UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Scheduling/Archive

This page contains all previous requests for Deletion Scheduling.

Defunct Group Images

For the purposes of this proposed deletion, a "defunct group" is one whose page has been deleted from the wiki through either of the deletion pages. If a defunct group has any images related to their group (provided that they are otherwise unused) they may be deleted along with the group page. -- Cheese 00:00, 3 October 2009 (BST)

1. Yes - Doesn't happen very often but saves it waiting for the month long unused requirement. -- Cheese 00:00, 3 October 2009 (BST)
2. Yes - Deleting a group's page and subpages should also bring with it the deletion of images used only on those pages. 00:09, 3 October 2009 (BST)
3. No - How 'bout you expand it any page, not just group? Assuming the image is not used. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:12, 3 October 2009 (BST)
4. No - As Gnome. Cyberbob  Talk  00:36, 3 October 2009 (BST)
5. No - This only applies to pages less than a month old, which means that the owner would have to request through A/SD or A/D, and can be easily asked if they want the images gone as well. Group pages less than a month old that are deleted without the owners permission are extremely rare -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:22 3 October 2009 (BST)
6. No - As per above. Fou-Lu 02:46, 4 October 2009 (BST)
7. N0 i have no idea what i'm doing----Sexualharrison 15:01, 4 October 2009 (BST)
8. No - As Boxy. It's redundant. Linkthewindow  Talk  06:56, 5 October 2009 (BST)
9. No -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:30, 5 October 2009 (BST)
10. No - Eh, they'll eventually work their way into unused images. --ZsL 06:47, 6 October 2009 (BST)
11. No --Papa Johnny 17:30, 7 October 2009 (BST)
12. No --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 19:27, 7 October 2009 (BST)
13. Yes - What Gnome said.--Teln 03:13, 9 October 2009 (BST)
14. No - As boxy. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 08:47, 9 October 2009 (BST)

Failed with 3 for and 11 against. Cyberbob  Talk  00:27, 18 October 2009 (BST)

Unused images

Currently unused images are deleted after they have gone one month without an edit. This is way too long; any image that has gone unedited for more than like a week (if that) is pretty much guaranteed to make it all the way down the line. I propose shortening the length of time unused images can go without edits before they are deleted to one week. Cyberbob  Talk  06:00, 1 October 2009 (BST)

The deletion of unused images is already problematic. Images can not be restored if a mistake is made, and it is very easy to delete images that have been removed in a page wiping vandal act that may not be noticed for some days, or in edit disputes. As soon as they are edited off a page, the image shows up as unused and (unless they've been uploaded recently) immediately qualify for scheduled deletion, with no way for the sysop to track down which page they used to be included on -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:35 1 October 2009 (BST)

Have you looked at the list? It is made up of stupid ingame screenshots, outdated Necronet scans and logos for groups that have become defunct. In my weeks of trimming the list that is quite literally all I have ever seen, and if I was to ever see one that broke this mold I would hold off on nuking it simply because of this fact. The danger you speak of Does Not Exist. Cyberbob  Talk  16:15, 1 October 2009 (BST)

And in the event that it occurs (which in an extremely rare occasion that it will), it isn't beyond a sysop to notice it was uploaded either more than a month ago, or longer than the last unused-deletions purge, so an image under any criteria you hypothetically mentioned would stick out like a sore thumb and be fixable. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 16:31, 2 October 2009 (BST)

How are you going to track down which page an image was removed from, DDR?
Even though it is damn easy to tell which page images like a hockey stick are likely to be used on, I still remember people trying to keep a "real" hockey stick on the melee weapons page, only to have it replaced with ice hockey sticks, and the images deleted as unused.
Unless it is obvious which page the image came from, there is no way to know where the images in unused images were used on a wiki of this size. Perhaps there is a way to totally rewrite the unused images criteria, so that unused images between a week and a month are free to be deleted on sight, but older ones that turn up are put on an image archive page for a month or two, and only then are they deleted if they remain unused, to give people time to notice that they've been taken off a page -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:39 3 October 2009 (BST)

Great, so we should bend over backwards with even more stupid red tape just so idiots don't have their retarded images deleted because of their own laziness and inattention? No thanks. Cyberbob  Talk  03:51, 3 October 2009 (BST)

Bob, they LOVE red tape. They kept telling Nubis "the red tape is there for a reason" but the reason is to make people feel important. Good luck fighting the common sense good fight! -- #99 ^DCC 02:54, 11 October 2009 (BST)

Sorry, that should be "I" there instead of "we" - everyone else is happy to sit back and let me do all the work but when I look for something that would make my life so much easier it's all NO U CANT DO THAT HERE ALLOW ME TO SUGGEST AN EVEN WORSE SYSTEM Cyberbob  Talk  03:55, 3 October 2009 (BST)

How does this make your life easier? It just means you can delete images earlier -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:58 3 October 2009 (BST)

My prime motivation has been to keep the list as short as possible. Deleting them earlier means that I won't get so pissed off when I see stupid cunts uploading stupid cuntish shit because I know it'll be gone sooner. Cyberbob  Talk  04:03, 3 October 2009 (BST)

No, that's why I haven't been worried too much by the problems I've outlined above before, because it's been obvious to me for a while. There are huge numbers of useless images that need to be deleted with a minimum of fuss, even if it occasionally causes problems, and we have the criteria to do that now -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:58 3 October 2009 (BST)

If you don't give a shit then don't bother typing words Cyberbob  Talk  04:03, 3 October 2009 (BST)

In the worst case scenario (when the image doesn't elude to whom it belongs to), go through the user. Even with the history purge interfering it's rarely difficult. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 04:37, 3 October 2009 (BST)

1. Yes Cyberbob  Talk  06:00, 1 October 2009 (BST)
2. Yes --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:21, 1 October 2009 (BST)

   No - As Boxy. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 12:39, 1 October 2009 (BST)

3. ?' Are they causing a problem of some sort? If so then I see no reason not to. --Honestmistake 12:11, 1 October 2009 (BST)

   No Sorry Bob, Boxy convinced me too. Without a very good reason I am unlikely to change my mind again. --Honestmistake 13:09, 1 October 2009 (BST)

4. No - There are problems with this scheduled deletion criteria already, it doesn't need strengthening -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:35 1 October 2009 (BST)
5. No --SirArgo ^Talk 17:21, 1 October 2009 (BST)
6. yes Because actually whats left in unused images isn't of huge use. Besides with a shorter time span, if I had it saved on my computer on monday to upload, I probably have it still saved the following monday. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:58, 1 October 2009 (BST)
7. No While I feel one month is too long for the amount of images that get uploaded and forgotten, one week is much too short- users could conceivably upload a few images for a page or project, get sidetracked in real life for a week, and return to find their images had been deleted. I would support shortening it down to two or three weeks, but one week is just too short.--~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 01:34, 2 October 2009 (BST)
8. No - But only because, as I said on IRC, 2 weeks is more apt in my opinion. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:13, 2 October 2009 (BST)
9. No - As redhawk and boxy.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 14:55, 2 October 2009 (BST)
10. No - because the original schedule is fucked up in the first place. Back in the day of Crit12 groups used to be deleted, and when their owners requested the page to be undeleted it couldnt be fully because the images were deleted, without the required period to deem them unused has passed. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 21:25, 2 October 2009 (BST)

    Good thing Crit 12 doesn't exist anymore, eh? Cyberbob  Talk  00:34, 3 October 2009 (BST)

11. No - Perhaps two weeks or 15-20 days would be suitable but one week is much too short. 00:09, 3 October 2009 (BST)
12. Nope - --Thadeous Oakley 00:15, 3 October 2009 (BST)
13. No - I think 2 weeks is a more suitable alternative. --ZsL 01:37, 3 October 2009 (BST)
14. no whats the damn rush? some people don't live on this wiki. and need more time to edit or complete projects. shit. goddamn.----Sexualharrison 15:03, 4 October 2009 (BST)
15. Weak No - As Boxy. Not like the server's going to explode if we don't delete images quickly. Linkthewindow  Talk  06:55, 5 October 2009 (BST)
16. No -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:30, 5 October 2009 (BST)
17. No --Papa Johnny 17:29, 7 October 2009 (BST)
18. No --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 19:27, 7 October 2009 (BST)

Failed with 1 for and 17 against. Cyberbob  Talk  06:36, 15 October 2009 (BST)

