UDWiki:Administration/Protections/Archive/2011 06: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 10:38, 31 May 2011

Administration Services

Sysop List (Check) | Guidelines | Policies (Discussion) | Promotions (Bureaucrat) | Re-Evaluations

Deletions (Scheduling) | Speedy Deletions | Undeletions | Vandal Banning (Bots) | Vandal Data (De-Escalations)

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.

Protection Queue

Sacred Ground Policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requested Edits

Recent Actions

Dunnel Hills group template

Template:Dunell_Hills_Groups edit war is on this page--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 00:12, 31 May 2011 (BST)

I'm assuming that this was meant as a protection request? Anyway, done. I've given everyone a day to consider how dumb this was.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 00:41, 31 May 2011 (BST)

Yeah especially since you protected it after trying to get your say about which version was right even though there was a pre-existing consensus. Edit wars 101: the contested edit is the reverted edit while/a new consensus is reached.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 04:59, 31 May 2011 (BST)

I have no wish to "get my say" because I really couldn't care less for either group. As I explained on A/VB, I misunderstood the nature of the edit war (my understanding was that the contested edit was the one which defined the DHPD as a zombie group).--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 11:38, 31 May 2011 (BST)

Yeah sorry, it was in a slieght hurry--

^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 11:13, 31 May 2011 (BST)

My sig

User:The General/sig and User:The General/sig/switch should probably be semi-protected.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 08:58, 23 May 2011 (BST)

Done. -- C h e e s e 10:20, 23 May 2011 (BST)

Template:Emergency-bot-shutoff

{{Emergency-bot-shutoff}} could probably use protecting now that it's working as intended. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 02:57, 23 May 2011 (BST)

Karek got it.--The General ^{T U! P! F!} 08:44, 23 May 2011 (BST)

Template:UDGame

Semi-protection if you kind (and if you're really bored, you can do all the associated UD[insert] templates, though there's lots of them). Also, there is also ample opportunity for doing semi-protections on pages like this. So that's something to keep in mind (not necessary to bother, but if you're bored...). -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 18:07, 21 May 2011 (BST)

Now that we have semi-protection enabled, we should really hold some protection schedule discussions. Templated sigs, for example, would definitely benefit from this. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 20:54, 21 May 2011 (BST)

And done. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 20:59, 21 May 2011 (BST)

Template:Unsigned

Could:{{subst:Wikipedia|Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned}} be replaced with [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]]? Why use a template when it's no shorter or easier to remember than the code it includes!--The General ^{T U! P! F!} 11:53, 20 May 2011 (BST)

Didn't see this before I edited it earlier. It now no longer links to Wikipedia at all. It links to internal resources for signatures as it should. ~

_{16:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)}

OK, that's fine as well.--The General ^{T U! P! F!} 18:41, 20 May 2011 (BST)

UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Semi-protection

Might want to remove the notice at the top of the page: it has been implemented.--The General ^{T U! P! F!} 23:15, 17 May 2011 (BST)

Served.-- Yonnua Koponen^{T G}^P ^^^ 23:23, 17 May 2011 (BST)

UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Archive/March-2011

I got this earlier. Missed protecting it during cycling in April. ~ _{05:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)}

You don't actually have to document scheduleds. It's part of why they are scheduled. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 06:45, 17 May 2011 (BST)

More stuff in Category:Suggestions pages requiring protection

That should be the last of it.--The General ^{T U! P! F!} 12:54, 11 May 2011 (BST)

Done. -- Spiderzed █ 13:41, 11 May 2011 (BST)

User:Iscariot

Iscariot (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

I'm sure it was requested, but can anyone find where? I've checked the relevant A/PT archives and found nothing. It should have been linked in the protection itself and logged here, or at the very least one of those. Yon, Ross, can either of you enlighten me? And assuming it's valid, should we perhaps protect his sig as well?

