UDWiki:Administration/Protections/Archive/2018

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. To submit a new scheduled protection, please visit here.

Requested Edits

Place protected pages requiring edits here.

Recent Actions

Caiger Mall Unprotection

Hi! Caiger Mall was protected in July due to ongoing edit warring. It's now December — but I wanted to check in with the crew before unprotecting. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 19:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Good pick up Bob. It definitely should have not been protected for this length of time. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 11:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Given time that's passed, I’m sure both parties have cooled off over the original dispute. Unprotected. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 11:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Caiger Mall

It might be worth having the discussion over whether this should be protected. I had hopes it wouldn't continue, but dialogue seems to have broken down and reverting is still occurring. Thoughts? THE CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER 05:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd be down to protect it until the current battle is over (which may be a while), while leaving the DangerReport editable of course. What version do we protect? The current with all the different reports on it? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 12:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

By choosing which to keep, any reverting could be counted as vandalism (solving a problem by creating one, I know) which would affect only the people involved, and not everyone wanting to make an edit? Personally I don't see any issue in the edit Moloch did so if we are going to pick, I would like that to stay, without protection. -- King AudioAttack (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

You're right, that could solve this but, as you said, it solves a problem by creating one. Typically sysops don't get involved in declaring what entries get used in these circumstances (udwiki even made a policy designed to alleviate them of the obligation to do it at all). Typically this would be a contender for an arbitration case. Hopefully everyone can agree on a solution before it comes to that. THE CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER 01:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I can't remember the precedent but I'd imagine it's either the contentious original edit, or the revision before the initial edit came into play.

They still don't want to play nice on the page. It's probably unusual, but I'd consider reverting Caiger Mall page to before any additions were made. Then protect it, and have a sysop revise each stakeholder's submission on the talk page (backed up with proof or it doesn't get accepted- to avoid POV claims) and go from there.

It's annoying to get to a situation like that, but if it avoids requiring the use of Arbitration, which would be the typical go-to, and is IMO longer and more tedious, then I think it's a solution worth considering. Thoughts? THE CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER 01:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

There's an intervening, constructive, undisputed edit (Aichon's) so I've gone ahead and protected the version with all the comments. If people talk things out on the talk page (or, I guess, take one another to arbitration), I'll unprotect after that process is done. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 02:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I have a hard time picking sides in a struggle where one side wants to be allowed to do what they say others shouldn't. I think I said it somewhere before - the retards are getting a run for their money on this wiki. Im done with NPOV shit, it's time to claim all sorts of shit on other groups :P All Hail King AudioAttack (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Another mistake

After fucking around I need to have the first bot account User:DangerSnitch deleted - I don't have access to this anymore unfortunately, so I have created a new! I have requested deletion for the other account.

I would like to request that the account User:EMRS2.0 is added the the bot group as it is done. -- EMRS2.0 (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I blocked DangerSnitch and added EMRS2.0 to the bots group. —Aichon— 15:54, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Talk Page Archives Navigation

For the following pages, can you please add {{User talk:DanceDanceRevolution/archive}}? (At the top of the page)

• User talk:DanceDanceRevolution/archive/2014-2017
• User talk:DanceDanceRevolution/archive/2011/H2

Looks like I forgot to add them at time of archival. A ZOMBIE ANT 00:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I added it to both, but do note that User talk:DanceDanceRevolution/archive/2014-2017 isn't currently protected. Would you like me to protect it? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 12:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Oops, yes please. Thanks for spotting that. A ZOMBIE ANT 21:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Done! Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 04:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Ongoing edit war

There's been an ongoing edit war on several location pages between User:Thetruth, who repeatedly adds statements that Clubbed to Death are active there, and other users who remove the statements as NPOV. I suggest protecting Club Wadman (Gulsonside), Club Simpson, Club Single, Club Adam, Northcote Avenue Fire Station, The Perryn Building (Gulsonside), and Blesley Mall in their pre-edit-war states, at least temporarily, but wanted another sop to weigh in before I do so. (I'm not sure either side's edits constitute vandalism, hence why I'm here at A/PT.) Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 14:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, and point them to A/A or their own talk pages at least.   AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 15:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I see where you guys are coming from, and while I agree it's an edit war and that neither side is (necessarily) engaging in vandalism, I'll disagree and suggest that we don't need to protect the pages, nor point them to A/A. We just need to tell one person to knock it off.

