UDWiki:Administration/Protections/Archive/2011 06

Recent Actions

These: UDWiki_talk:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2010_01, UDWiki_talk:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2010_09, UDWiki_talk:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2010_10, UDWiki_talk:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2010_11, UDWiki_talk:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2010_12, and UDWiki_talk:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2011_01. Are still having problems. If you look at the top of the pages, you'll see the current top of UDWiki_talk:Administration/Vandal_Banning. It's due to this bit: <noinclude> {{:UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/TalkHeader}} {{:UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning}} {{:UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Bots}} </noinclude> Just take away the nowikis and you'll see what is happening to each of those archive pages. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 23:05, 21 June 2011 (BST)

Oh ok I gotcha. I thought you were referring to an entirely different problem those pages were having. It is likely due to those inclusions at the top of the page. I think what's been happening is that there are no real guidelines for cycling admin pages and each month small mistakes are made. Those mistakes are copied the next month and new mistakes made and so on, creating a positive feedback effect and weird problems like this. I'll go ahead and fix these but I would suggest holding off on going through more admin pages until we have a solid system in place at which point we can go back and fix the archives. ~ _{00:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)}

I wasn't exactly going through them all. I just noticed this error on some of the A/VB talk pages, and as I was looking for how many of them had the error, I noted the other minor errors as I went. I only went back to the last few months of 2009. I didn't check beyond that. Ironically, I wouldn't have noticed it right away if I hadn't been answering Karek's question. Obviously, I would have fixed them myself, but all of the archive pages are protected, so I couldn't. ;) --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 00:47, 22 June 2011 (BST)

Nah, you're good. We're always happy to have more sets of eyes on things and I'm glad you brought it up. I just prefer that we had a system which promoted consistent archives rather than one that gives us pages which need to be fixed when some notices inconsistencies. Feel free to request any other pages that look odd to you. ~ _{01:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)}

Deletions Archives

UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Archive/June-2010, UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Archive/July-2010, UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Archive/August-2010, UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Archive/September-2010, UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Archive/October-2010, UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Archive/November-2010, UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Archive/December-2010, UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Archive/January-2011, UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Archive/February-2011, UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Archive/March-2011, UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Archive/April-2011, & UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Archive/May-2011 for the addition of the Template:Deletearchivenav to each archive page. Of course, you can add it on yourself without unprotecting it, and thus ignore this request. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 23:01, 20 June 2011 (BST)

Done. Thanks. ~ _{15:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)}

Vandal Banning Archives

UDWiki_talk:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2010_01, UDWiki_talk:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2010_09, UDWiki_talk:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2010_10, UDWiki_talk:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2010_11, UDWiki_talk:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2010_12, and UDWiki_talk:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2011_01. You'll note the error doesn't show up on UDWiki_talk:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2011_02.

Also, UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2010_02, UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2010_03, UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2010_04, UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2011_01, UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2011_02, UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2011_03, UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2011_04 to put the Template:VBarchivenav on the bottom (in some cases, to just move it down).

Are we putting Template:Administrationnav at the top of archive pages, like on UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2010_05?

Finally, UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2011_05, as it is formatted as A/VB still, and not as an archive page. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 23:26, 20 June 2011 (BST)

Done. Thanks. The May 2011 A/VB Archive looks like that because we're experimenting with move archiving, with which I've been so far unimpressed. If the archive needs to be completely reformatted each time the page is moved then I really am not seeing the benefit of doing it the new way. Perhaps Karek can write up some Cycling Instructions in case there is something else I'm missing, though. ~ _{15:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)}

Some group pages

• Cobra
• Cobra/Joining
• Cobra/Diplomacy
• Cobra/Guide
• Cobra/Recruitment
• Template:CobraNav
• Category:Cobra

They seem to be under edit warring right now, and as group owner I'd like to see them protected for the time being. (Actually, only the first two have been under warring so far, but I think things will spread if only those two are caught.) -- Spiderzed█ 11:51, 19 June 2011 (BST)

Since protection request is due to edit warring I have reverted edits back to last change by Spiderzed as owner of the page. There seems to be a lot of external discussion going on here so that seemed to be the best way of handling it. I've only protect the pages involved in the edit war. Try working it out and if things escalate then we can discuss protection of all group pages if necessary. ~ _{17:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)}

Seconding Vapor's ruling. Under the Umbrella precedent (lol!) the pages stay yours, even if the group itself votes to get rid of you or whatever. They'll have to make a new group page somewhere else.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 19:07, 19 June 2011 (BST)