N.B. I am raising this on a relevant talk page instead of taking this straight to A/M. Because that's what good wiki users do, fucking discuss first. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:30, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Mmmm, don't know. I can't find any specific things either, Yon may have protected it by accidentally thinking that Iscariot wanted his talk page and his userpage protected. Either that or he did it whilst protecting a lot of other pages that were protected before SA's "coup" and were unprotected upon undeletion. And thanks for being the bigger man and discussing it here, I don't know WHAT would happen if I had to deal with it on A/M! -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 05:42, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Or it could have been when Izzy requested his page deleted and Cheese and Thad had a QQ and had it undeleted cause he didn't request it on the wiki, so Yon thought the next best thing was protection? Who knows hey, izzys page has been mangled so bad I just don't know, might as well wait for Yon -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 05:45, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Mmm, with Iscariot on indefinite wiki-break it's not really time-critical, but definitely worth taking the time to review. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 06:45, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Absolutely. As it stands at the moment, it looks like Yonnua has accidentally protected Izzy's page indefinitely without legit reason. -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 07:18, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Honestly couldn't remember it, so I went and had a look, and it looks like it was part of the SA undeletions and reprotections. I'll unprotect it now (because obviously it shouldn't be protected) and I'll take a warning if you guys (team as a whole) think I should.--Yonnua Koponen^{T G}^P ^^^ 13:14, 2 May 2011 (BST)

There's also the talk page, which Ross protected: what was the deal with that?
And if you want to talk warnings, make a Misconduct case so it's official and shit. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 13:19, 2 May 2011 (BST)

It was all to do with Iscariots vandal data part 503. Was that in Aichons user area? --Rosslessness 13:21, 2 May 2011 (BST)

this be the talk page request. --Rosslessness 13:28, 2 May 2011 (BST)

But I don't think he requested a userpage protection as part of that, he asked for deletion. -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 14:33, 2 May 2011 (BST)

The best I've got is. Deletion Request, and Undeletion the day Yon protected it. --Rosslessness 13:50, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Page logs.--Yonnua Koponen^{T G}^P ^^^ 13:58, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Mmkay. Cheers. Would anyone object to me a) emailing Iscariot for confirmation on the deletion, and 2) moving this to A/M so we can continue this official-like? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:13, 3 May 2011 (BST)

Objection!~

_{04:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)}

… Yes? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 07:21, 3 May 2011 (BST)

No not really. It's your prerogative. I just wanted to say Objection! I just hope this has nothing to do with the A/VB dramashitfest of yesterday. If you were to take it to Misconduct, I'd give Yon a statute of limitation and likely rule "Not". Plus, Yon's protection comment mentions "re-protecting" and so I can assume he at least thought he had good reason for it, even if it was a misunderstanding. I think you should just let it go honestly but like I said, your perogative. ~

_{07:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)}

I sure hope the faithful brigade let a crit 7 get deleted when requested off wiki this time -.- -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 07:26, 3 May 2011 (BST)

He needs to request it here himself. --

Thadeous Oakley Talk 08:06, 3 May 2011 (BST)

There's no reason he can't request it properly, if he really wants it. Has this been dealt with to everyone's satisfaction (so we can move it down)? -- boxy 09:23, 3 May 2011 (BST)

And why would a screenshot of said email not be good enough? There's really no reason to make him jump through stupid hoops. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 22:12, 3 May 2011 (BST)

This. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 00:32, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Only happened because people are stupidly trying to give Iscariot a taste of his own medicine. Hopefully the fact that I'm the one saying it makes how pathetic this whole drama is really fucking obvious. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 02:42, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Maybe some are, but for me, I just see it as a terrible precedent to set. I have no idea what a user's email is, or what accounts they use on other forums, so how can I reliably evaluate it? And we're not making him jump through hoops. Posting a request on A/SD is no harder than making a post on an outside forum or emailing someone. I'd look at making an exception if there was some reason he couldn't access the wiki, but simply choosing not to is just trying to make us go against clear policy for no good reason -- boxy 03:10, 4 May 2011 (BST)

If you have any doubt that this is Iscariot, there is a bridge in Sydney that I would like to sell you. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:52, 4 May 2011 (BST)

… Iscariot ? WTF? Izzy was a girl ? -People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 12:24, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Pretty sure Izzy is a woman trapped in a man's body.--

| T | BALLS! | 13:14 4 May 2011(UTC)

That sure explains A LOT of stuff. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hagnat (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

He's a guy, Hagnat. --

Thadeous Oakley Talk 13:50, 4 May 2011 (BST)

“… the given name of a male or female.” ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 17:25, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Whether it is or not, doesn't make a bit of difference to the fact that approving this deletion would be opening the way for sysops to delete anything just by saying "the author contacted me off site". It would also open the way for smart arses to request deletions, and then come back crying that it wasn't really them... kinda like they cry about people mock-vandalising their pages at the moment.
Just too open to abuse by too many parties -- boxy 12:31, 4 May 2011 (BST)