It seems fairly clear to me that Thetruth's edits are on the wrong side of NPOV (though marginally enough that telling them to stop is all that's warranted at this point). Regardless of its veracity, shoehorning a disparaging statement into a place where it isn't material to the subject of the page is inherently POV, so it needs to stop. Likewise, the occasional presence of a character at a location is by no means noteworthy enough to warrant inclusion of that information. Moreover, even if the information were material to the page (which again, it isn't), when these sorts of allegations are disputed we let the evidence settle the matter, none of which has been provided in their edits. —Aichon— 16:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmm yes, I agree with that more.   AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 16:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I tried to hint the NPOV in the summary of my edits - but im not sure the person is going to read them though. And I agree with Aichon, protecting the pages would make it hard to unstub them (fucking stubs). If it's not a problem with users reverting "bad" edits I think there are plenty of people wanting to keep the locations NPOV? -- ∀UDIO∀TTACK (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Depending on how militant we want to be about this stuff, one could make a compelling argument that this behaviour could be flushed out with vandalism calls. As Gnome originally said, A/A is the place for NPOV disputes, but as Aichon says, when something is blatantly POV it isn't a matter of personal dispute, it can be an administrative issue.

Look, the account is obviously a sockpuppet, it mysteriously stopped editing once Bob lodged this A/PT request, and spreading false information to single out or harass a group isn't very good faith. If the natural response from here on is was for a sysop to weigh in as early as possible and give a notice on their talk page that bad faith spreading of POV reports could be vandalism, and they continue and get warned, I wouldn't expect many people to complain. A ZOMBIE ANT 13:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Armpit Odor took the prerogative to leave a message on Thetruth's talk page. I'm happy to leave as-is unless Thetruth reverts the edits again, in which case I'll bring this to A/VB. (It's hard to refer this one to A/A, as there hasn't been a single user or group undoing the edits to act as the other arbitration party.) Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 14:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Add bot rights for User:DangerSnitch

Hi! Not sure if this is the correct place for this, but as I'm no longer a Crat, I can't seem to figure out how to add User:DangerSnitch, a bot in development to act as a possible replacements for Rooster's EMR bot (which has been inactive since 2012), as a member of the Bots group. If a Crat in the know can do so, that'd be awesome! Thanks. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 23:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Done! stelar ^{Talk|MCM|EBD|Scourge} 12:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again! Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 12:56, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

User:RadicalWhig/Archive

Talk page archive. Standard stuff. Please and thank you! -- ^{FoD PK Praise Rando!}06:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

-- ^{FoD PK Praise Rando!}06:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Done! Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 15:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

User_talk:Sister_Mary

At some point, someone will come and try to contact me - I don't want that at all, not the sysops, project welcome or anyone else. Therefore protection, to remove everyone wanting to write on my page/s. --Sister Mary (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Fixed your formatting. --Dragonshardz (talk) 23:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh nice! You're that hunted guy! Could you bring me some of the salty fuckers from your talk page? Sister Mary (talk) 23:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

slash that. Apparently you're a nobody. I thought you came with The Dead 2.0. Now im sad. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sister Mary (talk • contribs) 23:27, June 3 2018.

-Considering that both Dragonshard and Sniper are commenting with very little time in between - on a page I requested to be protected to prevent such - I would have no problem if their actions are to be taken as vandalism/bad behavior. Im not going to engage this further, I have seen how big a pain in the ass these people have been before, so I will leave it with the people in charge or take it on a personal level if needed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sister Mary (talk • contribs) 23:45 3 June 2018.

