:32, 15 July 2009 (BST)
| |
| #'''Yes''' - Baleet them from existence entirely. --'''[[User:BobBoberton|<span style="color: #FF4500">Bob Boberton</span>]] <sup>[[The_Fortress|<span style="color: #6B8E23">TF</span>]] / [[The_Fortress/Dark_Watch|<span style="color: #778899 ">DW</span>]]</sup>''' 17:34, 15 July 2009 (BST)
| |
| #'''Yes''' {{User:The_Rooster/Sig}} 17:38, 15 July 2009 (BST)
| |
| #'''Yes''' - Not any more work to delete the stuff again if the same adbot comes back. --{{User:Darth Sensitive/Sig}} 17:51, 15 July 2009 (BST)
| |
| #'''Yip'''--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:35, 15 July 2009 (BST)
| |
| #'''Yea''' - Everyone was happy with this already being the case but w/e. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 02:19, 16 July 2009 (BST)
| |
| #:You try fending Hagnat off for the sixth time at like 3 in the morning. Easier just to say 'whatever dude' and make a harmless vote than argue about it. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 02:22, 16 July 2009 (BST)
| |
| #::Yeah it was aimed at Hag. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 02:33, 16 July 2009 (BST)
| |
| #:::im still kind of groggy okay >_< --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 03:02, 16 July 2009 (BST)
| |
| #'''Yes''' - de facto this way already, but no problem in setting it in stone. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 02:59, 16 July 2009 (BST)
| |
| #'''No''' - pointless repetition. Adbot pages are deemed to be vandalism, which is removed automatically <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 10:30 16 July 2009 (BST)</small>
| |
| #'''Yea''' - Nothing wrong with having it written down somewhere. --{{User:Axe27/Sig}} 06:51, 18 July 2009 (BST)
| |
| #'''No''' - As boxy. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]] 15:02, 19 July 2009 (BST)
| |
| #'''No''' - As boxy. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 16:17, 19 July 2009 (BST)
| |
| | |
| ==Recent Requests==
| |
