UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard/Archive 18

Upcoming Hardware Changes
 

vandal IP

this guy keeps vandalizing skill pages: 98.15.210.73   
: Only two vandal edits and the fact that he/she stopped right after being warned does not really warrant any further actions. --Krusty 05:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandal

Using a second account. . -- DKong27    04:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

:And another . -- DKong27    04:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

:: All done. --Krusty 05:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandal

Please take care of this IP 24.109.215.3. --AKB   04:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
: Done. Thanks. rpeh  04:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
::Your welcome, and thank you, I feared I'd have to hit F5 all night to keep a watch on recent changes. --AKB   04:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Precautionary Protection

Just as a precaution, can an Admin please semi-protect . It was vandalized once very early on, and really, nobody but Blockers and Admins should normally have any reason to edit it anyway.  &ndash; Robin Hood    06:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Namespaces in Search
 

Spammer

This edit is pure spam so should get an infinite block. It doesn't look like we have any admins around at the moment, but it one should pass by, please could he or she do the honours? Thanks. rpeh  09:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

And another spammer

The IP is 109.230.251.252, the page it created was a sandbox for a talk page of an inactive editor. I blanked it and added a speedy template but the IP still needs to be taken care of. --AKB   04:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

:Edit: and Krusty already took care of it, thanks for the swift response! --AKB   04:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocker Rights

I wasn't sure where exactly to put this, so I figure here would be alright. I know that I was just recently made a Patroller, but I would like to ask again for more rights; this time as a Blocker. There have been several times where I have been working against vandals while no admin is online. I feel that in these times, a short block would have been very successful in warning the vandal, but nobody was around to do so. I cannot find much information on Blockers, but I have seen rpeh do so, and I think I could handle the responsibility. -- DKong27    04:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandal IP
 

Semi-Protection
 

Another spammer

IP number 178.150.200.230, it has added two spam messages now to what seems to be a porn site. --AKB   16:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

: Blocked for 3 hours. I imagine an admin will be along shortly to make it permanent. rpeh  17:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

::Thanks Rpeh, lets hope this one won't slip through the cracks again. --AKB   17:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

::: Done. --Krusty 17:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Skyrim Semi Protection

Based on this recent edit, the semi protection for  is failing or not implemented correctly. --Wizy   03:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
: I gave it another 6 months; the original semi-protection only lasted a month (obviously made before we expanded it), so thanks for noticing. --Krusty 07:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Worshiper to Worshipper
 

Monobook.js

For some reason, I can't patrol this edit, which is marked as unpatrolled on the recent changes page. According to the patrol log it wasn't already patrolled. So, is this normal? --Jplatinum16 03:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

: It's a bit of an oddity with the patrol code. Only admins can patrol edits to users' Javascript pages. rpeh  10:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

:: Same with me when I was trying to patrol some edits at Emoboy64's monobook page. Nothing abnormal I suppose. --Rigas Papadopoulos  14:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

SKYRIM!

Hi guys youve semi locked the skyrim page however from the screenshots given on  a lot of information can be gathered like the 7 schools of magic (enchanting is BACK!) ect, some should update the page  

Spammer

 is a spammer --Brf 18:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
: Got it. --Krusty 18:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandal

This Anon has now repeatedly vandalized the Oblivion Vampirisim page even after being I warned it. --AKB   22:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
: Done. Do me a favor, though - instead of the trendy edit summary "rv", please state the problem instead - much easier to spot. --Krusty 22:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
::What do you mean, I don't think I have ever used "rv" as an edit summary? DKong27 undid the most recent one, with rv I might add. Would you prefer me to specify the specific form of vandalism for now on (which would be nonsense in this case correct?) or was this aimed at DKong? --AKB   22:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
::: Nothing personal; I'm aware who reverted the last edit, but it is merely a request for everyone, so we can avoid clogging up this page with reminders. Don't get me wrong, it is very useful when these things are mentioned (especially when there are no admins around), but more precise edit summaries would be helpful. :) --Krusty 22:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
::::Ah, okay then I'll try to be more precise with my edit summaries for now on. Thanks for the help. --AKB   22:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Captcha Whitelist
 

