UDWiki:Administration/Protections/Archive/2011 06

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.

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

Protection Queue

The Dead's Resurgence

That page seems to become a hotbed of edit warring and general SA shit-stirring. Would anyone mind if it would be protected for a week or so, or until it can be moved to a place of clearer ownership? -- Spiderzed▋ 20:53, 4 April 2011 (BST)

Sounds good to me. ~ _{20:56, 4 April 2011}

Errr being a bit reactionary aren't we? -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:22, 5 April 2011 (BST)

That's not what reactionary means... ;_; --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 08:57, 7 April 2011 (BST)

You're right! Sorry, perhaps the word I failed to articulate was overreacting, but got caught up in a muddle of fail and/or dyslexia. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 09:04, 7 April 2011 (BST)

S'okay. Everybody uses it the wrong way. The only reason I don't is because I was ripped apart in a history essay because I sued the wrong meaning.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 09:07, 7 April 2011 (BST)

Either way, the page will be drama free eventually, SA while picky only really get into it if you actually give them the drama they're trying to create. Undo, leave, discuss reasonably and without argument/acknowledgement of the shitstirring. Best advice I can give. --Karek^maps?! 09:10, 7 April 2011 (BST)

Good call, I just don't agree with the menetality of "it sucks and people are disagreeing with it so lets protect it, stop its hope of becoming decent, then move it away". Seems a bit domineering considering its in such a foetal state right now. While I admit it's not looking good as a future article after days of inaction, at least we are giving it at try at getting better, then justifiably discussing its removal. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 09:14, 7 April 2011 (BST)

I was agreeing with you actually, it's not much of a page now and drama on it, while not really worth the time to escalate but if done with 3pwv type edits is most definitely not worth the time to protect. That would be the opposite of productive in solving the problems. So yeah, I totally agree and felt someone should mention that this is the kind of thing you don't want with SA and the history of The Dead vs wiki usefulness. --Karek^maps?! 09:33, 7 April 2011 (BST)

Requested Edits

Template:Bot

I'm done with it, and everyone else with editing interest in it is a Sysop. It should be protected like the other Administration Templates. I can request it through here if any more quick changes come up. --Karek^maps?! 02:31, 15 April 2011 (BST)

Protected ~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 04:40, 15 April 2011 (BST)

Administration/Misconduct/Archive/2008 and Administration/Misconduct/Archive/2009

New Archives for the talk page. Although we'd probably be better served with Archive 1 Archive 2 formats for actual page discussion a format is a format.--Karek^maps?! 01:46, 15 April 2011 (BST)

Protected ~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 04:40, 15 April 2011 (BST)

Template:Vndl

All of This. --Karek^maps?! 02:27, 15 April 2011 (BST)

Misconduct Archives

Karek made the archives but it needs the following link archive code on the main page.
*[[UDWiki talk:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/2008|2008 Archive]]
*[[UDWiki talk:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/2009|2009 Archive]]
-MHSstaff 01:54, 15 April 2011 (BST) *[[UDWiki talk:Administration/Misconduct/Archive|Main]] **[[UDWiki talk:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/2007|2007 Archive]] **[[UDWiki talk:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/2008|2008 Archive]] **[[UDWiki talk:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/2009|2009 Archive]]

Actually, here's what's used on the other archives. --Karek^maps?! 02:05, 15 April 2011 (BST)

Template:Unsigned

Would be improved by linking default "at an unknown time" text to page history. Also, documentation could use improving via template docs (c.f. Wikipedia). ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 02:52, 12 April 2011 (BST)

Also changing of the category to Wiki Templates might not be the worst idea ever considering it's more of a notice than a general use utility. --Karek^maps?! 03:20, 12 April 2011 (BST)

I linked "unknown time" to page history and updated the category. Not sure what you had in mind for the documentation. Now that you have butans, I'm sure this is only a mild inconvenience. ~ _{05:57, 13 April 2011}

This comment left intentionally unsigned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vapor (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

Are we there yet? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:17 14 April 2011 (BST)

Historical Group Voting Policy

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 confusing because while voting has always been decided after two weeks, the policy, as written, could be interpreted as a group only has to reach the magic 15 vote number and the 2/3 number within two weeks to pass, which was never the intent. 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 needed for a nomination to pass. The only allowable votes are Yes and No...