0x0 Images

As you can see by this example: Image:2cola.jpg, 0x0 images are unusable images that come across once every while. It is a result of offering a corrupt file to the wiki. The images are unusable and already deleted without thought on A/SD. Because users get redirected to their image once they've uploaded it, the author of the image is already made aware of it's state and hence all 0x0 images I've seen get discarded upon upload. I'd like to submit these images for scheduled deletions. --ϑϑℜ 15:08, 28 July 2009 (BST)

Note: Rooster fixed the above image as part of his comment below. See the broken one in revision history. --ϑϑℜ 03:06, 29 July 2009 (BST)

Don't you think it would be a better idea to not just delete them, but to try to fix them if they are recent uploads that have gone wrong? There is often content there (such as in this case), it's just that it needs converting over to the proper format. Help the newbz -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:58 29 July 2009 (BST)

Don't stereotype this as a noob mistake because it isn't. If you want to fix it before the user does, you can upload it over the broken one and then delete the 0x0 revision as per this scheduled deletion? --ϑϑℜ 11:11, 29 July 2009 (BST)

Yes I can, and will. But if this is only supposed to apply to the 0x0 revision, after attempts have been made to fix the problem, then you need to withdraw this vote, and start again with it worded properly -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 22:20 3 August 2009 (BST)

1. Yea - I wanted to make a clause that ensured sysops also notify the author that their image got deleted, but decided it was unnecessary since, as above, all authors see their work after the upload anyway. --ϑϑℜ 15:08, 28 July 2009 (BST)
2. Yea Procedural C.Y.O.A. All for it... Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 16:15, 28 July 2009 (BST)
3. Yea - Sounds good. --User:Axe27/Sig 16:51, 28 July 2009 (BST)
4. No - to deleting the page outright, you can usually save these images from the revision history. I fixed the above example and it's now a prefectably usable image. Yes to making the 0x0 revision a scheduled though, after the image is saved (or if it cannot be). --  RoosterDragon  17:38, 28 July 2009 (BST)
5. Yea - What is the point of having extra storage space on this site getting filled up with nothing? Paradoxical sure but there is no point to having useless images that take up space. Aka Paradox 19:00, 28 July 2009 (BST)
6. Yea - As above. If there useless then what's the point? --MTRemick ^{T | C | Fey | NBC} 19:06, 28 July 2009 (BST)
7. Yes after - As Rooster, no to deleting it outright if it can be fixed.--SirArgo ^Talk 19:24, 28 July 2009 (BST)

   No - I need to definitively pick a side, so no it is.--SirArgo ^Talk 22:34, 3 August 2009 (BST)

8. No There's still content there that can often be fixed -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:58 29 July 2009 (BST)

   In my experiences, all users who upload one of these images end up uploading a dupe anyway, before we even find it, let alone delete it. --ϑϑℜ 10:31, 29 July 2009 (BST)

   I've seen group images "updated" with these type of mistakes, and still included on a page. They'll need reverting, not deleting -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:40 29 July 2009 (BST)

9. Delete with the proviso that the image be at least a week old, thats plenty of time for them to either fix or ask for help. --Honestmistake 10:41, 29 July 2009 (BST)
10. No - Because you guys have not clue what you're doing, just fix it by going to the hard file link in the image area and reuploading like non-cunts would do. --Karek^maps?! 01:02, 30 July 2009 (BST)

    This scheduled doesn't stop us from doing that if a 'non cunt' sysop, or even user, is so inclined, it would just allow us to delete the revision afterwards to keep things clean. --ϑϑℜ 03:58, 30 July 2009 (BST)

    No, you could have already done that, you're just making policy spam now. If you really thing that it's misconduct to delete these or that any of you are petty enough to file and support that case you've got a whole different set of problems. Image revisions are already scheduled. --Karek^maps?! 00:34, 3 August 2009 (BST)

    woah, hard-hitting on-the-money grizzled veteran of all things wiki spotted! --Cyberbob 04:16, 30 July 2009 (BST)

11. No and then Yes as the rooster explains. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:47, 2 August 2009 (BST)

    Way to confuse the process. Just vote no, because your yes is for a different scheduled deletion that isn't even up for voting -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 22:12 3 August 2009 (BST)

12. No and then Yes - as above. Linkthewindow  Talk  07:50, 3 August 2009 (BST)

    Just straight No now. Linkthewindow  Talk  22:30, 3 August 2009 (BST)

13. No --Midianian 18:29, 3 August 2009 (BST)
14. No - --Thadeous Oakley 20:03, 5 August 2009 (BST)
15. N/Y - As Rooster --Haliman - Talk 20:07, 5 August 2009 (BST)

Failed, with 5 for and 9 against. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:36, 12 August 2009 (BST)

Removal of the porn scheduled deletion

Title says it all. We remove the porn scheduled deletion. Each time it's been used, it's spawned a 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 uploading a file.)

To summarize, the porn scheduled deletion is removed on A/G. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:54, 19 July 2009 (BST)

Please skim through the discussion regarding this before voting. Linkthewindow  Talk  14:17, 19 July 2009 (BST)

1. 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 -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:09 19 July 2009 (BST)
2. 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. --Cyberbob 14:10, 19 July 2009 (BST)
3. Yes please - i don't think that'll be interesting at all bob, but finally we have some freedom of image around this dump.--xoxo 14:12, 19 July 2009 (BST)

   Was just a bit of humourous understatement :\ --Cyberbob 14:15, 19 July 2009 (BST)

4. Yes --ϑϑℜ 14:12, 19 July 2009 (BST)

   Edit: Boxy was right. --ϑϑℜ 14:26, 19 July 2009 (BST)

5. Yep - As boxy. --Midianian 15:01, 19 July 2009 (BST)
6. 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. --Honestmistake 15:22, 19 July 2009 (BST)
7. Aye - As the box. -- Cheese 15:51, 19 July 2009 (BST)
8. Against For- This was never really a big problem until 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? --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. --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%. --WanYao 16:28, 19 July 2009 (BST)

   Rare? Those two misconduct cases represent the only two times the current scheduled rule has been used. --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. --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. --WanYao 16:39, 19 July 2009 (BST)

   He probably won't bother until you and your following manage to get majority on this vote. --ϑϑℜ 16:49, 19 July 2009 (BST)

   My following?! Now that was droll! --WanYao 16:50, 19 July 2009 (BST)

   Indeed. --ϑϑℜ 17:48, 19 July 2009 (BST)

   DDR...please don't. --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. --Cyberbob 16:51, 19 July 2009 (BST)

   Goatse images have been deleted on sight and the user permanently banned in the past. It was pretty obvious what they were doing, frankly. I think the image was called duck, in case anyone was wondering. :/ --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:30, 19 July 2009 (BST)

   Right... and now all someone has to do is upload something highly explicit... give it a nice name... and then it gets displayed and voted on for 2 whole weeks! Can't you see why something has to replace the current crit before it's just scrapped? You didn't answer my question: what recourse does a sysop have, after this schedule is removed, to delete offensive images without being misconducted??? I'm actually looking out for the sysops here... you just don't see that, probably --WanYao 19:28, 19 July 2009 (BST)

   No, clearly inappropriate images can be deleted as soon as they are reported on A/VB, and confirmed by someone credible so that they can act as a witness that the image is as described. Usually goatse (or similar) will be found by some other user and reported to A/VB in short order by an ordinary user. The first sysop along can delete immediately because images deemed to be vandalism are automatically deleted as bad faith edits -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 22:57 19 July 2009 (BST)

   Quoting myself: "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.)" Linkthewindow  Talk  01:58, 20 July 2009 (BST)

   boxy answered my question. But, Link, and I don't mean to be a jerk... but you basically confirmed my worst case scenario in your "reply"... and didn't tell me how the image doesn't stay up while going through a/vb. anyway, vote changed. --WanYao 06:13, 20 July 2009 (BST)

9. Yes - Alleviating dramaz. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 16:47, 19 July 2009 (BST)
10. 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. -Poodle of doom 18:00, 19 July 2009 (BST)

    you mean this ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 19:58, 20 July 2009 (BST)

    Yeah, that would be the one. -Poodle of doom 23:11, 20 July 2009 (BST)