Vandalism reports go to A/VB, delicious friend. --Dragonshardz (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you insinuating that we're the same person? We're not. Sysops can probably confirm if they really feel the need. I'm honestly curious if a Talk page has ever been Protected barring special circumstances - their whole point is to provide discussion at large. Maybe a more experienced hand can confirm. Sniper4625 (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Sysops don’t protect talk pages under these circumstances. It is expected that those editing the wiki be contactable by members of the community. Typically, requests for restraining orders (with proof of harassment) used to be sorted through Arbitration. A ZOMBIE ANT 02:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

No need for A/A cases etc. Im leaving this account and making another one and will continue to do so when I feel like editing :) Sister Mary (talk) 02:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, as DDR said, we don't protect user talk pages. I actually just discussed this topic on my talk page, but the long and short of it is as DDR said: users need to be able to be reached, and if you're having difficulties with particular users, we deal with those via A/A. —Aichon— 02:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Won't do. —Aichon— 03:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Seconding Aichon & DDR — talk pages are generally only protected for users who are perma- (or very-long-term) banned. Others need to be contactable. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 15:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm gonna be a butt and correct you- Technically, all banned users need their talk pages protected for the length of the ban, long and short durations. A ZOMBIE ANT 00:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Aye, but if'n a sop don't protect a varmint's talk page on a 24-hour ban, I ain't gon' misconbitrate 'em. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 13:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, and again, I'm being a butt, but saying "The rules are X" and when corrected that the rules are Y, saying "you're right but I don't care about you doing X/X won't get you in trouble/I won't have anything to do with X" is surely something sysops shouldn't be doing. Surely telling users the correct rules in the first place should be the preferred aim...

Obviously in this instance it has no bearing or consequence. But I do notice you do it from time to time. A ZOMBIE ANT 10:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm super open to this kind of constructive criticism. Will try to be more aware of this in the future. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 12:12, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The Jack

Please do the needful and mark them as inactive, since they're gone from the wiki, the stats page, and the game in general. --Dragonshardz (talk) 04:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

We generally don't do anything to mark a group as defunct when it just leaves the wiki/stats page, it has to be requested (or done) by group members. There are a huge number of defunct groups on the wiki that aren't marked as such. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 15:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

It’s also worth mentioning that even though the {{InactiveGroup}} template is sometimes (though rarely these days) put on group pages by people outside the group, once a page is protected we pretty much always leave it alone unless there’s an administrative necessity or a request directly from them to alter it. —Aichon— 17:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

A request like this is fairly atypical- the inactive template is typically used by those within a group, not those from outside the group- particularly ones that seem to dislike the group.

It’s worth mentioning, as has been said before in discussions surrounding this kind of verification of inactivity- UD stats page results don’t always translate directly to a group being designated inactive on the wiki. Many groups deliberately stay under the radar and as such don’t appear on the stats page but remain influential within the game. A ZOMBIE ANT 02:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Won't do. —Aichon— 03:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Template:HistoricalGroup

I don’t see why it should be unprotected, being only used on protected pages, and requires no need for modification. Feel free to disagree however. I’m just being nit picky. A ZOMBIE ANT 12:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Done. —Aichon— 15:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The Dead 2.0

Please protect our group page above and make it historical. We have just swapped names (see below) and already people are trying to delete our other page. Hopefully, this conforms to wikilaw, as it's been forever since I had to do this. -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 20:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Fixed your formatting without breaking the page in the process, whee! --Dragonshardz (talk) 20:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

If this is what The Dead want instead for their old page, I Support it. --Ɛňvϊoцᵴ (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Yep, make it so Sniper4625 (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

If you want the Historical Group status, Category:Historical_Groups is the page you’re looking for. That’s not a sysop thing. That said, the whole situation specifically around The Dead and its various incarnations is kinda crazy due to its unique place in UD’s history, so I have no idea how it can/should even be processed. —Aichon— 12:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Protected. —Aichon— 15:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The Dead Subpages