We'll iron that out either in arbies or off-site. I was mainly interested into seeing the edit war calm down for the time being, as no one makes any gain from it. -- Spiderzed█ 19:22, 19 June 2011 (BST)

That nakes no sense. Group pages are owned by the group not the group leader and always have been./--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 20:40, 19 June 2011 (BST)

Why would a page be considered owned by anyone other than its creator in the case of an ownership dispute? Page history for Cobra extends past the history purge, though I would make an educated guess at it having been created by Bullgod (I could track him down and check). Obviously the sub-pages may differ, in which case it could be divvied up like pie slices on a creator-as-owner basis or handled via an arby for overall control. Depends how engaged any warring, if any, would be. 21:08, 19 June 2011 (BST)

Roughly because groups are directly linked to their pages. Also, they're who the page is about. Oh, and the point of a wiki is to be accurate not vindictive. Group page == group property, user page == user property, creator has nothing to do with it beyond crit 7s. We've even overruled creators on images before. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 01:58, 20 June 2011 (BST)

Yes, so ownership wouldn't cede to an individual currently out of favour with the group over the actual group itself, then? 02:34, 20 June 2011 (BST)

FTR I am very, very certain he did. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:13, 20 June 2011 (BST)

I can look it up for you, but I'm nearly 100% sure that that was what was decided in the most recent umbrella drama.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 22:33, 19 June 2011 (BST)

If it would need to be determined on the wiki, the way to go would be arbies, not an ad hoc decision on A/PT. A/PT is only about stop-gap measures for edit wars, not about resolving such complex questions as page ownership. -- Spiderzed█ 22:49, 19 June 2011 (BST)

Also right. Precedent is irrelevant, group pages are, by policy and an half decade of guideline, owned by the group but, yes. Content disputes belong on A/A and we don't get a say regardless of if we recognize the group owner or not. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 01:58, 20 June 2011 (BST)

Frankly, I always thought it was stupid anyway.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 02:09, 20 June 2011 (BST)

As a representative of the group, I'd like to ask that the page be unprotected so that we can edit it. Spiderzed was ousted from the group and as such has no claims or ties to said group. We're finding it most bothersome that he persistently has tried to stake claim to a group he was kicked out of. -- Goribus 03:04, 20 June 2011 (BST)

No one can edit it right now. Not even I. (Not without making a big step towards Misconduct at least.) - As for page ownership, I have been the uncontested editor of and listed leader on the Cobra page for over half a year, and have the majority of the group backing up my claim. The way to resolve this is either to resolve it off-site, or to go to arbies. -- Spiderzed█ 06:15, 20 June 2011 (BST)

Just to clarify, Spider was not 'ousted' or 'kicked out' of Cobra - I think the best way to describe this is that he was disowned by three or four old members who up until recently were AWOL. The only ousting that happened was Spider having his forum account deleted. The majority of Cobra members (i.e those who have been active and have stopped the group from disappearing altogether) still regard Spider as the group's leader. ~~ Chief Seagull ~~ ^talk 09:28, 20 June 2011 (BST)

This doesn't happen to have something to do with a recent conflict of Spidey with the PKA right? Also outright deletion of an account sounds like a pretty low move in my opinion but that's besides the point. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 10:47, 20 June 2011 (BST)

No, it happened because Cobra became embarrassing, hence a handful of its members went AWOL. Its leader stepped in and did something about it.   URGGGGGGGHTalk PSYCHOUTTalk STAN SATANTalk 18:59, 20 June 2011 (BST)

Note - On this page we only handle edit war intervention. As such we revert to the version before the dispute, in this case the current revision of the page, and recommend all content disputes should go to Arbitration. If you disagree with the content talk it out or have someone else settle it. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 10:03, 20 June 2011 (BST)

Arbitration - the pages should remain protected until the edit warring parties sort it out through arbitration. It needs to be determined what "the group" wishes are, and it's clear that that will take some investigation that isn't appropriate here. Come back when it's sorted out -- boxy 09:59, 20 June 2011 (BST)

For those who missed it, a comparable Arb case-- Thadeous Oakley Talk 10:49, 20 June 2011 (BST)

Main Page

This isn't a request so much as a discussion: I notice that I protected the page with the reason "Emergency Protection" about 3 years ago and that it was never unprotected. Given that the emergency is decidedly over I thought we should put this through the "normal" protections process.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 11:59, 17 June 2011 (BST)

I'm for keeping it protected. It's the most high profile page on the wiki (it has the most views anyway) and I think it's pretty standard practice to protect a wiki's main page. ~ _{14:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)}

yeah... A bit surprised it needed an emergency to be protected in the first place, thought it would have been one of the first things protected on the wiki. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 15:06, 17 June 2011 (BST)