11. Yar --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:30, 19 July 2009 (BST)
12. Yea But the criteria for porn should be reworded so that non-explicit sex acts must be deemed porn by some kind of majority--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 18:31, 19 July 2009 (BST)
13. For --SirArgo ^Talk 18:36, 19 July 2009 (BST)
14. Yes - Well, it obviously needs to be replaced because it isn't working. --User:Axe27/Sig 19:36, 19 July 2009 (BST)
15. Yes - nuff said --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 23:21, 19 July 2009 (BST)
16. Yea indeed --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 13:13, 20 July 2009 (BST)
17. YAY --Orange Talk 18:38, 20 July 2009 (BST)
18. You're all being dumb - It's all stupid really. It never should have needed adding to scheduled but it was done because some of you threw fits, now it's being removed because some of you threw fits. The short and log of it is this stuff is vandalism, if you're posting it it's deleted as vandalism and you're escalated and filing a case about it is harassmentvandalism, all of you know better. --Karek^maps?! 09:33, 21 July 2009 (BST)
19. For -- As long as images that are OBVIOUSLY offensive are taken care of, which I trust they are. Chekken 05:54, 27 July 2009 (BST)
20. For - Urban dead has become the only place on the internet where porn is not the lions share of images. Aka Paradox 03:18, 30 July 2009 (BST)

Passed - 19 For. The Pornography scheduling below is rescinded. --  RoosterDragon  22:35, 2 August 2009 (BST)

Adbot related pages

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) --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 18:19, 15 July 2009 (BST)

For those voting against this, a word on how search engines work: web crawlers read the content of your page and associate whatever keyword they find to the link. If an adbot creates a user page with the name of a product he is selling, this page will count as a mention for that product's keyword, hence strengthening its value on the search engine. This is a lesser problem with simple comments but actual pages with the products name can be harmful to this community (like, simply saying spam product is less harmful than linking to a page named whatever spam product). This criterion might appear heavy-handed on removing all comments, but it serves two purposes: a) guarantes that the relevance of any search for these keyword wont be improved by this wiki and b) guarantes that the relevance of any search about urbandead wont be mixed with one of a spammer site. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 23:27, 19 July 2009 (BST)

Not quite. In short, once any external links are gone, mentioning the product will not benefit the spammer or harm UD. --Midianian 00:06, 20 July 2009 (BST)

1. 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 -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:33 16 July 2009 (BST)
2. Yes Not even an eighth. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:36, 16 July 2009 (BST)
3. 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. Linkthewindow  Talk  12:23, 16 July 2009 (BST)

   Not a bad idea, just links or comments quoting the names of the ones advertising with their username -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:08 16 July 2009 (BST)

4. No - Too draconian, and almost impossible to completely enforce. --Cyberbob 12:24, 16 July 2009 (BST)
5. Against - as link (plus this). --ϑϑℜ 12:32, 16 July 2009 (BST)
6. weak against remove the "comments about banned adbots" and this would be a Yes --Honestmistake 12:46, 16 July 2009 (BST)
7. Yes - When did we start creating user pages for these guys? =/ -- Cheese 21:44, 16 July 2009 (BST)
8. 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. --Midianian 15:37, 19 July 2009 (BST)
9. No - As Cyberbob. --User:Axe27/Sig 19:37, 19 July 2009 (BST)
10. No - As link. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 19:46, 19 July 2009 (BST)
11. AgarnstWanYao 06:14, 20 July 2009 (BST)
12. Nay - As Link --_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 18:31, 20 July 2009 (BST)

Failed with 3 for, 8 against. --ϑϑℜ 04:28, 30 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. --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. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 17:43, 15 July 2009 (BST)

You make the bloody vote then. Leave this one alone though. --Cyberbob 17:50, 15 July 2009 (BST)

1. Yes --Cyberbob 17:32, 15 July 2009 (BST)
2. Yes - Baleet them from existence entirely. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 17:34, 15 July 2009 (BST)
3. Yes --  RoosterDragon  17:38, 15 July 2009 (BST)
4. Yes - Not any more work to delete the stuff again if the same adbot comes back. --Darth Sensitive ^W! 17:51, 15 July 2009 (BST)
5. Yip--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:35, 15 July 2009 (BST)
6. Yea - Everyone was happy with this already being the case but w/e. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 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. --Cyberbob 02:22, 16 July 2009 (BST)

   Yeah it was aimed at Hag. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 02:33, 16 July 2009 (BST)

   im still kind of groggy okay >_< --Cyberbob 03:02, 16 July 2009 (BST)

7. Yes - de facto this way already, but no problem in setting it in stone. Linkthewindow  Talk  02:59, 16 July 2009 (BST)
8. No - pointless repetition. Adbot pages are deemed to be vandalism, which is removed automatically -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:30 16 July 2009 (BST)
9. Yea - Nothing wrong with having it written down somewhere. --User:Axe27/Sig 06:51, 18 July 2009 (BST)
10. No - As boxy. --Midianian 15:02, 19 July 2009 (BST)
11. No - As boxy. --WanYao 16:17, 19 July 2009 (BST)
12. Yea - For sake of making it official --_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 18:33, 20 July 2009 (BST)

Passed - 9 for, 3 against. --ϑϑℜ 04:28, 30 July 2009 (BST)

Crit 11

• Non-existent User Page: The page is a User: page for a user that doesn't exist, and any content on the page has been moved to the appropriate User: or Journal: page.

A Crit 11 is a rare criterion which should be a scheduled deletion. The pages serve no purpose on the wiki, are already deleted on sight through A/SD, and because of the last requirement: "and any content on the page has been moved to the appropriate User: or Journal: page", to qualify as a Crit 11, these non-existant user pages have to be duped somewhere else upon deletion, also classing them as Crit 1's.

I proposed that confirmed Crit 11's be deleted on sight, because to be a crit 11 the information needs to already be duplicated in the correct user/journal space and hence the incorrect page holds no value on the wiki when it is submitted to A/SD, through its current system. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 06:14, 15 June 2009 (BST)

1. Yes. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:30, 15 June 2009 (BST)
2. Yes - Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 07:46, 15 June 2009 (BST)
3. Less Red Tape = Good That's a yes, by the way. Linkthewindow  Talk  07:50, 15 June 2009 (BST)
4. Yes --Janus ^talk 13:01, 16 June 2009 (BST)
5. Yes Death to useless bureaucracy! --Honestmistake 13:17, 16 June 2009 (BST)
6. This isn't really needed because after you've moved the content to the user's subpage it can be deleted as a unused redirect. However, for clarity's sake Yes. -- Cheese 13:59, 16 June 2009 (BST)

   There's been a few examples where they've manually moved it to a subpage (after realizing their mistake,) but not A/SDing it, or where it's a dupe of their user page (typo, etc.) So a scheduled unused redirect deletion doesn't always hold ;) Linkthewindow  Talk  14:02, 16 June 2009 (BST)

7. Yes--C Whitty 14:47, 16 June 2009 (BST)
8. Yea --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:10, 16 June 2009 (BST)
9. y.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 15:16, 16 June 2009 (BST)
10. yes Asheets 16:01, 16 June 2009 (BST)
11. YAY! --Orange Talk 16:19, 16 June 2009 (BST)
12. Cut the red tape. Yes --– Nubis ^NWO 17:11, 16 June 2009 (BST)
13. Kill with fire. Yes. --Haliman - Talk 19:21, 16 June 2009 (BST)
14. Yes --Met Fan ^F 20:18, 16 June 2009 (BST)
15. Yes Wait... I must be the only stupid person here. I don't understand what this means. Does this mean, for example - "User:X" was dormant, and you wanted to delete "User:X/Shitystuff", you could, but only if "User:X/Shitystuff" was moved somewhere else first? Where would the content go? EDIT: Thanks for explaining.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 00:40, 17 June 2009 (BST)

    It's if there's a "User:X" page or subpages for a user that doesn't exist (no Wiki account), then that stuff is moved to the "User:Y" page or subpages where User Y is the actual person behind creating and maintaining the User X page. At least, that's what I got out of it. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 00:52, 17 June 2009 (BST)

    It's usually a case of 'User:L33tKiller' makes his userpage at 'User:L33tZombieKiller' because that is his character name (but the wiki account for that page doesn't exist), then realises what is going on and manually moves it. It's a rare case, but it happens from time to time. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 02:42, 17 June 2009 (BST)

16. Yes--Thadeous Oakley 15:12, 17 June 2009 (BST)
17. Yes - Deleting things make me feel powerful :) --WanYao 06:19, 18 June 2009 (BST)
18. Do it --Pyrranha 22:15, 18 June 2009 (BST)
19. Burn the witch! Do it. (She turned me into a newt! ...I got better.) --V2Blast ^{T•P!•C•SR} Remove the strike and this comment when you sign your vote properly. --Cyberbob 13:35, 21 June 2009 (BST)

Approved with 18 for an 0 against. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 02:55, 30 June 2009 (BST)

Crit 7 by Proxy

If a user leaves a sysop a note on their (i.e the sysop's) talk page requesting deletion of a page that falls under Crit 7, the Sysop may delete the page on sight, making clear in the edit summary that the user requested it via talk page.