The following pages should be protected, added to Category:The Dead, and made Historical since they're historically relevant but unlikely to be maintained and/or already protected:

• Talk:The_Dead_(First_Generation)
• The_Dead/GID
• The_Dead/March_of_the_Dead
• The_Dead/Talk_Archive2
• The_Dead/Original_Talk_Page
• The_Dead/Junk
• March_of_The_Dead

I'm also going to add The Dead 2.0 to Category:The Dead. Additionally, on The Dead (First Generation), the link that leads to The Dead 2.0 should be changed to lead to The Dead. --Dragonshardz (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Bueller? --Dragonshardz (talk) 23:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that wait. As mentioned above, if you'd like to make it historical, you'll need to deal with the whole bureaucratic mess (that thankfully isn't part of my duties as a sysop) that is Historical Group voting. Don't get me started. As for categorization, you or someone else should do that for all relevant pages before we protect them. All you need to do is add the code [[Category:The Dead]] somewhere on the pages you want added to the category. That's it. I have gone ahead and updated the link though. —Aichon— 21:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I can't edit most of these pages because they're already protected. Specifically, The_Dead/March_of_the_Dead, The_Dead/Talk_Archive2, The_Dead/Original_Talk_Page (which has a redlink that should go to Talk:The_Dead_(First_Generation)), and March_of_The_Dead. The ones that I can edit have already had the category added, but IMO should be protected since they serve no current purpose and are a record of events/groups in the group's heyday. --Dragonshardz (talk) 01:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, whichever one I checked was unprotected, so I jumped to the wrong conclusion that they all were. Anyway, I've gone ahead and categorized the remaining ones and protected the lot of them. Done. —Aichon— 15:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

As I offered on Talk:The_Dead/Conquered_by_The_Dead#Conquering anything, I could make a template that mimics the Historical Groups template, if you like, you could place it on all of these pages to explain the context surrounding these protections? A ZOMBIE ANT 09:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so I've made a template at Template:DeadHistorical that can be used with {{DeadHistorical}}. Would you guys like it added to these pages? It may help sort out this archiving dilemma without having to wrangle with Historical Groups stuff. Feel free to change the wording, or let me know what you'd like the wording changed to.

Example:

	Archived Page
	The first generation of The Dead and The Dead 2.0 no longer exist in their original state. This page has been protected to preserve the group's history. For the current version of the group, visit The Dead.

A ZOMBIE ANT 09:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm moving this down as a processed request, but if they want that done, I'm happy to add it to whichever pages they want. —Aichon— 15:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The template looks reasonable, might as well. --Dragonshardz (talk) 03:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

The Dead

As representative of the True, Catholic, and Unbroken Leadership of The Dead, we would like to petition to have the above page renamed to The Dead (First Generation) or some similar variant that we may be able to reclaim our rightful group page.

Thank you. Sniper4625 (talk) 01:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I remember this being a bit of a shit sandwich ten years ago, reconciling the fact that the Dead are still around but having their group page locked for historical purposes. The solution in the end was their creation of The Dead 2.0 and their original group page remaining. Only precedent I could find was here.

If the Dead continue to remain around, and their page locked, I can't see this issue really going away. There are some options... Firstly, pending any confirmation that any user is a leader of the Dead, it would be worth seriously considering moving the Historical Dead page (The Dead) to something suggested above, and giving them access to The Dead, perhaps with a suggestion they leave a notice on top of their page directing people to the Historical incarnation. Or even just turn it into a disambig.

Or, depending on how we swing on the idea that DCC deserves to have his group retain it's page, and these are a completely separate group from the original Dead, to leave the page as be, and put the onus on this "new" Dead to reconcile the fact that have a group name that can't be accessed because of the historical group.

