UDWiki:Administration/Protections/Archive/2011 06
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
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)
Recent Actions
There are no recent actions.
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.