CSS Format Tweak

In this page, please could an admin delete the "margin-bottom: -0.5em;" line from the "table.wikitable caption" definition? It's been bugging me for a while now: it causes table captions to overlap the table on pages like this. Thanks. rpeh  17:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
: All done! --Krusty 17:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
:: Better, thanks! If people can't see the change, do a hard-refresh to force a reload of the CSS. rpeh  17:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Troublesome Anon
 

Rename Request

Please could an admin do this? rpeh  23:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
: Done. --Krusty 06:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Obvious Vandal
 

Failed protection of Lore:Skyrim?
 

Anon vandal
 

Main Page edit request

At the moment we have a link at the bottom right of the Main Page to "Newest Articles". The trouble is that with our namespace structure it doesn't work because the default link only shows new articles in mainspace, where almost nothing ever happens. Although this could be changed to show all namespaces ( ), that would include every new talk page and user page, which is also undesirable. My suggestion is that since the link appears at the bottom of the "Did you know..." section, that the link should point to this page, with a link text of "More facts..." (or something like that - note that the "..." is for consistency with the other two main page links). Any objections? rpeh  20:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
: I've been puzzled about that empty link for the longest time - and you're right, it's pointless as it is now. I'll see what I can do - more facts are funnier than an empty page! --Krusty 20:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Protecting Archives
 

Request for Adminship

Our Request for Adminship (RfA) process is based on Wikipedia's policy.  An editor, when nominated, accepts and answers questions, which can be asked by any registered editor.  Votes and comments can also be left by any registered editor.  Daveh makes the call, based upon the community's consensus, after about a week.

:''Consensus: Support
:moved to   --GK'''  02:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Potential Multi Account Vandal
 

Search Log
 

Search Issues and Improvements
 

New Articles

Please could an admin create the following (that I'm not going to link in case the answer is "no" in order not to create wanted links):
Skyrim:Development Team
Skyrim:Concept Art
One that I don't have a title for but would be something like "Pre-Release Content" for in-game pictures and video.
I believe I have enough content for all three (the last two are pretty easy!). If you'd prefer I sandbox first and let you move, please let me know.

At the moment, I'd vote against unprotecting the whole namespace. The guesswork already taking place on pages like  would suggest that a page containing "He may of been in knight of teh nine" would appear fairly quickly. rpeh  23:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
: Your wish is my command. Two minutes... --Krusty 23:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

::In the same spirit as the above, I left a message on the Skyrim talk page requesting for a new article, only to realize it would be more appropriate here. May an admin please create something like Skyrim:Dragon or Skyrim:Dragons? I'd hate to see this sandbox go to waste. --AKB   18:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

:::That's a rather good page, but it's exactly what I was afraid of and why I suggested the page blacklist in the first place. We're eventually going to have a Skyrim:Dragon page and it'll have all the necessary stats and details on it when we have them. I'd guess about 90% of the sandbox content wouldn't be relevant to the final game because it's information that will be superseded. Furthermore, all the references to interviews and articles won't be wanted. I'd also hate to see that sandbox go to waste, but my preference would be for it to go on  as a new section rather than having it as a new article. rpeh  18:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

::::I understand the purpose of the blacklisting of Skyrim articles, but of course that doesn't seem to be enough. For example Skyrim related articles are constantly being edited to include info from Skyrim, or pages for Skyrim are created in other space, such as the earlier made page for the Dovakiin in Lore space. It is obvious these pages are wanted if we want to make them or not. The reason I worked on this was an attempt to help avoid these issues. I understand that eventually the page would be almost entirely rewritten as the information may be untrue in the final release or as the information is superseded by the actual game, which would make the references useless. This article was an attempt to at least create one new article for Skyrim that would of been written appropriately, with as little speculation and as much genuine information as possible. I can't really thank of a way to include any of the information on this sandbox on the Skyrim main page without it looking unseemly, maybe a sentence or two, but besides that it will be a wasted effort on my part. I understand your logic though, and I guess I will go back to ignoring Skyrim for now. --AKB   00:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