1. Yar - Doesn't happen often, but would trim that pesky tape a bit. -- Cheese 20:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Yep - As long as the edit summary links to the talk page. We shouldn't be encouraging people use sysop's talk pages for deletions, but this does cut down on the red tape for newer users who don't know the system. Linkthewindow  Talk  20:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Yep as long as the request os mentioned in the deletion log. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Yea - All Crit 7 really requires is the author showing they actually want the page gone and it being a reasonable request. Cementing this in the actual rules is nothing but a good thing. --Karek^maps?! 21:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Yes - I guess so. --ZsL 21:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Yes - Good idea.-- Adward  20:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Yay - Less red tape. --Janus ^talk 21:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Yes - This makes sense. --Lois ^{talk 10MFH} 15:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Yep - Sounds good. --D.E.ATalk 16:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Yes I wish we could get Crit 1's in this way too tbh. --– Nubis ^NWO 01:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Yea - Simpler. Better. In my opinion, anyway.--Ryvyoli ^{Y R} 08:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
12. No - crit 7 is an author only edit, if it was restricted to pages only in their own namespace I would agree, however often group pages are only edited by one wiki-literate member. They shouldn't be allowed to request the deletion of group pages with no record left as to why except on some other users talk page (sysop talk pages can be simply wiped after all). There are also many template pages that are used by all over the wiki that have only been edited by one person, they shouldn't be deleted without the chance for review on A/SD. History wipes also make it hard to tell who created or edited older pages. Crit 7 isn't as simple as it may seem, and so shouldn't be open to scheduled deletion -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:33 17 March 2009 (BST)

    Crit 12 still applies on all groups and if there was actual content on the page hopefully the sysop that got the request would be able to determine if the request should be honored. Also, the difference between say a "play on names" template like the slew that Tselita created and a Danger Report template is vast. We do still have an Undeletions page in case an error is made.--– Nubis ^NWO 13:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

    The abolition of Crit 12 has nothing to do with Crit 7. The templates I was referring to were ones like this. If they're being used on other people's pages, they shouldn't be seen as being "owned" by the sole contributor, and Crit 7ed. Crit 7 needs watering down, not being made even more arbitrary, in that the author only has to convince a single sysop to get rid of it, and no one else will see it because they don't watch people's talk pages like they do A/SD. This has nothing to do with Teslita's stupid templates, which would go under crit 10 if they're not used -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:59 18 March 2009 (BST)

    convince a single sysop to get rid of it Here is your problem. You don't trust the judgment of the sysops. Sysops that got the position based on knowledge of the wiki, policy, and desire to contribute. Yet, now you seem to think that they aren't competent to know when a page should be kept or deleted. If you trust them enough to ban users why say they can't delete pages? Besides, worst case scenario, gods forbid you have to click *undelete*.--– Nubis ^NWO 18:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

    Sysops make mistakes. Yes, restoring is easy, but who's going to notice the error? The request is only on your page and only sysops can access the page (and the page's history). There aren't that many of you. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 19:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

    "If you trust them enough to ban users why say they can't delete pages?" Because we can't ban users without saying why on an admin page, same should be true with deletions unless they're extremely cut and dried, which crit 7 isn't! -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:42 24 March 2009 (BST)

    No, it pretty much is. If they want their page deleted you delete it, if they didn't you don't and it's abuse of privs. --Karek^maps?! 14:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

13. Yes - As link. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 13:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
14. Yes - I approve.--ScouterTX 17:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
15. Yes - Fund it. _Vic D'Amato__Dead vs Blue_ 23:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
16. No - As boxy. Perhaps something should exist to handle cases like this, but definitely not a scheduled deletion. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 19:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
17. Yes - Makes sense.--MTRemick 21:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
18. Yarp - I think people misunderstand this, if someone requests a page deleted, which is clearly crit 7, then the sysop deletes it. If there's uncertainty, they may request on A/SD beforehand or simply deny the request in the first place. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
19. No - The stupidest idea I've heard in the last 10 minutes with the possibility of extreme abuse due to other scheduled deletions criteria. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
20. NAY - A flat out stupid ide, this idea should be put up for speedy deletion --Imthatguy 21:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
21. No --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 22:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
22. No --Cyberbob 22:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
23. Mostly yes, I trust the rest of the team not to mess up.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 00:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

    Well, not to mess up too much. :) --Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 00:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Two weeks are up and this has been approved with 18 for and 5 against. -- Cheese 21:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Amendment to Rule 1

Current Rule: Unused Image Removal - Images on the Unused Image list that are a month old are to be deleted.

Exemption Clause - Any images that are used in various status based templates will be exempt from being deleted. Examples include:

• Image:Mall-safe-small.jpg - used in danger reports
• Image:Burb-edge-green.gif - used on the Omnimap
• Image:Maltel-active-small.jpg - used in mast danger reports

Since these are dependent on the status of various things, it's possible that they may occasionally become unused, and if they are over a month old, they might very well get deleted by accident. I make this request because it's already happened, and of course you can't undelete images.

These images could be allocated a new category for ease (Say: Status Components, or whatever sounds appropriate) and anything categorised as such would fall into this exemption. --  RoosterDragon  18:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yay - Logical enough, although we should upgrade so we can undelete images ;). Linkthewindow  Talk  20:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC) User strike Linkthewindow  Talk  12:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Nay - Needless duplication, repetition, and complication. Just image ark them on a project subpage or include them in a visual example. We don't just delete willy nilly but we also can't be expected to know every template inclusion of an image on the wiki. --Karek^maps?! 20:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
2. No As Karek. We've been through this before with the Mall images and at that time the images were arked for future use. --– Nubis ^NWO 22:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Nay As Karek. Long may his common sense rule on all wiki's --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 23:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Noy - it's not always obvious, so including them somewhere is the best way to keep them off the unused image list. The sysops do have to be careful though -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:34 25 January 2009 (BST)
5. Nyet - What boxy & Karek said. --ZsL 05:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
6. Nay - As boxy, Ross, and karek. I should read up on my Wiki history in future. Linkthewindow  Talk  12:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
7. Not this is an unneeded rule. Just create an archive page for these images and they will never be listed as Unused. --—The preceding signed comment was added by Hagnat (talk • contribs) at 13:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Not passed. --ZsL 05:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

User Page Redirects

User page redirects in the main space should be delete on sight as crit 3 or 9. The community voted against keeping them and in all fairness no one should have one. The exception will be Kevan. Redirects to permabanned vandals do not fall under this as they are for posterity and record keeping.

1. Yea The A/D votes settled it for me. This is the next logical step.--– Nubis ^NWO 14:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
2. Yea - the limited pagenames in the main namespace is not to be used up with hundreds of user page redirects, and neither should it be that popular users should be exempt from the A/SD criteria because they can manufacture A/D votes -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 21:51 7 November 2008 (BST)
3. Yea - Fits in nicely with the scheduled deletion after moves. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
4. Aye - The people have spoken. Let it be so. -- Cheese 22:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
5. Yes - Sounds good. --ZsL 22:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
6. Yes - Can't see a problem with it. Linkthewindow ^Talk 23:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
7. Yea - No user redirects in the main namespace. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [523,07]} 23:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
8. Yea - This has been the case for years. The only reason it's even an issue is because for the first time the idiots trying to buck the system for their own benefit have actually bothered to contest the rulings. One rule for everybody (except Kevan obv). --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 23:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
9. Yes - I spose this should be enforced to the end right? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
10. Yea As much a I enjoy Rosslessness, lets kill em. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 02:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

    We really will need a UHUB, won't we? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

    We sure will... Linkthewindow ^Talk 13:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

    I've started a discussion about how a UHUB might work here. Just to get some community consensus before actually creating one. Linkthewindow ^{Talk MCM} 06:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

11. Yea - makes sense. --Pdeq^Talk* 05:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
12. Yup - Community vote on a few shows they aren't wanted, might as well clear this up for the future then.--xoxo 05:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Nomination passed unanimously -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:29 25 November 2008 (BST)

Attack Pages

Pages made solely to attack/discredit/whatever another user (example: User X is a filthy PKer, we must killz him nao! or the recent Boxy/Ioncannon is a cunt) can be deleted on sight.

