UDWiki:Administration/Protections/Archive/2011 06: Difference between revisions
Rosslessness (talk | contribs) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
''Place pages requiring editing here.'' | ''Place pages requiring editing here.'' | ||
--> | --> | ||
''Place pages requiring editing here.'' | |||
==Recent Actions== | |||
===[[Template:SugVoteRules]]=== | ===[[Template:SugVoteRules]]=== | ||
thoughts on removing the justification requirements under the "Invalid Votes" section? Either way, the rules contradict each other on this template and it's idiotic that even after discussions like [[Category_talk:Suggestions/Archive4#Suggestion_Justifications|this]] it was never changed. Either we have to remove the clause under "invalid votes" or we have to remove the part under "suggestions for voters" which says they ''should'' justify their votes. thoughts? -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/l}} 06:24, 7 October 2010 (BST) | thoughts on removing the justification requirements under the "Invalid Votes" section? Either way, the rules contradict each other on this template and it's idiotic that even after discussions like [[Category_talk:Suggestions/Archive4#Suggestion_Justifications|this]] it was never changed. Either we have to remove the clause under "invalid votes" or we have to remove the part under "suggestions for voters" which says they ''should'' justify their votes. thoughts? -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/l}} 06:24, 7 October 2010 (BST) | ||
| Line 45: | Line 49: | ||
::::::Sorry, not your bad cause that's how I meant it, maybe we're getting crossed lines atm ;) I thought you meant that and I'm still arguing against it, we should not change the rules unless we have proper community consensus, until then the only purpose of this request I think (since not many people have shown interest here as I would have hoped) is to just get rid of the double message displayed on the template, until an actual rule change is made. -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/l}} 08:49, 14 October 2010 (BST) | ::::::Sorry, not your bad cause that's how I meant it, maybe we're getting crossed lines atm ;) I thought you meant that and I'm still arguing against it, we should not change the rules unless we have proper community consensus, until then the only purpose of this request I think (since not many people have shown interest here as I would have hoped) is to just get rid of the double message displayed on the template, until an actual rule change is made. -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/l}} 08:49, 14 October 2010 (BST) | ||
::::::::Frankly it works well as it is, we all want justification, but if people don't offer one, we don't go mad. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 11:22, 14 October 2010 (BST) | ::::::::Frankly it works well as it is, we all want justification, but if people don't offer one, we don't go mad. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 11:22, 14 October 2010 (BST) | ||
:::::::::I seem to be having a hard time arguing my way, and I'm fine with that assessment Ross so I'm happy to just cycle this. Seriously though, when wiki tensions heat again this will become a problem, remember the Iscariot :( I'm just saying that so I can say "I called it" when it happens. -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/l}} 10:55, 16 October 2010 (BST) | |||
===[[LUE]]=== | ===[[LUE]]=== | ||
Hey guys, can we get the LUE page unlocked to add on to our recent exploits, or if that is undesired, just to add a link to a new page separately from the old LUE page? In the past month or so us folks at LUE have made a comeback with about 20 or so members, with me leading them. We helped Big Bash 3 in Wyke Hills and Scarletwood, then spearheaded the effort to take down Stickling Mall last week and are spearheading an effort to take down Caiger Mall right now. Vito Mortis (our original leader) can corroborate this, he's been back in the action with us off and on. Thanks.--[[User:VinnyMendoza|VinnyMendoza]] 04:56, 12 October 2010 (BST) | Hey guys, can we get the LUE page unlocked to add on to our recent exploits, or if that is undesired, just to add a link to a new page separately from the old LUE page? In the past month or so us folks at LUE have made a comeback with about 20 or so members, with me leading them. We helped Big Bash 3 in Wyke Hills and Scarletwood, then spearheaded the effort to take down Stickling Mall last week and are spearheading an effort to take down Caiger Mall right now. Vito Mortis (our original leader) can corroborate this, he's been back in the action with us off and on. Thanks.--[[User:VinnyMendoza|VinnyMendoza]] 04:56, 12 October 2010 (BST) | ||
Revision as of 09:55, 16 October 2010
This page is for the request of page protection within the Urban Dead wiki. Due to philosophical concerns, the ability to protect pages is restricted to system operators. As such, regular users will need to request a protection from the system operators. For consistency and accountability, system operators also adhere to the guidelines listed here.
Guidelines for Protection Requests
All Protection Requests must contain the following information in order to be considered:
- A link to the page in question. Preferably bolded for visibility.
- A reason for protection. This should be short and to the point.
- A signed datestamp. This can be easily done by adding ~~~~ to the end of your request.
Any protection request that does not contain these three pieces of information will not be considered, and will be removed by a system operator.
Once the protection request has been entered, the request shall remain on this page, where it will be reviewed by a member of the Sysop team, and action taken accordingly. Once action has been taken, the system operator will add a comment including a signed datestamp detailing his course of action, and the request will be moved into the Recent Actions queue, where it will remain for one week. After that week is up, it may be moved to the archive (see navigation box below). If the Protection has been granted, the system operator should place the tag {{protect}} on the page(s) that have been protected.
In the event of a system operator requesting a Protection, all the previous points will apply, excepting that a system operator other than the requestor shall review and take action on the request.
Pages in the Protection Queue may already be scheduled protections. For a list of scheduled protections, see here.
|
Protections Archive | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Protection Queue
Place pages requiring protecting here.
Requested Edits
Place pages requiring editing here.