:::::If GK or Krusty wants to create the article then I won't object, but I don't personally think it's the right decision to create articles that we know are going to be completely re-written when the game is released. rpeh  10:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

:::::: I think the article is good, but still lacking; let's face it, at this point most of the Skyrim coverage is hype and is subject to change over and over during the final stages of development. Look at Horses - they haven't even made up their minds about that feature yet! While I like the article, I suggest to keep it around for a month, just to see if we can get closer to the truth. Do not delete it, please. :) --Krusty 11:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

 It has been roughly a month now and I've heard pretty much no major news about dragons. The three most likely reasons for this are:
I've somehow missed any major news about dragons
There isn't really much else to say about dragons.
Bethesda is keeping there mouth shut about dragons to avoid spoilers.
Unless it is possibility one, there isn't anything else to do to this page until game release. So is it safe to launch it? I don't think we are likely to ever get any closer too understanding dragons until we have the game in our hand, but if you still believe that the page shouldn't be launched because of the lack of information then I'll understand; admittedly I'll be a bit disappointed but I will understand your reasoning entirely. --AKB   03:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
:Honestly, I have been wondering why the page hasn't been launched. Personally I think that posibility one is nearly impossible. Plus, the article you've created is very thorough and accurate from the gathered knowledge on Dragons. I have no issues with the article being launched.--Kalis Agea  03:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
::My opinions are on record. I don't want people to think that I'm making a vote though; I've stated my views and will await a consensus or at least, a clear view. I'm not going to create it myself until some more people have had their say, but as I said above, I'm happy for another admin to do so. rpeh  07:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
:::A fair enough point rpeh, I can understand the hesitation here as this decision seems to come down to if we are going to be willing to allow pre-release content pages in Skyrim space. Regardless, I stand by my belief that having several well written content pages created by experienced editors can only help avoid some of the trouble we have been having with Skyrim pre-release content appearing on pages that have the remotest connection to Skyrim. Yes, I understand that the page will need to be entirely re-written later on, but it is better than having nothing I believe. --AKB   08:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

::::Nudge* Am I correct to assume that this topic being ignored means that no one else wants to consider us having additional Skyrim articles? Any more opinions on this or are we going to wait until Skyrim is released to begin developing Skyrim Space more? --AKB   05:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

:::::I'm still not convinced this is a great idea, but I've created the page. The sandbox you've created is very well done and since Dragons are causing probably the biggest stir out of any new feature in TESV, it's just about worth breaking the normal rule. rpeh  16:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

::::::I understand your reservations with this, indeed I felt like I was starting to lean in the camp thinking this was a bad idea. And I most certainly won't try to create another Skyrim article in the aftermath of all of the trouble it caused :-). While I'm being problematic though do you think you can create the talk page? I'd imagine it might see some use between now and the release of Skyrim. --AKB   16:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Multiple IP Confusion

Several IP anons have been posting around claiming that they have been warned or blocked. See User talk:Wolok gro-Barok and User talk:Rpeh. The Anons have blank talk pages with no curious edits to be seen. --  23:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

: There are two possibilities that I can see here.
: The first is that we're being trolled. There's always been a problem with people getting an IP that was previously assigned to someone else and wondering why they're getting messages intended for the other person, but this doesn't seem to be that: people are getting messages for totally unrelated IP addresses, which is just plain weird. I wouldn't suggest this as a serious option except the latest spate of "problems" all occurred after I issued this warning to 96.4.127.21 and another to 96.4.127.20 (almost certainly the same person given the IPs are almost identical). On the latter talk page, we first had 94.113.47.248 remove the warning, then 2.97.100.149 add a message and lastly, 203.97.155.77 add another message.
: I've just run 96.4.127.20 through WhatIsMyIpAddress.com and it confirms that it's a proxy server as is 96.4.127.21. 94.113.47.248 translates to the Czech Republic, 2.97.100.149 to England and 203.97.155.77 to New Zealand. This means it's entirely possible that the last three addresses all got the message because they were using the same proxy. It would be odd that three different people from all around the world used the same proxy to view the same site within such a small time period, and it's quite possible that those addresses are proxies too.
: The second possibility is that somehow, caching is involved. Is it possible that if one IP user was viewing a page when the New Messages banner appeared that the next IP user to view the same page would get the banner because that version was in the cache? I couldn't make this happen with a couple of quick tests, but it might explain what's happening.
: We'll have to wait and see for a bit. Given that a confirmed proxy is involved, I'm not inclined to take this too seriously at the moment. rpeh  07:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
:: I presumed that they were using a proxy website, maybe to bypass office blocking, and the proxy website re-routed them through other IPs to bypass said blocking. I'm inclined to doubt any troll would put in that much effort. However, I could be entirely wrong. Just my two cents. :) Apollo Quinn 09:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