1. Aye - Some of this is already scheduled (solely vandal pages) but this just takes care of Trenchy n00bs posting their grievances all over the place because someone killed them. -- Cheese 22:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
2. No - pages may be made, esp. in the group or user sub-page area, to discredit players or other users (ie. this). Pages that use extreme swearing in their titles, however... -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 22:19 7 November 2008 (BST)

   I'm meaning in the main namespace. User and Group pages are fine. I really should have put that in. =p -- Cheese 22:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

   I still think that arbitration or vandal banning are better ways to determine the outcome in attack pages. It can be a tricky area that may need extended discussion, rather than just a single sysops opinion on the intent of a page. The ones titled "xxxx is a cunt" could probably be taken out though, as pure flamebait -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 22:30 7 November 2008 (BST)

3. Weak Yes - Just determine what an "attack" is, and don't delete pages in a user subspace. Linkthewindow ^Talk 23:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
4. Nay - Mostly as boxy. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [523,07]} 23:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
5. Yea - In the cases where the nature of the page is not blatantly obvious (which is the case 99% of the time) common sense should apply. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 23:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

   If something requires a "common sense" decision, it shouldn't be approved for scheduled deletion. Scheduled deletions should be only for things that are black and white decisions, otherwise it should be discussed on A/SD -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:57 8 November 2008 (BST)

   yes 01:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC) unsigned -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:00 8 November 2008 (BST)

6. Nay as mid. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 02:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
7. Nay - As car ick. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
8. No - Covered under vandalism, everything else has an arguable purpose.--Karek^maps?! 20:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
9. No - . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
10. Yes If it is covered under a vandalism delete then there is no reason for it not to be "scheduled". If it is going to be reported as vandalism because it is an attack page it should be deleted. If it is going to be deleted as an attack page it should be reported as vandalism. That simple.--– Nubis ^NWO 22:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

    Sure there is, it's called the No Needless Policies rule. If a law serves no purpose it shouldn't exist, this would serve no purpose and just serve to add to the already large amount of text new users need to read through to find stuff that does actually matter. Vandalism is removable on sight, that alone is more than enough.--Karek^maps?! 16:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

11. Yes You Betcha.. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 02:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
12. No - a/vb.--xoxo 07:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
13. Aye - If you're looking to change someone's behaviour, making an attack page about them is much more likely to get their back up than to convince them of the error of their ways. So I think the ill-will generated by these sorts of pages outweighs any informational benefit they may have. Still, Boxy does have a good point that the line between okay and not-okay for a page like this is not always obvious, and so for these sorts of decisions, going through a process like A/SD or A/D that gives (at least) a second opinion is useful, in showing fair process and avoiding drama. If putting attack pages through A/SD was an option on the table I would support it, but delete-on-sight is the option that's available, so it'll do. With regards to just treating this as vandalism, it can be may be too easy for sysops to say something like 'Sysops are not moderators' or 'those old civility policies got rejected' and let people get away with making pages to insult or demean others. The advantage of having something like this spelt out is that it stops that. --Toejam 07:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

    You know, you can propose it as a policy and it'll be put to a full vote. That's how crit 12 both was made and died along with pretty much every new sd crit beyond the originals.--Karek^maps?! 23:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Nomination defeated 6 yes to 7 no -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:29 25 November 2008 (BST)

Swearing in Page Titles

Pages that have swearing in the title that is directed at a user or group (or their actions) are to be added to the scheduled deletions list. This would include pages like "boxy is a cunt" or "petition to ban that bastard hagnat" but not pages like "Blackmore Bastards". Other examples of swearing in page titles should be taken to A/SD or A/D for removal.

1. Yea - flamebaitery via page creation should be deleted on sight -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 22:37 7 November 2008 (BST)
2. Yes As Boxy. Linkthewindow ^Talk 23:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
3. Nay - If the only objectionable thing is the title, you could just move the page. Moves can be done on sight, you know. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [523,07]} 23:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
4. Yea - If the title of the page is flamebait-y, its content is hardly likely to be in good faith either. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 23:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
5. Aye nuff said already --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 00:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
6. Yes - As Cyberbob. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
7. Yea. As DDR. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 02:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
8. Aye - As Ross. -- Cheese 19:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
9. No - You need to show bad faith first; No vandalism without vandalism. As Midianian who speaks more sense than all these sysops that don't seem to know what they can already do.--Karek^maps?! 20:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
10. No - Not a cut and dry issue, should be taken to A/D for community discussion. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
11. No - All of these should be discussed. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
12. Yes As Cyberbob.--– Nubis ^NWO 22:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
13. Yea As my sweet Aunt Esther Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 02:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
14. Yea --Toejam 04:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
15. No - i agree with the case by case people.--xoxo 07:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Nomination passed 10 yes to 5 no -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:29 25 November 2008 (BST)

Attack Images

As the attack pages heading pretty much, except that images are a radically different beast due to their ability to be placed anywhere.

1. Yea - Reasoning already given. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 23:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
2. No - not unless you can give a satisfactory definition of what an attack image is -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:05 8 November 2008 (BST)

   That image would not be considered an attack image because of how obviously a satire it is. I'm thinking of something like a derogatory portrayal of what the uploader might think the subject might be IRL, or maybe a photoshopped version of a photo of them or something of that nature. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 03:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

   Perhaps a little reading would be appropriate, as Grim and Bob knew what I had meant, hence the reason why it was on their pages. Now then. I believe the types of images that Bob is referring to is like the one in this vandal banning report. You know, the image and template that called for a specific user's death? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 16:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

   Sarcasm: witty language used to convey insults or scorn. Sarcasm is a witty form of attack, Akule. Just because Grim sees and collects attacks on him as some sort of badge of honour, doesn't make it less of an attack. I know what Bob is getting at here, but there is no clear way to draw a line between unacceptable attacks on a persons character, and sarcastic wit. Take it to A/SD -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:20 9 November 2008 (BST)

   Yet, you were unable to read from my link and had to look elsewhere to get your definition. 2 :trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly . There is a simple different between poking fun at someone and threatening their life (even in jest). I think that is a pretty clear distinction, don't you? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 01:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

   Your link was unavailable when I tried to check it. It works now, and it's first definition is Satire: a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn. Ridicule and scorn. Yep, similar to the definition I gave, it's an attack on someone's behaviour. All I'm pointing out is that with such a loosely worded policy, such images could be wikilawyered to fit, and be gone in an instant. All it would take is one sysop who wanted it gone -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:49 11 November 2008 (BST)

   Yes but, a few sysops have already notably made that mistake. --Karek^maps?! 20:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

   Perhaps some distinction should be made in order for people to determine the difference. You know, like some sort of line in the sand stating "This is okay, but this is not." --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 01:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

   Oh, so now you agree :) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:49 11 November 2008 (BST)

3. No - As Boxy. Linkthewindow ^Talk 13:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
4. No - Everything that needs covering under this already is covered and removable on sight. This argument has already been had out multiple times, just dig through Boxy's archives if you want to find at least two of them.--Karek^maps?! 20:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
5. No - . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
6. Nay - As Karek. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [522,08]} 22:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
7. Yes Peace... Land... Bread... Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 02:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
8. No - bad idea, once it's gone it's gone and as we all know sysops make mistakes from time to time.--xoxo 07:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
9. Yea --Toejam 22:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Nomination defeated 3 yes to 6 no -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:29 25 November 2008 (BST)

Unused Templates

If a template is not linked to any other page in the wiki, and the last edit to such template was made more than 3 months ago, it can be removed on sight.