It was protected five years ago, and personally I reckon it should stay protected. There's no need to risk the vandalism, because nobody needs to edit the main page anyway.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 15:12, 17 June 2011 (BST)

One of the principles of many wikis is that pages should be open to editng by everyone if at all possible. I believe wikipedia (which we kinda used as a guide for most of our policies) actually has a specific policy against protecting pages simply because they "don't need to be edited".--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 16:10, 17 June 2011 (BST)

Following that reasoning, it should be noted that Wikipedia's Main Page is protected. ~ _{16:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)}

zzzzzzzing.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 01:12, 18 June 2011 (BST)

It's contageous! -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:05, 18 June 2011 (BST)

The main page used to be kept protected a long long time ago. I find it odd that it was unprotected and you had to emergency protect it --hagnat 15:08, 17 June 2011 (BST)

It was kept move-protected for ages but not edit-protected. It was then protected due to a vandalsim spree. I believe the reason it was unprotected before the "emergency protection" was because we couldn't alter the protection level in-situ.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 16:10, 17 June 2011 (BST)

Seriously, I don't think this is going to get unprotected. It's fine as it is and it's gone through major revamps and changes by regular users through A/PT without issue. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:05, 18 June 2011 (BST)

Yeah, I'm not actually in disagreement with you. I just wanted it to go through this page to get consensus because it didn't seem right that my "emergency protection" (made without any consultation) was lasting for 3 years.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 12:09, 18 June 2011 (BST)

Dw, I figured you didn't actually want it changed but yeah, thinking its pretty regular to keep main page protected on a wiki of this size. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 13:21, 18 June 2011 (BST)

Sandbox

Just conforming to red tape by noting that I protected and then unprotected the sandbox out of curiosity to see if you could be an expiry time on an unprotection (i.e. would it revert back to protected form after the expiry time?). The answer turned out to be no.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 12:18, 18 June 2011 (BST)

Template:Bid

Could someone add a link to Misconduct archives for the candidate to it (ideally for both A/PM and A/RE bids)? Basically, just [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/{{{1}}}]] somewhere in the line with the rest of the links. —Aichon— 23:26, 10 June 2011 (BST)

I don't mind doing it but there was some discussion on Template talk:Bid as to why it isn't there. Basically, misconduct links are visible when transcluded on A/RE but not on A/PM. I think the idea was that not all prospective sysops (indeed probably the majority of them) are former ops and would not likely have misconduct cases. ~ _{23:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)}

I'd also like to think that if a sysop is coming back after a long break, then past misconducts wouldn't really be an issue, given that they'd taken time away (other than with obviously massive gross misconduct, in which case most people know anyway).--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 23:53, 10 June 2011 (BST)

I couldn't find any relevant discussion about Misconduct links and why they aren't included on the talk page, Vapor. And while I do agree 100%, Yonn, I think that should be up to the people voicing their opinions to decide. The template should merely provide them with all available information regarding the candidate, else we wouldn't also include A/VD links either, since those are equally irrelevant more often than not. —Aichon— 00:20, 11 June 2011 (BST)

I actually thought we'd removed Vd links (I personally quite liked the version with more links) and left it with just talk and contribs.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 00:27, 11 June 2011 (BST)

The VD links are still in it. I prefer more links as well, for the reason I stated above, even though many of them are useless at times. —Aichon— 00:52, 11 June 2011 (BST)

Sorry the relevant discusiion was at Template talk:vndl#Use on A/PM and A/RE. Like I said I don't mind either. We've had several oldschool ops returning and running again so it couldn't hurt. ~ _{02:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)}

Well, your guys' call. You have my preferred choice, but I won't take it personally if you all decide to deny the request. :) —Aichon— 02:30, 11 June 2011 (BST)

It will take a bit of coding but I can make it work. Alternatively, you can get misconduct to show if you use the variable 2=RE. ~ _{06:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)}

Sorry for not getting to this sooner. I've been away from wiki since this came through. After reviewing it, I've decided to cycle unedited. The template was specifically designed so that different code would be output depending on which page it was transcluded on. Misconduct links can however be included through the use of a different variable. I'd suggest any returning ops running on A/PM to use the variable. I have however edited the variables section of the template's instruction for use so that it is a bit more evident that the variable can be used for that purpose. ~ _{15:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)}

Known Bugs

Because I'm sick of muppets posting their shit directly on here like they're FUCKING TOLD NOT TO.
Basically, this should be reserved for bugs which have been confirmed. A fix of the entire bug system is on my to-do list: this is a temporary stopgap measure. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:13, 9 June 2011 (BST)