I really don't know right now. It's been a bit difficult for me to glean exactly what's going on with these groups on the Wiki over the last month, if everyone else is like me, we could really use a backstory and some evidence as to what players represent what groups, etc. before making a decision. A ZOMBIE ANT 02:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

To be honest I don't remember who DCC is, and dollars to donuts he's put this dead game long behind him by now, but he's a Goon from SA, we're Goons from SA, we're the same Dead as we were back then. Like I said, True, Catholic, and Unbroken. Sniper4625 (talk) 03:28, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Leave my historical group alone and make your new gen horde destroy this game. Stop sucking my dick like some groupie and make your own name for yourself, fuckface. - DCC-- #99 ^DCC 20:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

No - ED Nort (talk) 06:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that summary, again, the influx of new users with fleeting activity and different conflicts has thrown me off a bit with each account. So bear with me and hopefully others will chime in with their thoughts. A ZOMBIE ANT 03:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

We are one and the same. I have played since the original march of the dead in 08, and have commanded the horde since 2012 - ED Nort (talk) 06:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I can move The Dead to The Dead (First Generation) (and protect it) and then unprotect The Dead and leave the page blank for you, if that'd do? If other members of The Dead disagree with this, I can simply revert the changes and you guys can discuss. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

No. They aren't Dead 2.0 either. I know counting is hard, Sniperass, but they are higher than 2.0 unless somehow they have been around and active since 2009. We had The Many, We had The Dead, We had Dead 2.0. We even had the PK teams fighting for Shearbank, Dunnell Hills, and our roving murderball team. (SNACK HARD). So this generation needs to do something notable. And I logged into my game and checked my contacts (all are MIA, so I know this guy isn't an original member or he's a poser and doesn't actually play.-- #99 ^DCC 20:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

"or he's a poser and doesn't actually play" Like yourself, it would seem. A bit hypocritical, no? --Ɛňvϊoцᵴ (talk) 02:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Fuck you, shitstain. I can smell your smugness from here, no, wait, that's just your BO.-- #99 ^DCC 15:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

-- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 08:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

If nobody gets it, I've been playing since 2007 and have him on my contacts but he doesn't have me on his. -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 03:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

That would be perfect, thank you! Sniper4625 (talk) 00:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

That doesnt seem right. The new group should have to make a new/modified name instead of taking someone else's link to their creative property. (Im preferable to Dead Too (with a zombie peace sign as a logo)

If the original group is historical then it should already be protected from that change anyway.

If there are still Dead members (original group) left then they should come on as the their wiki accounts attached to the group and state if its ok to make such a fundamental change.

This open a potential big can of worms for any new group of players wanting to benefit off of something they didnt create. I have a sense this could become a big problem if this change is made.

Please CAREFULLY rethink this.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neutral objector (talk • contribs) 02:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC).

Kindly perform the needful task and go suck eggs, Jack. --Dragonshardz (talk) 03:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Jack, you got the sysops to grant you domain over your own group's page, you can at least do the courtesy of allowing us to do the same. Kindly butt out buddy. Sniper4625 (talk) 03:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, someone should explain to our new friend how to sign his posts, as apparently he knows not how. (He totally does.) Sniper4625 (talk) 03:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Chiming in to say I Support Gnome's solution. It seems like the fairest. If you bother to look at Sniper's contributions, it's clear that he is OG The Dead. It should be fairly obvious that non-Dead members (like the user above) should have absolutely no say in what The Dead do with their own pages or what they get to call themselves. I understand that there is a vested interest in preserving UD history, but that should come secondary to group ownership of their pages, and Gnome's solution is an excellent compromise. --Ɛňvϊoцᵴ (talk) 03:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Gnome's solution seems workable and fair, given Sniper's edit history demonstrates he has been a member of The Dead since their inception. If he's not qualified to speak on the group's status, nobody is. --Dragonshardz (talk) 03:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Thirding my support as a member of TheDead for Sniper4625's wiki page plan. Moraldelima (talk) 04:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay done, you're free to edit a fresh page. (And apparently that deleted The Dead.) Remember it's easy to undo this if other The Dead members disagree. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 14:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Please protect our group page, with temporary protection, so only I can edit it to avoid possible edit attacks. Thanks! --The Dead 2.0 (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