1. Aye --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 00:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

   So... does that "linked" really mean "linked", or do you mean "included"? --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [502,08]} 02:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

   If a template is even just text linked that will show up on other links, unlike with images. If an image is just text linked it won't show up.--– Nubis ^NWO 22:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

   Yes it will, if you look at the whatlinkshere page for the image -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:13 9 November 2008 (BST)

   Not always. Right now on my sandbox I have a text link to Lady xXx Death.jpg and it doesn't show up on the what links here and the image still shows up on the Unused Files page (no. 4 at this time).--– Nubis ^NWO 04:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

   That's because you used an external link to the image. Any page linked in that way wont show up in the "whatlinkshere" page. Proper formatting fixes that... [[:Image:Lady xXx Death.jpg|link]] -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:39 11 November 2008 (BST)

   You proved my point. I have a functioning text link to that image. You also have a functioning text link to the image. Both links still work so there really isn't an issue of which one is "proper format". If my link wasn't "proper" it shouldn't work. The point is you can't assume that every user will format exactly the same way when all people are concerned about is if it works how they want it to.--– Nubis ^NWO 20:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

   The point is that the whatlinkshere link works exactly the same for images as it does for any other page on the wiki, templates included. If a template is text linked in the same way you did with that image, it wouldn't show in whatlinkshere either -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 21:26 14 November 2008 (BST)

2. No - not all unused templates should be deleted. Often ones that are only used to "subst:" onto a page come up as unused. Giving sysops carte blanche to just wade into the unused templates list and start deleting will see these taken out with no record of why, or what was on the page for regular users to decide if they should ask for it to be restored -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:54 8 November 2008 (BST)
3. No - Let's not get carried away with all these scheduled. As boxy. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
4. Nay Take the current list of unused as an example, put them all up for deletions. They wouldnt all be killed. Theres quite a few that are subst-ed in. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 02:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
5. No - Should be put on A/SD first. Some people may have the subst-ed in. Linkthewindow ^Talk 13:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
6. No --Karek^maps?! 20:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
7. No - Is it stupid ideas day? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
8. Nay - Deleting unused templates only makes them inaccessible. There's little point in deleting them unless their content is objectionable. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [522,08]} 22:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
9. Yes Because the number of unused useful templates (Template:HistoricalEventVoting) to "attack" templates (Template:Saromu is Devil (improved)) to retarded templates (Template:Tomatoes) is ridiculous. (yes, I know tomatoes is in use, but that is the type I am talking about.) --– Nubis ^NWO 22:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
10. No - Because this is clearly just an attempt to justify Nubis's template deletion in retrospect. -- Cheese 18:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

    NO, this is me following the advice of those who said that if i am unhappy with the system, its better change the system (rather than yell at it and keep ignoring it) --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 18:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

    Cheese, that isn't a justification for not scheduling templates for deletion. That is an accusation and assumption of motive. Also, you should realize that even if they are voted as scheduled it wouldn't be retro-active and couldn't be applied to the case. Vote on the suggestion not the suggestor.--– Nubis ^NWO 04:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

11. Yesjust because I can...Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 02:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
12. Yes - Strange to see a deletionist proposal from Hagnat, but there you go. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 07:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
13. No - I think it would be best for templates to go through SD. --ZsL 18:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Nomination defeated 4 yes to 9 no -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:29 25 November 2008 (BST)

Abandoned Group Pages

Any group page that has had no edits made to it for more than a month and consists of no more than a group box and a few lines of generic text may be deleted if the following conditions are fulfilled: 1) There is no evidence of the group appearing on the Game Stats page. 2) A note has been left on the creators talk page asking them about the group's status. 3) The aforementioned note has not been replied to within 7 days, or the response was for deletion.
If after the week, there has been no reply (or the response indicated that the page can be deleted) the page may be deleted. If the user replies after the page has been deleted that they still want it, it can simply be Undeleted. If there is any doubt whatsoever, the page should be placed on the Deletions page as normal. -- Cheese 21:21, 11 July 2008 (BST)

1. Yea - There's a lot of these about nowadays. -- Cheese 21:21, 11 July 2008 (BST)
2. Yea - same as Krazy monkey, too many dead groups.
3. Nay Original author may no longer be active, or they may have migrated to a forum. a week is too short a time (I'd double it). We may have lost crit 12, but people can, and do use deletions. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:40, 11 July 2008 (BST)
4. Nay - Things like group pages need to be judged on a case by case basis, or have much stricter requirements on what allows them to be a scheduled deletion. --Pdeq^Talk* 22:35, 11 July 2008 (BST)
5. Nay - As above. Also some groups may only consist of a handful of members and not be large enough for the stats page, and may not have a frequently updated news section. I know if it was based only on updates the Feral Undead page would have been deleted a dozen times already. and i also agree that the warning should have a longer grace period, one week is hardly enough for the average user, they don't log in as often as us wiki addicts. --Bullgod 23:18, 11 July 2008 (BST)
6. Nay - Above lists it well. Activity on the Wiki does not equal activity on UD. --Rogue 08:42, 12 July 2008 (BST)
7. Absolutely not - These go through speedydelete so that everyone can easily check that they actually are crit 1's, and it's much less of a hassle than checking to see if you get a reply from a hardly active author -- boxy ^{talk • i} 11:57 12 July 2008 (BST)
8. No - Crit 12 will not be returning.--Karek^maps?! 16:46, 12 July 2008 (BST)
9. No - above. --WanYao 21:36, 12 July 2008 (BST)
10. Nay - Even dead pages are a useful resource. But as Rosslessness. --Vandurn 22:21, 12 July 2008 (BST)
11. No - again, some groups are under-represented on the wiki, regardless of presence in the game. This kind of punishment for not keeping up appearances on the wiki leads to the kind of misrepresentation of actual game situation that should be avoided--Crabappleslegalteam 00:45, 13 July 2008 (BST)
12. Nay - As above. --Private Mark 22:06, 13 July 2008 (BST)
13. HELL NO - go clean up something in RL instead.----Sexualharrison 04:45, 17 July 2008 (BST)
14. Fuck no - Crit 12 shall never return in any form. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 17:59, 20 July 2008 (BST)

Vote fails. 2 for, 12 against. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 18:24, 26 July 2008 (BST)

Crit 1 Extension

Any page with less than 4 characters (including blank pages, although obviously not those which are because of vandalism, and not including pages with a template since a template has to have at least 5 characters ({{?}})) that have been that way for at least a week may be deleted on sight. -- Cheese 18:46, 11 July 2008 (BST)

1. Yea - Pinched out the shiny new archive since it had only one valid vote. :) -- Cheese 18:46, 11 July 2008 (BST)
2. No - Impossible to verify to ensure this wont be abused. Simply having them all put up on A/SD every few months is more than enough to get rid of the clutter, and it doesnt really take very long to do. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 18:49, 11 July 2008 (BST)
3. No - It's not the issue it was when I first proposed a similar scheduling.--Karek^maps?! 19:40, 11 July 2008 (BST)
4. No - Give them 2 weeks and I vote Yes. --WanYao 20:15, 11 July 2008 (BST)
5. Change - How about instead of being a delete on sight or having to be placed on A/SD we make it so that if you find a mostly blank page you post on the creator's talk page telling them it needs content then after 2 weeks if it isn't changed you can delete it. This way we don't delete a page too hastily, we document that we intend to delete the page (same function as posting it on A/SD), and besides the author might reply to your post with a "go ahead" giving that sysop approval to delete it.
   And in regards to being abused, we are supposed to be trusted users here. All actions on this thing are documented and traceable back to the person that did it. If someone's page is deleted it can be restored (unlike images). If a sysop is in the habit (more than twice) of deleting pages that people keep requesting undeleted then that is clearly misconduct.--– Nubis ^NWO 20:40, 11 July 2008 (BST)
6. No, I agree than the majority of dead groups won't have a leader around (or one who chooses) to notify others of them.-- Techercizer ^(Food) _(TSoE) 06:33, 12 July 2008 (BST)
   P.S. Nubis disrupted the number order, can someone put a Re: tag in? I'm not familiar with the coding.