:::Can we just start deleting these messages on site? They are getting quite annoying, and aren't doing anything but taking up space as the IPs don't seem to stick around after they leave a message about "their" warning. --AKB   02:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

::::It might be worth having a standard message to use, or reviewing the block messages we use. rpeh  09:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

::::: Right, this is obviously a problem that is still on going, and may in fact be older than we first thought. This message on my talk page is just one example of this problem, which shows that it dates back to at least last month. I've even seen it reported on the forums. Is there any other possibilities that might be causing this problem? I don't think we are being trolled, and I would have trouble believing all of these cases are caused by proxies (Not that I checked to confirm this belief). It seems obvious that we must at least edit our warning and block messages to have a line like:

::::: "If you are not the responsible party for this vandalism, and you do not share a connection with this user or IP, please ignore this message."

:::::No matter what something has to be done as this problem doesn't show any signs of stopping itself. --AKB   21:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

::::::I can give a little first-hand experience myself: When I was first viewing UESPWiki, a while a go to say the least, every few times I brought up the mainpage from my favorites menu, I would see a warning about vandalism/nonsense, dispite not editing pages at that point. This problem only seemed to go away after I created an account, and logged in. I only edited once I had my account, not before, which is why I was confused about the nonsense warnings, particularly because they seemed to have a random IP each time. I strongly suggest that admins, patrollers, or other frequent users try clearing their browser memory caches, then logging out and browsing the main page/recent changes page anonymously (but not edit) to see if this problem can be reproduced. If innocent IPs can come accross these notices, I think we can say safely that IP identification/warning system needs to be re-examined.

::::::Another Idea: sometimes gateways/routers/switches/hubs can be set up to automatically assign IP addresses, for convenient network connecting. This means that users with a router can have different IPs on different days without realizing it, or intending it. Many people have routers, especially if they have multiple consoles/computers. This problem can increase exponentially if apartment buildings, for instance, are sharing a daisy-chained router or server array. I hope, someway, this helps. - Neural Tempest 00:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

:::::::(Neural Tempest Speaking) Just as a demonstration, last time I was online, my IP seemed to show 64.231.249.93, and I did not fiddle with any settings. Now check my signature, (64.231.248.235 16:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)) not quite the same, is it? This was all automatic, with no interference from me. (Now, time to sign with my normal sig:) - Neural Tempest 16:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

:::::::(Neural Tempest Speaking Again) Ha! Absolute proof of IP changes! After 2 hours, I check back, and my IP address (64.231.251.39 19:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)) has changed without any manipulation by me, which shows just how easily people could get unintended messages. Assuming that there are limited numbers for IP possibilities, eventually, with dynamic IPs, one person could get a message for their IP, when a different person previously edited with the same one. I think we need to examine the IP identification system, to see if it's really a good means of notification. 