I'm fully agreeing to Boxy. What is done on the wiki, should be requested on the wiki where we can undoubtedly confirm that it is really the user in question, and where the original request can be centrally stored (rather than to be stored in offsite e-mail and forums accounts, where we might not be able to retrieve them one day as ops get inactive and vanish from the wiki). Exceptions should only be granted when there is some kind of technical impossibility to get on the wiki, like someone who's home connection breaks down and who can't access the wiki from work. -- Spiderzed █ 13:25, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Right to vanish, guys. We've long permitted things like unblock requests to be passed along via trusted users; why should this be any different? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 16:05, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Revenant, I haven't really decided whether I agree with you here or not, but can you please stop linking to wikipedia and pretending it has any relevance to our wiki? It's really annoying when I click the link expecting UDWiki policy and find that it's yet another document which isn't part of our system of rules.--Yonnua Koponen^{T G}^P ^^^ 16:10, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Right. Of course. The world's biggest wiki could have absolutely no relevance to our little fiefdom. Whatever was I thinking?

ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 17:20, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Apart of the technical foundation, wikipedia has indeed only accidental relevance for this wiki. We could as well quote the Bill of Rights or the US Constitution or the Grundgesetz or the Bible to make a point. There will be overlaps, but that doesn't make these works in any way relevant for the wiki adminstration either. -- Spiderzed █ 17:45, 4 May 2011 (BST)

PROTIP: This issue has been relevant since shortly after Ward fucking invented wikis. Go teach your grandmother to suck eggs. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 17:59, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Actually we've always treated that stuff as relevant. Our wiki was designed to imitate wikipedia when it comes to general user policy. The reason being that they've dealt with all of this before, many times, and generally have a better understanding of best practices. If we can have trusted users verifying that it is Iscariot then there is no reason why we shouldn't delete this. We've done it before but I'd rather not dig up links right now. I'll leave that to Rev if he so see's fit. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 18:10, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Note that I talk about applying policies or guidelines from elsewhere in general. If we were to use Wikipedia as our constitution, among other things DDR would have to stop contributing immediately

I see no issue with Right To Leave in particular, especially since it makes no mention of off-site requests

-- Spiderzed █ 18:25, 4 May 2011 (BST)

“	This humorous essay contains comments by one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline, though it may contain advice.	”
—WP:DRUNKEDIT

Hell, if this was policy here, I'd get banned for most of most prolific moments. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 12:28, 9 May 2011 (BST)

Because they are being petty schmucks that would get off on forcing Judith come before them to beg?--

| T | BALLS! | 16:11 4 May 2011(UTC)

This has been unprotected for quite some time now. Moving down to Recent Actions. ~ _{05:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)}

Everything in Category:Suggestions pages requiring protection

--The General ^{T U! P! F!} 20:37, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Any chance of getting this done?--The General ^{T U! P! F!} 15:31, 6 May 2011 (BST)

I'll do some of it but I'm a bit pressed for time. ~

_{15:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)}

Got the rest of them. Was that all of them or was that just the beginning? ~ _{05:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)}

I think that's all the Previous Days Suggestions done but I'm going to run a script through them to check that they're all protected. I haven't yet checked all the pages in the current suggestions system.--The General ^{T U! P! F!} 12:13, 9 May 2011 (BST)

Alright. Just let us know if Me, Yon or Thad missed any. It is bound to happen in a list that long. Hopefully DDR got all suggestions in the new system. I recently started recategorizing a bunch of them and didn't come across any that were unprotected so I think we should be ok. ~

_{14:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)}

Administration Templates

Both it and all the listed templates could do with protecting, as they don't need to be edited by normal users. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 10:01, 30 April 2011 (BST)

I've got some edits planned for both when I have a few minutes actually. So I'mma request this be put off for about a week. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 13:48, 30 April 2011 (BST)

yeah no harm in Karko having a go. Although in like a week you'll possibly be op anyway eh -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 16:26, 30 April 2011 (BST)

I wouldn't be protecting the admin archive nav templates (such as Deletearchivenav), as regular users should be able to do the routine maintanence like changing over at the begining of a new month -- boxy 07:53, 3 May 2011 (BST)

Aye, good call. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 19:13, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Since Karek can edit these freely now, I went ahead and protected them sans navigation templates and a couple of others that should be left editable by the general populace. These should be scheduled in my opinion so I'll open up a scheduling vote. I'll move tis down to recent actions as soon as I get to a keyboard unless someone gets to itbefore me. ~ _{17:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)}

Template:BuildingStatus

Updated with these changes to prevent case sensitivity issues in regards to images. ~ _{14:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)}