   All fixed --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 07:08, 12 July 2008 (BST)

7. No - how about we just post them to the speedydelete queue to ensure that the page wiping hasn't been done by someone unauthorised to do so -- boxy ^{talk • i} 12:00 12 July 2008 (BST)
8. No - again, this is all very arbitrary--Crabappleslegalteam 00:47, 13 July 2008 (BST)
9. "NO"--the economy33

Vote fails. 1 for, 8 against. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 18:24, 26 July 2008 (BST)

Pornography

Pretty simple: Porn is to be deleted on sight. I like porn, you like porn, but this isnt the place for it. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 18:06, 8 July 2008 (BST)

1. yea. its not really the place for file sharing is it? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:17, 8 July 2008 (BST)

2. Yes. I thought we already had a TOU cover for this, but if we need to nail it down with a scheduled deletion then I'm all for it. Conndraka^{mod TTBA CFT} 21:45, 8 July 2008 (BST)
3. Yea. --Pdeq^Talk* 21:56, 8 July 2008 (BST)
4. Yea. Should go without saying, but just in case. --Sir Bob Fortune ^RR 22:17, 8 July 2008 (BST)
5. Aye. -- Cheese 22:22, 8 July 2008 (BST)
6. Yea. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:26, 8 July 2008 (BST)
7. Yes -- I think we should expand the definition to include uncensored nipples and and any visible genitalia. I don't have anything against nudity, but there shouldn't have to be a WORK SAFE/NOT WORK SAFE warning on the wiki. (text is different).Just to be on the safe side.--– Nubis ^NWO 23:18, 8 July 2008 (BST)

   Since when is a zombie apocalypse wiki work safe anyway? :S -- Cheese 20:39, 9 July 2008 (BST)

   Haha - Let's have the whole what is text rape argument again! That was a hoot.--– Nubis ^NWO 20:50, 11 July 2008 (BST)

8. No - Because we need a definition of "porn". And the whole idea that what is porn vs. what is art? is often debatable. I mean look at photobucket, for example... Deleting art left right and centre, losers. Still, I think no photographic nudity, as per nubis, is pretty acceptable and if such a definition were added, I'd certainly vote Yes. --WanYao 20:13, 11 July 2008 (BST)

   I think this may have come up because someone uploaded an image that was basically a woman's gaping vagina forming the mouth (and considerable beard!) of a dwarf with MSPaint eyes and helmet. That is neither artistic nor overtly sexual or portraying a sex act, but still pornography. Unless you want to classify it as gynecology. I think in blatant cases like that the whole "but is it porn?" debate is moot. --– Nubis ^NWO 20:49, 11 July 2008 (BST)

   that would be obscenity not pornography... there is a huge difference. That said actual porn should be banned but certainly not images which are merely "raunchy" the problem here is going to be definitions. I know people who think page 3 and FHM are porn while i know of one person who is adamant that his copulating werewolf/human pics are "interspecies erotica"; he's wrong in oh so many ways but still!--Honestmistake 20:59, 11 July 2008 (BST)

   Using your definition of "raunchy" tubgirl is just raunchy. Would you allow that on here? I think it comes down to "is this appropriate or just for shock value?" For instance, with my example, that's just shock value. With Bullgod's fine art it can be appropriate (on a museum page or relating to a group perhaps). Outside the context of fine art meaning classical statues/paintings, I really can't see any reason to post nudity on this wiki. I also don't think that any sysop on here is so new to the internet that they would get offended by a Page 3 girl or FHM. Hell, I wouldn't even be offended by tubgirl, but I know that's not appropriate for the wiki. I don't think this is something that needs a rigid definition. I think it comes down to do we trust the sysops judgment on what would be appropriate.--– Nubis ^NWO 00:16, 12 July 2008 (BST)

   Gad, that was a retarded example, Nubis. Those are all retarded examples. The reality is that most calls are going to be obvious... However, there have been calls to delete the Slaves of the Mistress wiki in the past... So, there ARE people who're going to try to impose their morarlity on things that are not obviously over-the-top images. But... then again... But you kids wanna play this game, with these definitions and examples? Ooooookay... Here's an issue: the gore and the violence that is represented visually on here (it *is* a horror genre game, after all...) is just fine for a 12 year old kid to see? but a nice artistic picture of a naked woman? BANNED CENSORED ZOMG BOOBIES!!! --WanYao 21:47, 12 July 2008 (BST)

   Ok, Wan, then what is the answer on the gaping vagina dwarf picture (which is a real example of something that was uploaded)? Is that in genre? Is that appropriate? Is that art? It isn't about censorship. It's about what is appropriate to a zombie apocalypse wiki. Violence and gore are standard to the genre. Did you happen to miss the part where I said With Bullgod's fine art it can be appropriate (on a museum page or relating to a group perhaps). or do you just want to argue with me and use all caps to spew catchphrases and say BOOBIES? And where the fuck did this 12 year old kid come into play? This isn't a "think of the children" argument. It is a "How does this giant picture of a vagina as a dwarf fit in with zombies" discussion. (at least in these indents).

   But, I will admit that my no visible genitalia/nipples comment is a bit confusing. The intent wasn't against artistic nudity in classical art, but against posting things like cam whores writing people's character's names over their tits.--– Nubis ^NWO 22:47, 12 July 2008 (BST)

   I just think it was silly, by both you and honestmistake, to bring up examples that are so obviously inappropriate... very man-o-strawish... As for everything else, you're kind of arguing around me, or beside me, or something... Because we're pretty much in agreement here... Except that I put forward the caveat that one man's art can be another man's obsceneity, thus we have to be careful. That's all. I honestly seems like you're arguing with me just for the sake of arguing with me here. Whatever. --WanYao 09:24, 13 July 2008 (BST)

   Ok... but let's bring up something else... you mentioned what's part of the genre... gore is part of genre... yes... And, ok, the Romero movies do not have nudity, but a HUGE section of the genre elsewhere DOES. Return of the Living Dead has ZOMG not only boobies, but FULL FRONTAL. Nudity being part of the whole B-movie sexploitation horror genre, within which a giant chunk of zombie flicks fit... basically we're talking out our asses here now, because close-up money shots are not fucking appropriate. Photos of chicks shooting wet farts 6 feet in the air are not appropriate. Any idiot can figure that out. So why are you arguing with me? Beyond that, I've already said where I stand. --WanYao 09:36, 13 July 2008 (BST)

   This whole side debate is a good example of why formalizing it in this manner is probably a bad idea, we all know what is meant by the proposed policy, it's not complicated.--Karek^maps?! 00:55, 14 July 2008 (BST)

   Uhm... yeah... this discussion kind of got out of hand... Anyhoo... And if there is debate on a particular image, whether it's pr0n or art? Well... it can go to a vote and the community decides its standards and boundaries. --WanYao 03:54, 15 July 2008 (BST)

   Vote on a scheduled deletion? The whole point of scheduled deletions is that it's immediate. No, someone's just going to delete it and end up in misconduct. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 12:07, 15 July 2008 (BST)

   I am not talking about scheduled deletions anymore. Some things are going to be pretty obvious, and will be immediately deleted. Others, which are not obvious, will be put to a vote. i.e., the status quo -- but I'm kinda defining my preferred methodology within it... --WanYao 03:01, 17 July 2008 (BST)

9. yea, but only half way. i agree with no genitals, but a bare behind or a woman's bare chest are not enough to warrant me calling something pornography. thats like saying the Venus De Milo or Picasso's famous Blue Nude are inappropriate, and im not willing to go that far. --Bullgod 23:36, 11 July 2008 (BST)
10. yea, but leave the debate open as to what is and isn't porn. I do agree, however, if anyone posts any long films of people having sex that they should be removed.-- Techercizer ^(Food) _(TSoE) 06:32, 12 July 2008 (BST)
11. No - already covered under the automatic deletion of bad faith vandalism, and this just opens the door for people to delete images, call them porn (a hard to define concept in the gray areas) and have no comeback. If someone is uploading porn to the wiki, the evidence should be kept at least long enough for another sysop to make or confirm a ruling of vandalism -- boxy ^{talk • i} 12:05 12 July 2008 (BST)
12. No - As Boxy, it's needless repetition, just deal with it how we always have.--Karek^maps?! 16:45, 12 July 2008 (BST)
13. No - As boxy. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 17:15, 12 July 2008 (BST)

    Also, a dwarf made from a gaping vagina isn't porn. A still from a sex-ed video isn't porn either. This is ^{(everyone's favourite word)} reactionary, redundant, and fails to address what it aims to do. It seems suggestions and policies are not the only things that would benefit from a bit of discussion before voting. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 12:54, 13 July 2008 (BST)

14. Yea The wikization of the UD wiki is needed. They have all that red tape because it works. --User:Axe27/Sig 21:53, 12 July 2008 (BST)

    Actually they have most of their red tape on wikipedia because it doesn't work and they don't know how to make it work.--Karek^maps?! 00:48, 13 July 2008 (BST)