It would be exceedingly ironic if The Dead asked for their original page name back, only so that they could then make an account in the name of the page they didn't want anymore to ask that none of their members be allowed to edit it. I think any sysop with a brain would deny this request. --Ɛňvϊoцᵴ (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Suspiciously new account is suspiciously new. --Dragonshardz (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Only if I get full editing permissions on your group page, Jack. Lmao get out of here. This rewuest can ne archived or whatever now. Sniper4625 (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

How are you all so stupid? Historic groups should be left alone and if a lame new version shows up (even if they are fucking goons) they should make a new name. All of the original SA pages (Many, Dead, the Shearbank shit, the Dunnell Hills shit, the murderball team, the Deads, anything created around 2009 and prior should be left alone. Unless Katthew herself shows the fuck up and grants permission, cuz she's the only one over me in the Many/Dead ranking shit. PLEASE show some common sense and leave the old pages alone. -- #99 ^DCC 20:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Group members who wish to edit their group page are always free to do so, regardless of its protection or historical status. For that matter, active groups technically cannot be historical. If you guys want to discuss amongst yourself about what you want to do with the group pages and come to an agreement, then go ahead. But if not I'll revert to the original protected status. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Current leadership would like to keep the new status quo very much, thank you friends Sniper4625 (talk) 02:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Current leadership with an SA thread from 2012 which is WELL after the 2009 thread that the Dead 2.0 used (ON NO LEAKING GOON SECRETS). Can't even get GBS involved in this lame ass game like the original crew did. You are not a part of the original Dead/Many. You didn't bleed in Shearbank, you didn't have the pubbies form alliances to try to stop you, you didn't troll the fuck out of the suggestions pages, you didn't stir up insane bannings on the wiki with shadow accounts and impersonations, you didn't do shit. Make your own name and page. This wiki should be grateful that the original goons aren't back, because we fucked a lot up on here.-- #99 ^DCC 15:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it's a discussion worth having though Gnome. If the membership are completely different to the original group, the original leaders say they aren't the same group, then I'm not sure what more you need before you begin considering them different groups. A ZOMBIE ANT 03:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

And now DCC has more or less confirmed from his edits that this dead are a (functionally) different group in membership, I don't know why we should be trying to argue that the decision you made should stand. As we both said earlier, if all it takes is for DCC to come and complain about this decision as a grounds for considering a rejection of this request, well, here we are. A ZOMBIE ANT 03:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

It’s a Ship of Theseus paradox: nothing of the original is left, yet at every point along the way it’s been the same thing. DCC showing up doesn’t necessarily change anything. Or it might. I’m with Gnome in thinking they need to figure it out among themselves, but where’s SA or Rev when you need them? We could use some Goons or people with those connections right now. —Aichon— 04:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

No Paradox here. Many of us have played since the original march of the dead, and the below quote was posted today in our discord - ED Nort (talk) 07:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

"I mean, I ACTUALLY led the second March of the Dead so if we're swinging useless vestigial dicks around" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ED Nort (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

I've been playing since 2007 both in game and on the wiki. (Side question, what happened to search before May 2008? It's gone.) Therefore, according to Wikilaw, as a long term The Dead member that contributed both in game and on the wiki, I am fine with the changes as long as the original works are preserved. -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 03:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok I figured it out, I had a different wiki account before May 08 and couldn't remember the email password. Shhhhhhh. Here's my ud http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=878676 -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 03:52, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

It may not be because of that, it may be because the Wiki has had a series of Page History purges in the last 10 years to clear up the server, so some people's contributions and page history has been lost. A ZOMBIE ANT 06:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

