UDWiki:Administration/Protections

Template:A/PTsub

Shortcut:
A/PT

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

Place pages requiring protection here.

Requested Edits

Template:Administrationnav

Should be edited to include a link to the Sysop Archives now that they're almost done. Some possibilities:

• Place it at the end of the template, either before or after Discussion.
• Place it adjacent to (probably right of) Sysop List.
• Replace Sysop List with Sysop Archives.

Thoughts/other proposals? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 22:32, 20 September 2013 (BST)

For now, I'd just add it to the very end, since people commonly look for archives at the end of any list.

In thinking about that nav template though, I'm tempted to suggest (but am not actually doing so, since I haven't thought through the implications) that it might be time to combine some pages. At a glance, stuff like A/D, A/SD, A/D/S, and A/U all have to do with deleting pages, and A/MR is very closely related as well (A/PT to a lesser extent). Why not just have an administrative Page Handling page where people submit their requests for any sysop-level changes to pages and they're processed accordingly, with deletion stuff going to vote when speedy criteria aren't provided, but otherwise everything getting processed at the discretion of the sysops, just as it is now? It'd cut down on nav clutter, user confusion about where to ask for stuff, and the number of archives we're having to keep. —Aichon— 23:06, 20 September 2013 (BST)

I would agree that a few of the links are redundant, but trying to combine nearly everything into one Page Handling page seems to me like it's asking for trouble. It would probably also require a Policy change (am I mistaken or are the various pages Policy-created?)

That said, I do think we could collapse a couple of the pages that are used extremely rarely - A/D/S and A/PT/S in particular. Keep the pages, but put the relevant list on A/D and A/PT, and remove it from the nav template. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 23:17, 20 September 2013 (BST)

Off the top of my head, I know that A/DE was created by policy, but I think the rest were just created as we needed them. Anyway, what sort of trouble? I'm not looking for an argument, I'm just trying to figure out what that trouble would look like, since otherwise we know that the current system is unapproachable for wikinewbs, so being able ot simplify it with a single "Admin Requests" page would be a whole lot easier for them to use. —Aichon— 23:51, 20 September 2013 (BST)

I'm just imagining the boondoggle it would be if different sysops think something should be filed differently. Like, if someone posts something and a sysop thinks it's A/SD, even if it's already received two A/D votes, is it now under A/D or A/SD procedure? That's the first example that popped into mind. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 02:30, 21 September 2013 (BST)

An argument about procedure for its own sake? Say it ain't so, Bob! :P But yeah, that is a problem (it's a current problem, in fact, since we oftentimes have to move wikinewb requests from A/D to A/SD or A/SD to A/D anyway), but it seems like the sort of thing we'd simplify if we were to do this sort of thing, rather than just shoehorning all of the pages onto one page with every procedure left intact exactly as it is. —Aichon— 04:59, 21 September 2013 (BST)

Anyway, we're off-topic. Just add it to the end? Everyone cool with that, or should we add it elsewhere in the template? —Aichon— 04:59, 21 September 2013 (BST)

Recent Actions

Krinks Power Station

I've protected it in the state it originally was in since a pointless edit war was starting up. As should be clear, this is merely a temporary measure until things cool down, so feel free to unprotect it in a day or two if I don't get to it myself. Hopefully they'll have talked it out by then. —Aichon— 03:43, 11 September 2013 (BST)

Note for posterity: The page was not unprotected when I previously stated due to an ongoing arbitration case involving the page. —Aichon— 04:47, 15 September 2013 (BST)

Unprotected. —Aichon— 18:59, 18 September 2013 (BST)

User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig

 <small>[[User:A Helpful Little Gnome|<span style="color: white;background: #7d8f7d;padding-right:8px;padding-left:7px"><small> '''A'''HLG</small></span>]][[User talk:A Helpful Little Gnome|<span style="color:snow;background: #394939;padding-left:5px;padding-right:2px">'''T'''</span>]][[User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Games|<span style="color:snow;background: #394939;padding-right:5px;padding-left:2px">'''G'''</span>]]</small>

Copy paste. Should just be an H to G, Help to Games type of change. Thank you in advance. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:53, 23 July 2013 (BST)

(And the & n b s p ; in front of the sig as well, minus the spaces.) --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:55, 23 July 2013 (BST)

done --Rosslessness 23:13, 23 July 2013 (BST)

danger status images

can anyone protect them ? there is no reason to edit them, and newbies might edit them by mistake.. i would link to them, but it sucks to in my phone :p --hagnat 00:28, 24 April 2013 (BST)

I assume you're talking about all the images in Category:Building Information Center/Images? (Except maybe this one.) I'd be in favor of protection. Anyone else want to comment? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 17:40, 24 April 2013 (BST)

yes, these images --hagnat 18:49, 24 April 2013 (BST)

Go ahead. -- Spiderzed█ 22:38, 15 May 2013 (BST)

Just checked, and they already show as protected to me. Hmm... Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 02:34, 16 May 2013 (BST)

Whoops, looks like somebody got to this almost a month ago. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 05:35, 16 May 2013 (BST)

Historical Groups and Historical Events

On both pages,

Within two weeks of a nomination, the group must be approved by 2/3 of the voters, with a minimum of 15 voters for a nomination to pass. The only allowable votes are Yes and No

is poorly-written, confusing and has little bearing on what actually occurs in reality. Historical status for groups and events are never decided within two weeks --- that decision occurs after two weeks. The sentence should be rewritten to something like this:

Voting will last for exactly two weeks following nomination. To be successful, a group must by approved by 2/3 of eligible voters, with a minimum of 15 voters for a nomination to pass. The only allowable votes are Yes and No.

which is much clearer and avoids awkward problems as seen here.

Why live with a mistake if you can fix it in like two seconds? -MHSstaff 05:48, 5 April 2013 (BST)

I've already commented on this on my talk page. I actually just noticed another issue: "a minimum of 15 voters for a nomination to pass" is ambiguous; are 15 total voters required for passage, or 15 voters for required? I would like other sysops to comment on the issue before I carry anything out. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 06:11, 5 April 2013 (BST)

Voting will last for exactly two weeks following nomination. To be successful, a group must by approved by 2/3 of eligible voters to pass. A minimum of 15 votes must be cast for the vote to be valid. The only allowable votes are Yes and No.

Updated. It has always been at least 15 votes cast are needed (so 10-5 is ok but 10-4 is not). Obviously replace group with event for the event page. -MHSstaff 06:21, 5 April 2013 (BST)

I'd go for this change. No need for a full policy if we're just updating it for the sake of clarity on how it already works. In fact, looking through the older documents on the wiki, the whole point of policies in the first place were to put in writing the way that things were already working, so this is in line with that intent. —Aichon— 07:36, 5 April 2013 (BST)

Good work MHSstaff :) A ZOMBIE ANT 12:52, 5 April 2013 (BST)

Done. -- Spiderzed█ 15:22, 7 April 2013 (BST) soooo. should CK be historical?--User:Sexualharrison02:26, 24 July 2013

Archives

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