:::::::My Idea: since users can create an account free of cost, and anyone can create an account, perhaps edits should only be allowed for logged-in users. It would be a pain to implement, but with dynamic IPs, misidentification will become increasingly prevalent. Dynamic IPs also mean that blocked IPs might be of little use. Please try blocking this IP (64.231.251.39 19:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)), to see if I can work around it. Assuming that if I log on, my main ID (Neural Tempest) should have no problem, blocking the IP I signed with (64.231.251.39 19:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)) should be a good experiment. I will try posting again later, to see if my IP changes, at which point we can assume that blocking anonymous IPs is really a stop-gap measure. If only logged-in users can edit, blocking could be more effective, assuming they don't create sock-puppets. - Neural Tempest 19:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

::::::I just wanted to verify that it was truly I who posted these last two, because without my confirmation, this would be hard to check. I used 64.231.248.235 and 64.231.251.39, but these are my only posts made without my true Log-in. (I posted this message for anti-impersonation purposes) - Neural Tempest 19:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

:::::::: Coming up to the release of Skyrim, I think blocking IPs from editing might be necessary. If it also solves this problem (although in a very brute-force way), then all the better. Legoless 19:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

{od} Since you two agree, I'll take it to the CP - Anonymous editing is definitely a site-wide discussion.--  Ghurhak gro-Demril        20:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

: Blocking IPs from editing is almost certainly not going to happen. The main reason is that it doesn't stop vandals, because they can just create an account and edit from that instead. The fact that they have to create an account gives people an extra chance for silliness, as they can create one using whatever insults or obscenities they like and we have no (easy) way of hiding it in the logs. This has actually happened at least once before.
: Thank you to Neural Tempest for the research on dynamic IP addresses, but it's already well-understood. My own IP typically changes several times a day. If bouts of vandalism came from a group of IPs like the one you describe, it would be spotted and a range block might be used. For instance, see this note from 2009, and this one from 2007, which was (I think) the first time a range block was used on UESP. Admins have the CheckUser tool, which while far from perfect, makes it fairly easy to see when IPs are in a similar range. rpeh  07:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

::Are there any rejections to the much simpler, "Alter our warning/block messages" suggestion? I see no reason to block IPs from editing because of problems with them getting others warnings. But my previous suggestion is an easy enough thing to implement. --AKB   16:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

:::We're certainly going to have to do that, but I'm trying to write up a wider-ranging suggestion for modifying our block policy and hope to present the whole thing as one topic rather than doing it piecemeal. rpeh  17:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

::::I think that it could be beneficial to put a link in Warnings to User Contributions, with a note that if there is nothing there, to ignore the warning. --  17:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

:::::I know I am not an admin, but might I suggest something? How about making it so that you can still block IP editing, but making it so that you have to have at least been on the wiki for a day or two, and responded to the welcome message, and participated in one conversation on another user's talk page that was not vandalism or spam.--Iamgoofball 17:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

:::::: That's a bit specific, if you ask me. I think you're getting at autoconfirmed users, but without the rights to edit then that would be impossible to achieve. And not everyone responds to their welcome message (quite the contrary, actually). Nor would many new users randomly comment on someone's talk page (unless they mistake it for a forum, as is often the case). And it still doesn't get around the problem of offensive usernames that rpeh brought up. Legoless 17:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

 We are not blocking all IPs. More importantly we aren't also blocking all new users, how would you had felt if we blocked you from editing for a few days after responding to a welcome message? Not only would your suggestion destroy our ability to recruit new editors, but it is pointless. Many people aren't here to just talk with other editors, they want to contribute to the wiki, and they aren't guaranteed to even know how to find active conversations. In fact your suggestion would see us only recruiting editors who would be better off using the forums, leading to many undesirable editors clogging up discussions and recent changes with pointless forum like nonsense (After all, how would they know what is appropriate idea if they aren't given an opportunity to learn how to properly edit?). Your suggestion not only blocks IPs, but also effectively blocks all new editors. We really don't have that much of a vandalism problem that we need to block everyone not already here, why is that so hard to understand? This is in no way a solution to our current problems. --AKB   18:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

: Well I've started things rolling here. Feel free to continue commenting here, but any concrete suggestions should now go on that thread instead, since we're discussing changes to the policy. rpeh  18:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

  Okay, I finally saw this problem for myself and I'm now convinced that it's down to caching. I purged the page concerned (the main page) and the problem went away. Since the problem was on the main page, it might explain why we were getting so many of these. rpeh  18:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)