DCC isn't the only source of truth. Sniper has as much as admitted he's a Goon so he's as entitled to do as he wants with his group's page as DCC is. --Dragonshardz (talk) 05:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I've also been a goon a lot longer than sniper-no-sniping, too.-- #99 ^DCC 15:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

No regdate shaming, thanks. --Dragonshardz (talk) 01:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone else remember that the Dead 2.0 only exist because DCC approached us with the exact same request that these "new" Dead members did, and we said no? That was his own group he wanted access to, and he had to make a new offshoot. That was the decision we made as sysops then and I find it strange that, while I'm not sure I think it was the right decision, it's being so easily dismissed now, especially seeing as it seems to be the only precedent on the wiki, and an extremely relevant precedent at that. A ZOMBIE ANT 07:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

DDR has always been an ok game and mod. I think making new pages is the best way to treat the Dead goons. That way if they actually do something significant it can be documented on its own page. Although, I don't know how you top taking down 4 malls in one night. Or making the creator actually change part of the game because the zombies were breaking his zombie apocalypse game, but good luck!-- #99 ^DCC 15:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The fact that one rather involved oldman not-player disagrees with the concept of continuity that just about everyone else actually playing under our banner agrees with should not IMO change the decision made. DCC if you want to hash it out with us you know how to get in touch, but going to the sysops after boasting about trolling the wiki at every turns is hilarious. Sniper4625 (talk) 02:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Fuck you if you don't think I'm a player. I can guarantee that I have contributed more to this game and wiki than you have. (check my post history) And it wasn't all trolling. Wiki precedent is on my side with this. The reason there is a Dead 2.0 page is because of this issue (as was pointed out previously).

Why is it so fucking hard to make a Dead 3.0 page and link to that? You can fill it up with new cancer inducing shitty gifs and stupid memes and leave the current 2.0 page alone. A page, which the majority of posts are from 2011. So if this page was so damn important than why weren't you using it all along (7 years)? Again, make a Dead 3.0 page, do something original for the 3 months you might keep people interested in this game again. It won't kill the wiki to have another Dead page, especially if you can get your little group to actually do something significant. -- #99 ^DCC 03:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh look a quote from me from 2011 from the Dead 2.0 talk page:

Is there going to be a wiki page for every time the Dead shit again? One that chronicles the color and shape? When they start trashing the town then maybe a page should go up, but until then what the fuck are you going to put on it? Stop wasting your time here. And yes, the Dead 3.0 is just as anti-wiki as before and I certainly as fuck don't want to come back here as me or as Nubis. I'm only here to confirm DDR's comment about us. --Globetrotters Icon.png #99 DCC 18:04, 5 April 2011 (BST)

   welcome back, and yes udwiki is a source for all game info.. so what ever the dead shits up is a concern to us here. xoxox -- The preceding signed comment was added by these amazing looking Boobs.sh.siggie.gif
   bitch 18:28 5 April 2011 (UTC)

So I guess there you have it - they are maybe 3.0.-- #99 ^DCC 03:49, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I have provided orders to The Dead for the last 6 years, and the consensus of the active players is to have our name on the stats page (http://www.urbandead.com/stats.html) link to our active page, which is currently the case.

I have been part of The Dead since the original march - http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/March_of_The_Dead

Registration 2008-02-27 http://urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=1159991

Participated in the second march and contributed to The Dead 2.0 wiki page.

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/File:S.r.anim.gif Detailing our conquest

After the second march, the horde dwindled to the size of about 30, and we spent the last 6 years holding Dunell Hills, preventing the DHPD from returning to their homeland.

We then invaded West Becktown and established the pyramid head http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/File:ThumbsUp.jpg

Or latest recruitment drive, which will never meet the size of DCC's e-penis, brought us once again to the top of the group stats page, and we have thus established the Dead Man Zone http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/DMZ to which we have successfully repelled attempts to reclaim by DHPD, ENVY, and the Knights of Saint Jude, while also going on the offensive with The Malton Globetrotters vs East Becktown Defenders and Soldiers of Crossman, aiding the push into Darvall Heights and East Becktown.