15. Yea - What is said is said, and no doubt a definition will be provided. --Vandurn 22:24, 12 July 2008 (BST)
16. Yes - again, care should be taken to avoid abuse --Crabappleslegalteam 00:52, 13 July 2008 (BST)
17. No - As boxy. This is redundant. --brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 02:24, 13 July 2008 (BST)
18. Yes - As above. --Private Mark 22:07, 13 July 2008 (BST)
19. yeah - Maybe just change it to not worksafe images in general? Padfu-Zomfu 17:36, 20 July 2008 (BST)
20. Yes - Author vote --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 18:00, 20 July 2008 (BST)

Scheduling approved, 15 for, 5 against. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 18:24, 26 July 2008 (BST)

Personal information

If a user wants personal information about themselves deleted from the wiki, they should be able to get it speedy deleted. Things like your name, your phone number, your email or home address, your workplace, pictures of your family etc. We can't stop someone who is determined to spread your private details, but at least we can not let them use the wiki to do it. Toejam 18:37, 9 April 2008 (BST)

1. Yea - Private info can't go through normal deletions because it would just draw attention to itself, and give google's cache more time to store it. --Toejam 18:34, 9 April 2008 (BST)

   Hmm...not a lot of people have seen this. Maybe policy discussion is a better place. --Toejam 15:08, 11 April 2008 (BST)

2. Yea - Exceptions should be made to mudkipz, they need to die. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:28, 12 April 2008 (BST)
3. Yea - Sure. --ZsL 20:58, 15 April 2008 (BST)
4. Aye - could be abused, but the admin staff should be able to solve this kind of cases. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 21:03, 15 April 2008 (BST)
5. Nay horseys - 1. Wrong Place, 2. Already covered in, if not by word, by the spirit of the existence of the UDWiki:Privacy_policy, if we can't give out personal information(IPs) why would personal information(street addresses, phone numbers, etc.) be given out. Especially considering you can use one to get the other. I'm sure there's more policy on this somewhere but even if there isn't spamming other user's personal information is vandalism, easily.--Karek^maps?! 18:02, 17 April 2008 (BST)

   The privacy policy covers how data gathered through server logs or administrators' IP checks will be released, but it doesn't cover regular wiki users, only mods, nor does it cover information gained by methods other than server logs or IP checks. And this SD would allow anyone to have their personal information taken off the wiki, not just if the info was being spammed. --Toejam 20:24, 24 April 2008 (BST)

   This would be an incident where I'd recommend you trust a SysOps judgement in this instead of insisting every little thing we can and do do be mentioned in a policy somewhere. It's bad for the wiki and it's bad for users trying to understand the rules of the wiki. If this kind of information is being posted somewhere alert a SysOp and they should deal with it, I know if it's mentioned on my talk page or A/VB, etc. I'll make it a top priority to not only delete it but to remove it from the histories as well.--Karek^maps?! 23:58, 24 April 2008 (BST)

6. Yes - Although I don't think it needed spelling out. It's one of those things that hardly ever comes up, but is covered under sysops are also given the authority to make decisions regarding actions for which there is no governing policy in place -- boxy ^{talk • i} 00:34 25 April 2008 (BST)

• Approved -- Cheese 18:33, 11 July 2008 (BST)

Crit 1 Extension

Any pages with 4 or less characters on the whole page, this includes blank pages with 0 content but not pages with templates(all templates are an absolute minimum of 5 characters). This would allow crit 1s made by users moving their own pages then wiping the old ones able to be deleted on sight.--Karek^maps?! 02:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This does not include vandalized pages, obviously.--Karek^maps?! 02:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Nay - I dono, a lot of users clear pages, than add content a little while later after someone speaks to them or for whatever other reason. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Yea - I suppose this will help clear up some of the confusion. --User:Axe27/Sig 20:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Yea - Make it so they have to have been blank for 48 hours. -- Cheese 20:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Nay Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 20:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

   Man you guys are late.--Karek^maps?! 17:57, 17 April 2008 (BST)

Image hosting

Screenshots uploaded for the purpose of image hosting should be deleted immediately on sight. This is a wiki, not imageshack or Iwitness.

Examples would be PK/GK/RK/Zerg report images. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grim s (talk • contribs) 17:00, November 30, 2007 (UTC).

1. yeaNo for now - I assume this doesn't include anything in use. --Karek^maps?! 17:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC) Boxy has a point, if a minimum time for existence is added I'll re-add my yea. --Karek^maps?! 02:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
2. no - Any screenshots that are being used on the wiki are fine, and any that arn't being used are already covered under unused images, and deleted -- boxy • talk • 00:06 1 December 2007 (BST)

   This doesnt affect those being used, and for unused images you have to wait a month. This is to dispose of such images quickly and efficiently to discourage the use fo the wiki as an image hosting service. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 01:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

   How long would we give them to link to the image though, before zapping it. That, and the fact that it only refers to unused screenshots, needs to be spelled out in the proposed change before I would vote for this -- boxy • talk • 01:40 2 December 2007 (BST)

3. Nay Not until you are more clear on the time limits. --User:Axe27/Sig 19:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
4. No - Screenshots can have legitimate purposes on the wiki besides PK/zerg reports; e.g., as examples or how-tos. There's no clear way to know whether a screen has been "uploaded for the purpose of image hosting". -- Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ 00:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The future contents of Special:BrokenRedirects

If I'm reading Deletion Scheduling correctly this is the right place to put this.Currently redirects left over from pages move may be deleted without going through the deletion pages. I propose to extent this rule to redirects broken by page deletion by allowing redirects that lead to nonexistent pages to be deleted without going through the deletion pages.- Vantar 18:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Yea author vote - Vantar 18:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Aye --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 19:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
3. Yea --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
4. Yeah - Why not? --Toejam 20:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
5. yes --~~~~ [talk] 13:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

   Yea --User:Axe27/Sig 19:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

   Voting close a couple of weeks ago -- boxy ^{talk • i} 23:28 31 December 2007 (BST)

Copyrighted images requested to be deleted by the copyright holder

Copyrighted images or otherwise images taken directly from a copyrighted source (such as a movie's snapshots) that have been requested to be removed by the copyright's holder or its representatives abroad.'

1. Yea - If only to make it clear that these have to be deleted for the good of wikikind. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 04:33, 27 October 2007 (BST)
2. Nay - It's covered under policy, and pages can already be deleted when "acting in accordance with approved policies" -- boxy • talk • 04:39 27 October 2007 (BST)

   But, wich policy? --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 05:05, 27 October 2007 (BST)

3. Yea - Needed to justify differences. --User:Axe27/Sig 04:40, 27 October 2007 (BST)

Unused redirects resulting from page moves

If there isn't already a policy covering the automatic deletion of unused redirects (except for links from admin pages, eg. A/MR) resulting from page moves, I think we should be able to nuke them as soon as the page is moved, rather than spamming speedydelete -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 05:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Yea -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 13:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Yea Vantar 03:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Yea Daniel Hicken 00:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC) Maybe shouldn't vote here, but as a wiki admin on two other wikis, YES, for your sanity, YES.
4. Yea --User:Axe27/Sig 17:41, 13 April 2007 (BST) Hey, I'm just following Hicken's que.

   Well it's passed already, but thanks for the thought ;) -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 17:51, 13 April 2007 (BST)

   Your welcome. --User:Axe27/Sig 18:18, 13 April 2007 (BST)

5. Yea -The man 21:18, 25 July 2007 (BST)

Unused Images

Images that have existed for 2 weeks and are not used in any page.--Gage 05:59, 25 October 2006 (BST)

• Yea - Gage 05:59, 25 October 2006 (BST)
• Yea - --Thari ^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 06:01, 25 October 2006 (BST)
• Yea - --CaptainM 07:24, 26 October 2006 (BST)

I'm fairly certain we already have a policy on this (difference being it says one month). –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 19:04, 27 October 2006 (BST)

• Yea - The man 21:17, 25 July 2007 (BST)

Monumental Screwups

Two special case scenarios that I want to be able to annihilate on sight, are:

1. Pages in this form: With//////Too Many//////Bloody//////Slashes
2. And pages in this dreaded form: http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Example_monumental_screwup

Since these pages cannot be moved, useful content will have to be manually copied first. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 05:54, 9 August 2006 (BST)

• Yea –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 05:54, 9 August 2006 (BST)
• Yea --Darth Sensitive ^W! 13:41, 9 August 2006 (BST)
• Yeah --Gold Blade ^Hunt! 23:22, 21 August 2006 (BST)
• Yea Cyberbob  Talk  12:55, 23 August 2006 (BST)

  Voting passed already, brightspark. :P –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 12:59, 23 August 2006 (BST)