Still more suggestions pages

--The General ^{T U! P! F!} 20:06, 3 May 2011 (BST)

Done. -- Spiderzed █ 22:59, 3 May 2011 (BST)

If I may suggest

In the interests of efficiency, why not just slap a unique category on 'em, say Category:Old Suggestions or similar, and then link that here and let us know when you're done? That way we can also easily move 'em to the correct namespace. This is one of the things categories excel at. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 23:21, 3 May 2011 (BST)

Not a bad idea: I'll do that for the rest of them. Just to note, though: I don't believe they actually need to be moved into a new namespace.--The General ^{T U! P! F!} 00:05, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Yet more Suggestions pages

Checked through the first 200 now (only 400 more to go!)--The General ^{T U! P! F!} 10:50, 3 May 2011 (BST)

Out of interest, what's the go with these? I'm very sure I protected everything under the Suggestions namespaces a while ago :( -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 12:06, 3 May 2011 (BST)

Not sure, they're archives from the previous system: Some of them are protected, some of them aren't. I'm guessing that you missed some.--The General ^{T U! P! F!} 12:43, 3 May 2011 (BST)

It's because they aren't technically "in" the Suggestions namespace because they have a forwardslash instead of a colon. I went bonkers on the ones I found in the namespace but the slash vs colon thing is something I didn't think of. Anwyays, done. -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 12:57, 3 May 2011 (BST)

That would be correct: They aren't technically in the namespace.--The General ^{T U! P! F!} 13:34, 3 May 2011 (BST)

More suggestions pages

There's more to come, I'm just saving this while I switch computers.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 23:23, 2 May 2011 (BST)

More.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 23:28, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Sweet Jeebus I thought I'd never get through them. Hurry up and run for op, General. ~ _{00:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)}

There's still a lot more to come. I've only checked through the first hundred or so :P.--The General ^{T U! P! F!} 08:53, 3 May 2011 (BST)

Suggestions pages

And while we're at it, these Previous Days Suggestions pages should probably be protected too:

--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 17:58, 1 May 2011 (BST)

I've protected the individual suggestion pages. Probably do the others later. --Rosslessness 18:08, 1 May 2011 (BST) Done --Rosslessness 13:39, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Shortcuts

Every shortcut listed on that page could do with protecting, as they don't need to be edited by normal users. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 10:01, 30 April 2011 (BST)

Dun. -- C h e e s e 16:12, 1 May 2011 (BST)

e

Protections Archive

2005	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2006	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2007	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2008	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2009	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2010	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2011	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2012	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun		Q3			Q4
2013		Q1			Q2			Q3			Q4
Years	2014		2015		2016		2017		2018		2019

@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
 :I'm assuming that this was meant as a protection request? Anyway, done. I've given everyone a day to consider how dumb this was.--<span>[[User:The General|The General]] <sup>[[User Talk:The General|T]] [[Special:ListUsers/sysop|<span title="System Operator">Sys</span>]] [[Project_UnWelcome|<span title="Project UnWelcome">U!</span>]] [[Project Wiki Patrol|<span title="Project Wiki Patrol">P!</span>]] <span class="plainlinks">[http://urbandeadwiki.smfforfree.com/index.php <span title="Urban Dead Wiki Forum">F!</span>]</span></sup></span> 00:41, 31 May 2011 (BST)
 ::Yeah especially since you protected it after trying to get your say about which version was right even though there was a pre-existing consensus. Edit wars 101: the contested edit is the reverted edit while/a new consensus is reached.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev#Buildings_Update_Danger_Maps|maps 2.0?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:59, 31 May 2011 (BST)
+:::I have no wish to "get my say" because I really couldn't care less for either group. As I explained on A/VB, I misunderstood the nature of the edit war (my understanding was that the contested edit was the one which defined the DHPD as a zombie group).--<span>[[User:The General|The General]] <sup>[[User Talk:The General|T]] [[Special:ListUsers/sysop|<span title="System Operator">Sys</span>]] [[Project_UnWelcome|<span title="Project UnWelcome">U!</span>]] [[Project Wiki Patrol|<span title="Project Wiki Patrol">P!</span>]] <span class="plainlinks">[http://urbandeadwiki.smfforfree.com/index.php <span title="Urban Dead Wiki Forum">F!</span>]</span></sup></span> 11:38, 31 May 2011 (BST)
 :: Yeah sorry, it was in a slieght hurry--{{User:Michaleson/sig}} 11:13, 31 May 2011 (BST)