Arguably all of this activity lead to the resurrection of The Jack, who has recently vanished at the same time as DCC's appearance. The only logical conclusion is that DCC is The Jack, and this is their latest attempt at a civil war troll tactic. - ED Nort (talk) 06:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I've been in The Dead since 2007 and was a part of the original Marches and the Final Fall. I don't remember there ever being some lofty "leadership" as we were all organized via Something Awful forum threads. I don't even know who DCC is but the way they are acting goes against everything a goon group typically stands for. Their claims of having all of The Dead on their contact list so they can see that none of them play anymore is false as there were hundreds of us. When the subject is what to do with a group that is known for having many different people the weird nostalgia of a single person doesn't override everyone else that has been in the group for years. This gigantic, embarrassing meltdown proves they aren't one of us and definitely do not speak for us. --SenorFP (talk) 14:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

However, I think I speak for everyone when I say this game is bad, dead, and also gay. --Dragonshardz (talk) 00:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

So... I can't please everyone here. But I get a sense that some of these more recent members represent the latest iteration of the Dead rather than original members unidling, and DCC has more away over the contents of the original The Dead page (as a much older member judged by wiki edits). I notice the main difference between The Dead and The Dead (First Generation) is mostly the historical template. DCC, do you care whether the historical template is on The Dead? Or should I just protect The Dead as-is and call it day? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Template:Semi-Protect

May we please have this protected please? A ZOMBIE ANT 02:43, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Pages trancluded onto the Main Page

As per the recent vandal case where the main page was indirectly targeted, can we assess all the transcluded templates and pages and ensure they are semi-protected in case one-edit vandals may appear in future.

• Template:Community Projects
• UDWiki:Featured Articles

These are two examples of templates/pages that appear on the Main page, that were targeted today. A ZOMBIE ANT 08:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and semi-protected all pages included directly on the Main Page. I’m not a huge fan of it, since a few of them are the sorts of things that newbies should be able to participate in, but it seems like a warranted move. —Aichon— 14:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

If you are happy to take the time to list me some of the pages you aren't fully in support of and, if I find time, I'll make a notice on the top pointing them here. A ZOMBIE ANT 00:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:Community_Projects is probably the biggest one, but UDWiki:Featured_Articles as well for me. —Aichon— 05:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Yep, definitely featured articles. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I've created a basic protection template at Template:Semi-Protect. The wording isn't as clean as I like but it should do the job for now. Feel free to tweak anything. A ZOMBIE ANT 02:42, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The Jack

I am requesting our group and user page be made into protected status indefinitely. It does not seem a far stretch that the attempted harassment will continue once this temporary protection expires. Discussion pages can be left unprotected for the time being if other users wish to leave comments but not modify anything else. Seems more expedien tgiven recent events. Thank you --The Jack (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Protected both The Jack and User:The Jack. —Aichon— 22:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Admin Pages

To reflect the loss of a couple of sysops. UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives and UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive are the ones I noticed. A ZOMBIE ANT 11:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Done, but badly. Have I missed anything before I neaten it?--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Oops, may have neatened for you. My plan is to archive the actual demotions at the end of the year; not much need to do a sweep before then. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 13:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk Archive

• User talk:Revenant/Archive/5
• Talk page archive. Please and thank you.
• ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 10:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  Protected! Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 11:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

User page archive

• User:Revenant/Archive

Since I am no longer a sysop, I can’t edit my user page archive that I protected while a sysop to say that I am no longer a sysop.

Accordingly, if one of you kindly folks could replace the line

{{Sysop|{{BASEPAGENAME}}}}

with

{{Sysop|{{BASEPAGENAME}}|is a former}}

that’d be much appreciated.

Cheers! ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 10:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Done! Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 11:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

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