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

Malton Uprising

Please remove the {{HistoricalEventVoting}} from the top of the page. Linkthewindow  Talk  11:26, 8 September 2012 (BST)

Recent Actions

Malton Uprising

Please remove the {{HistoricalEventVoting}} from the top of the page. Linkthewindow  Talk  11:26, 8 September 2012 (BST)

done.--Shortround }.{ My Contributions 16:33, 8 September 2012 (BST)

The Battle of SantLUEville

Please add Template:FANom as it has been nominated for FA status. Thanks! Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 22:00, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Done.--Shortround }.{ My Contributions 14:07, 24 August 2012 (BST)

FA/V

Please fix double redirect so it points to UDWiki:Featured Articles/Candidates. Thanks! Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 17:26, 21 August 2012 (BST)

Done.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 19:38, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Malton Uprising

Please add {{HistoricalEventVoting}} to the top of the page. ~ _{22:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)}

No one says please anymore. --Ross^WHO????ness 23:06, 10 August 2012 (BST)

UDWiki:Featured Articles/Good Articles

...and its talk page. Per community consensus, Good Articles are being closed down, and I think protecting the page would prevent any confused persons from attempting to submit new GAs. Thanks! Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 18:02, 28 July 2012 (BST)

6 people on a talk page at the back of the wiki isn't really community consensus. We should probably open a general discussion of some kind or at least provide some kind of link in the news section of the main page for those users that don't browse the recent changes page. There's quite often a few people who turn up to vote on things or discuss things that are put up there but not to comment on random talk pages. I'm going to hold off on these for now because I don't think we've really got any form of community consensus on this.--Shortround }.{ My Contributions 20:53, 28 July 2012 (BST)

Sorry to break it to you, Shorty, but that's probably gonna be as close to community consensus as you'll see. Few people care about GA/FA as seen by the last few GA votes. FA voting is completely skipped these days. All Bob is doing is making changes which reflect how the process has worked for the last few years. It also opens up the door for a ton more Featured Articles. Be BOLD. ~ _{21:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)}

FA was never voted on. They were just plucked from the GA list, and the decision on which should go when was made by, about 6 people. All FA are, by definition GA's as well, so it makes sense to combine the two cats. --Ross^WHO????ness 23:28, 28 July 2012 (BST)

Madness! Moar cats on the wiki!! Also bring back the main page duck. -- _{Org XIII} ^Alts 00:14, 29 July 2012 (BST)

Voting does more to damage the wiki than anything else. It should always be viewed as a necessary evil when it must be done, and there are certainly some places where it must be done, but this is not one of them. Moreover, something like this is hidden from normal users and has no impact on them. They simply enjoy its output, but it will not change as a result of this, so it makes no sense to involve anyone who has not already taken notice. Asking them to comment on it would be similar to inviting community opinion for the best way to reinforce the trusses of a local bridge that's in disrepair. It's better to get the people who are actually knowledgeable on the subject and have an interest in it to come to a consensus on it, which is what's happened here. Anything else is bureaucracy for its own sake. —Aichon— 00:10, 29 July 2012 (BST)

Should Featured Article Voting be Featured Article Consensus? The way I worded FA/V makes it sound like it isn't a vote, despite the names. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:12, 29 July 2012 (BST)

Perhaps hypocritically, I'm actually okay with it as it is. The big sweeping ideas should be hashed out via consensus, since it allows the work to actually get done (see: any attempt at changing the danger map system in the last three years for examples of voting failure), while the question of what to include in a subjective category is something that voting can easily address. The page will likely function as a consensus anyway, since it's rare that a page is brought up that isn't actually worthy or close to it. —Aichon— 00:45, 29 July 2012 (BST)

Just don't delete it. I'm going to move move over the appropriate information to the FA and FA/V pages. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:39, 28 July 2012 (BST)

The problem with FA/V was that those articles were already voted upon. Basically, the second voting process was just always ignored and GAs were added to the pool sans additional voting. I don't think it was an issue with wording as much as it was an issue with necessity. ~ _{00:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)}

I definitely agree with Vapor and Aichon. I think any big changes to long-time wiki procedures, even ones that have fallen into disuse, are going to require a balance of consensus and bold moves to move forward. That said, I would be totally cool with opening a general discussion (as Shortround suggested) for a time, especially since I'm still working on proofreading a bunch of articles to get them ready for Phase II, which is voting on a bunch of new FAs. I don't know how to get one going, or where it would go - can anyone come to my aid? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 01:22, 29 July 2012 (BST)

You can put the articles individually in FA/V (the voting criteria hasn't been completed yet, though). You can also put a notice up in Template:Community Portal about how there's a bunch more things to vote on. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:29, 29 July 2012 (BST)

Oops! Sorry for lack of clarity. I meant a discussion on what to do about Good Articles, in order to build more consensus. I'm definitely planning on adding a Community Portal new item etc. once the new FA/Vs are in place. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 01:35, 29 July 2012 (BST)

Personally, I'd advise against going through UDWiki:Open Discussion since historically, that's where ideas go to die on UDWiki. You are welcome to it, but as Aichon pointed out, it would serve little further purpose. In fact, we're already moving forward with some changes based on discussion and your work earlier today. ~ _{02:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)}

Ideas die there because the people who opened the discussions were never bold enough to go through with them in the first place. If someone is serious about putting through an idea its discussion on OD won't change a thing. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:31, 29 July 2012 (BST)

As one user, I would personally prefer this to be discussed first, either here or elsewhere. I've had a long history with governing the GAs and FAs since they were implemented and I didn't even have an idea about this and would have loved to have piped in. I've been checking on the wiki every couple of days but it's still my bad I've missed it, would have loved to pipe in though D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:31, 29 July 2012 (BST)

So...pipe in? :P —Aichon— 05:13, 29 July 2012 (BST)

Hmm. This was the first thing I read on the issue, and somehow I thought it was different to what is actually happening. After reading the initial discussion I think everyone's on par with their thoughts. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:26, 30 July 2012 (BST)

I've linked to the talk page discussion on the main news feed so that it can function as an open discussion for less involved people to take part if they want to. Then we can have a better idea of consensus, which I feel will probably be much in line with what we already have.--Shortround }.{ My Contributions 15:11, 29 July 2012 (BST)

*sigh* —Aichon— 03:54, 30 July 2012 (BST)

The discussion there has now been on for a week since it was placed on the Wiki News template, and I haven't seen anyone object to closing down Good Articles (most of the discussion has been on revising Featured Article criteria). Consider this a resubmission of both this protection request and the edit request below. Thanks! Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 15:02, 5 August 2012 (BST)

I'm happy with the fact that the community has had a chance to weigh in, even if they haven't. :) Request is served.--Shortround }.{ My Contributions 21:44, 8 August 2012 (BST)

Removal of GA template

Hello! If someone with an appropriate level of sysopitude could remove the {{GA}} template from Battle of Blackmore, Blackmore 4(04) and First Siege of Caiger Mall, that would be awesome. Good Articles are being closed down, but I can't remove the GA template from the three protected articles. Thanks! Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 17:59, 28 July 2012 (BST)

done.--Shortround }.{ My Contributions 21:44, 8 August 2012 (BST)

UDWiki:Administration/Speedy Deletions

Please unprotect A/SD. I have some pages I'd like to have deleted. Thank you. ~ _{07:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)}

Done by Karek.--Shortround }.{ My Contributions 11:06, 7 July 2012 (BST)

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