-MHSstaff 22:24, 10 April 2011 (BST)

The wording of that part is minimum requirements listing. May was well just change With a minimum to and a minimum and it would clear up any confusion that a wikilawyer would try to use against common sense. The purpose has always been very clear. --Karek^maps?! 23:20, 10 April 2011 (BST)

The problem (to me at least) is the word "within." At the strictest, possible interpretation, it implies that a group only has to reach a certain threshold at any time before the two weeks is up to be successful. I am probably not understanding what you are saying, but I don't see how adding "and" fixes that. Your right though. Everyone knows the real "story/purpose" but the way I look at it, there is no real harm in making it clear. -MHSstaff 23:34, 10 April 2011 (BST)

It's simple English. It means the following criteria need to be met within the next two weeks for the page to qualify. Anyone that tries to argue that is kinda a douche really and not worth considering. The And would clarify it as a list, not that the commas don't already do that and would just be better English. Something like this.--Karek^maps?! 23:48, 10 April 2011 (BST)

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

But it doesn't matter if they qualify on Day 1, Day 2, Day 10, or any day "within" two weeks. It only matters if they have qualified (through meeting the required number of votes and reaching 2/3 yes votes) at the end of voting after two weeks. There is no reason, at all, to have the word "within" anywhere in the policy. My point is the word only adds to the possibility of confusion, and if we are going to change it, well, we might as well make it right from the beginning. Why keep it if you don't have to?-MHSstaff 00:08, 11 April 2011 (BST)

There no need to really, it's just that that word isn't what's causing the confusion. Nor, for that matter, is there probably any real confusion. --Karek^maps?! 00:35, 11 April 2011 (BST)

Damn it Jim, I'm a sysop, not an English major. Tell me what, if any changes to make and I'll do it. ~ _{02:24, 11 April 2011}

I'll defer to your sysop judgment. It's basically item 3 on the Adding to the Category section. I wouldn't mind seeing it rewritten to what is shown in the OP above to make the letter of the law more clearly match the spirit of the law. Not really an earth-shattering change though.-MHSstaff 01:31, 12 April 2011 (BST)

so does this mean the ck bid was successful? -- The preceding signed comment was added by these amazing looking

bitch 03:16 11 April 2011 (UTC)

No. Policy is being clarified, not changed. --VVV ^RPMBG 03:18, 11 April 2011 (BST)

I think that guy was just being a nitpick, I don't think this is necessary at all :( But I won't mind if people really want to change it just to clarify. I guess. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 05:05, 11 April 2011 (BST)

Sorry DDR, but my point was made in perfect seriousness. Policies which can be misinterpreted and read in multiple ways are bad policies and must be struck down. The "within" in the policy as it stands serves to make two weeks the maximum time voting must run for as opposed to being the prescribed voting time it was intended to be. I think MHS' alternate wording is a vast improvement. Gordon 20:33, 11 April 2011 (BST)

That's how I kinda look at it. Yeah, it's not too big of a deal but it's a quick fix and removes all doubt. -MHSstaff 01:01, 12 April 2011 (BST)

Holy fuck, GTFO! The policy's intent is clear. The vote goes for two weeks, and as long as it gains the required number of votes, and required percentage, it passes. It is not closed earlier just because it suddenly gains the right percentage at any point in time before two weeks is up... that would just be batshit insane. Basically, change it as Karek said, or leave it be, and keep the current (correct) interpretation -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:17 14 April 2011 (BST)

Recent Actions

Some of my user pages

Re-protected my user page, sig and archive. =3 -- Cheese 12:49, 14 April 2011 (BST)

UDWiki:Administration

Needs {{shortcut|A}} added to the top of the page. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 02:52, 12 April 2011 (BST)

Got this myself. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 05:16, 13 April 2011 (BST)