Recent Actions
Template:SugVoteRules
thoughts on removing the justification requirements under the "Invalid Votes" section? Either way, the rules contradict each other on this template and it's idiotic that even after discussions like this it was never changed. Either we have to remove the clause under "invalid votes" or we have to remove the part under "suggestions for voters" which says they should justify their votes. thoughts? -- LEMON #1 06:24, 7 October 2010 (BST)
- Maybe make it so a justification isn't needed for a keep vote, and keep votes only? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 06:26, 7 October 2010 (BST)
- I never understood why justification was needed anyway. --VVV RPMBG 06:43, 7 October 2010 (BST)
- Because it used to act as a forum for Kevan to read the feedback given for a suggestion, incase he wanted to adopt it but needed feedback on tweaking the suggestion and suggested numbers, etc. Nowadays, most of the suggestions go through DS so they are usually refined with everyone's opinions weighed in already. Long story short, unless we force people to use DS before they post a suggestion up, we shouldn't be changing the feedback rule, just eliminating the double standard that exists on this template. -- LEMON #1 08:20, 7 October 2010 (BST)
- Yeah, it should say "should", not "must", and they should not be a requirement. Justifications help people understand the problems/benefits to the suggestion, but they should not be a necessity for a vote to count. —Aichon— 20:16, 7 October 2010 (BST)
- As above, unless there is a mandatory source of feedback either on the suggestions' talk page as a result of DS, or on the main page in the form of votes, we shouldn't be changing the rule. -- LEMON #1 11:20, 13 October 2010 (BST)
- Motion to make Aichon's change as above?--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 08:09, 14 October 2010 (BST)
- No! Don't you guys read anything I say above? :( We've had discussion after discussion even a vote or two in the past, and it ain't gonna happen unless that mode of discussion can be kept in the suggestion system as a compromise somewhat, forcing people to use DS would be a good start, but unless we find a way to do that I'm probably going to continue arguing against the rules removal. -- LEMON #1 08:16, 14 October 2010 (BST)
- Oh, I read "As Above" as meaning, "As Aichon who is posting above me". :P My bad. --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 08:38, 14 October 2010 (BST)
- Sorry, not your bad cause that's how I meant it, maybe we're getting crossed lines atm ;) I thought you meant that and I'm still arguing against it, we should not change the rules unless we have proper community consensus, until then the only purpose of this request I think (since not many people have shown interest here as I would have hoped) is to just get rid of the double message displayed on the template, until an actual rule change is made. -- LEMON #1 08:49, 14 October 2010 (BST)
- Frankly it works well as it is, we all want justification, but if people don't offer one, we don't go mad. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 11:22, 14 October 2010 (BST)
- I seem to be having a hard time arguing my way, and I'm fine with that assessment Ross so I'm happy to just cycle this. Seriously though, when wiki tensions heat again this will become a problem, remember the Iscariot :( I'm just saying that so I can say "I called it" when it happens. -- LEMON #1 10:55, 16 October 2010 (BST)
- Frankly it works well as it is, we all want justification, but if people don't offer one, we don't go mad. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 11:22, 14 October 2010 (BST)
- Sorry, not your bad cause that's how I meant it, maybe we're getting crossed lines atm ;) I thought you meant that and I'm still arguing against it, we should not change the rules unless we have proper community consensus, until then the only purpose of this request I think (since not many people have shown interest here as I would have hoped) is to just get rid of the double message displayed on the template, until an actual rule change is made. -- LEMON #1 08:49, 14 October 2010 (BST)
- Oh, I read "As Above" as meaning, "As Aichon who is posting above me". :P My bad. --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 08:38, 14 October 2010 (BST)
- No! Don't you guys read anything I say above? :( We've had discussion after discussion even a vote or two in the past, and it ain't gonna happen unless that mode of discussion can be kept in the suggestion system as a compromise somewhat, forcing people to use DS would be a good start, but unless we find a way to do that I'm probably going to continue arguing against the rules removal. -- LEMON #1 08:16, 14 October 2010 (BST)
- Motion to make Aichon's change as above?--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 08:09, 14 October 2010 (BST)
- As above, unless there is a mandatory source of feedback either on the suggestions' talk page as a result of DS, or on the main page in the form of votes, we shouldn't be changing the rule. -- LEMON #1 11:20, 13 October 2010 (BST)
LUE
Hey guys, can we get the LUE page unlocked to add on to our recent exploits, or if that is undesired, just to add a link to a new page separately from the old LUE page? In the past month or so us folks at LUE have made a comeback with about 20 or so members, with me leading them. We helped Big Bash 3 in Wyke Hills and Scarletwood, then spearheaded the effort to take down Stickling Mall last week and are spearheading an effort to take down Caiger Mall right now. Vito Mortis (our original leader) can corroborate this, he's been back in the action with us off and on. Thanks.--VinnyMendoza 04:56, 12 October 2010 (BST)
- Dones. Let me know if you need it done again after you've edited it.
04:59, 12 October 2010 (BST) - Thanks! Will do!--VinnyMendoza 05:59, 12 October 2010 (BST)
Protections Scheduling Queue
Protection Scheduling requests should be requested in the same general format as Deletions. Votes will occur in the same general manner, and like deletion scheduling requests will be voted on for two (2) weeks, as judged by the initial datestamp. Valid votes are:
- Yea - Approval of Schedule Request
- Nay - Disapproval of Schedule Request
Note: The archive for Scheduled Protections can be found here.