This may be better resolved with a massive massive red notice at the top that people can't possibly miss... If people wanna sort out this monstrosity the more power to them (I had a go once at archiving the bugs pages, fun), but perhaps it's best not limiting it to sysops? -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 04:30, 9 June 2011 (BST)

First off, wow Rev. I wasn't even actually aware of that functionality with semicolons. Second, DDR, I'm not sure it's particularly an issue. Known bugs shouldn't be being edited by the average user anyway and we should probably be treating it like the Main page or something. Seems like a very important resolution place for bugs. Although, yes, the whole system needs to be changed. It should really only be two pages with maybe a template on the main page that shows new bugs reports or something but that can be discussed somewhere else. If you really feel strongly about it being unprotected we can leave it but, I don't really see what the harm is in doing it so that requests to move have some level of peer review first(even if it's just being posted here).--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 08:54, 9 June 2011 (BST)

Meh, sup to you guys. I personally don't think it needs protection at all (semi protection I could go for) but if you guys want to do it and there's little opposition then go ahead. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 09:28, 9 June 2011 (BST)

How about putting in semi-protection? That'll let experienced users maintain it but (hopefully) prevent newbies from dumping bugs straight onto the page.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 09:05, 9 June 2011 (BST)

^ -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 09:28, 9 June 2011 (BST)

Done that way for now. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 09:42, 9 June 2011 (BST)

As a quick note, this is probably the best solution, since protecting it entirely would prevent instances where feedback is beneficial during the bug fix process. For instance, with at least one bug, Kevan thought he had fixed it, but had it pointed out to him that the fix wasn't working, allowing him to act on the feedback and put out a better fix within the day. With protection in place, we'd have to have sysops post such feedback on the behalf of users. —Aichon— 05:00, 15 June 2011 (BST)

Sacred Ground Policy

Sacred Ground Policy but NOT the /People and /Groups subpages. Those I'd like to leave open for people to add to. Basically, I'd like to protect the policy as I wrote it and block watering-down and meddling should I be re-permabanned or if I get hit by a truck or simply stop coming by. -- ™ & © Amazing, INC. All rights reserved. Replying constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service. 02:01, 31 May 2011 (BST)

Also leave the corresponding talk page open if possible. -- ™ & © Amazing, INC. All rights reserved. Replying constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service. 02:07, 31 May 2011 (BST)

I'mma refuse for two reasons. 1) it's more of a community page now, like other tactics. 2) it's got portions for general user editing on the main page. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 05:01, 31 May 2011 (BST)

Can I reply, or is that forbidden? Anyway, taking the risk... 1.) It might be a dangerous precedent to say a page is community property because the owner can't access it. I never gave permission as such, so I don't understand how it can just... be that way. History also directly supports my case, as McZeds was reverted and protected as per my request while I was still permabanned. McZed's was open to user editing and was around long after I left, but it was still protected. And... 2.) The portions for user editing are actually on the /People and /Groups sub-pages. -- ™ & © Amazing, INC. All rights reserved. Replying constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service. 06:37, 31 May 2011 (BST)

The bigger issue is it was a public policy and the community continued on with it after your absence. It's more of a representation of the game then an owned idea. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 07:31, 31 May 2011 (BST)

I done been robbed! :O Seriously, though, in my personal estimation (just to explain the request) it's complete the way it is, as a policy, and I didn't see the need to keep it open for people to add, say, anti-SGP policies and various errata. But whatevs. It's there for people to enjoy the benefit of, just didn't want it watered down and obfuscated at some future date. -- ™ & © Amazing, INC. All rights reserved. Replying constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service. 18:35, 31 May 2011 (BST)

Even if this was fulfilled I'm quite sure the [edit] sections of the subpages you have there will disappear on the main page even though the subpages aren't protected... I'd recommend adding a workaround edit button if the protection goes through. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 06:43, 31 May 2011 (BST)

I'd have no problem with that. Wiki rustiness causes me to miss factors like that. -- ™ & © Amazing, INC. All rights reserved. Replying constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service. 06:45, 31 May 2011 (BST)

Case is no longer active and isn't being pursued, so I've moved it to recent actions.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 22:45, 8 June 2011 (BST)

I've gone halfway and put in semi-protection. Anyone disagree?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 09:06, 9 June 2011 (BST)

Looks good.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 11:28, 9 June 2011 (BST)

UDWiki:Projects/UHUB Discussion

Was requested on my talk page. Added requested category. ~ _{19:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)}

---

e 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 2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Q3 Q4 2013 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Years 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019