UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard/Archive 20

91.201.66.76

Is a known Bot IP. mxk101  22:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

: There's a lot of it about, alas. I usually prefer to block only when it becomes a problem. rpeh  22:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

::Alright, that bot is driving me nuts! We've reverted it's edits 5 TIMES NOW! Something needs to be done!--Iamgoofball 03:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

::: Yes. This particular bot keeps defacing the same page. --Brf 03:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

:::: Now blocked. It had its chance. rpeh  07:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Electronic Cigarette bot

I've seen two of these recently, and I believe it's a bot.--Iamgoofball 04:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

: It could be, or it could be somebody in an Internet sweatshop doing it manually. It's happening on one or two other sites too. rpeh  07:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

::Is there something we can do about this, it's really annoying. Can we block the creation of pages that say cigarette, or maybe make it a spot word or something. I'm not sure how that works exactly... --  01:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

::: Strange. Rpeh put in a block for cigarette pages earlier today. It must be coded wrong. --Brf 01:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

:::: Except I tested it and it works fine. See for yourself - click here and you should get an error message. I don't understand how it got created. rpeh  06:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

:::::I can backup that it led to an error. I think the accounts were created before this and the pictures were already up as well. Unless another one gets created somehow I dont think there is any need to worry.--Catmaniac66 06:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

:::::: You may have to remove such a ban if a cigarette item was at any point important enough to have it's own page.--184.66.11.119 13:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Any Chance I Could get semi protection

For my User Page----''Candc4, Also known as the Man Inside the Sexy Leather Pants CT'' 20:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

: I don't think it's really necessary. Semi protection for a user page is only appropriate if it's been vandalised repeatedly, and that hasn't really happened to your. If our mutual friend returns it might be worth doing for a little while, but blocking is more appropriate - as already done by Krusty. rpeh  20:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Troublesome IP

80.58.205.102 has repeatedly vandalised pages and added vulgarities in Spanish. They were already warned once in May, and again yesterday. While it's common procedure to allow one more edit in case the editor hadn't seen the issued warning, the obscenity placed on  earlier today was added more than 29 hours after the second warning. I'll leave it up to an admin to decide on what course of action to take. Legoless 15:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
: Yup, correct - repeated vandalism. All done. --Krusty 16:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent Changes Suggestion

I wasn't exactly sure where to put this, but as it involves changing Special pages I figured admins might know more. On Halopedia, their Recent Changes page has some basic links at the top that I think would be nice to have here as well. Mainly the Logs are handy to have listed with links. A link to this page would be nice too. I'm not sure what it takes to edit Special pages, so I'll leave that up to someone who does. --  04:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

: We can do that, if people want. It's another MediaWiki page -  , which already has a link to this page on it. If we start including more links we'll have to abandon the trail-like method we use at the moment and switch to a larger list. What we can't do is use the New Pages link.  exists, but because we use so many different namespaces, it's not practical to keep a link to all of them. rpeh  06:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Site Traffic Update

Just a quick update to give some recent site traffic numbers. This past week saw the highest traffic the site has ever seen, probably due to E3, with Sunday having the record as the highest traffic so far with around 1.1 million Wiki page views:

:* May 2010 Average = 570,000 views/day
:* May 2011 Average = 760,000 views/day
:* June 6-12 2011 Average = 920,000 views/day
:* June 12 = 1,100,000 views

I would expect traffic to continue to slowly increase with the odd weekend/holiday spike until 11/11/11 hits. Despite an almost doubling of traffic in the past year the servers are all humming along just fine and most really haven't noticed (there are a few odd CPU spikes on db1 I'll be checking into and watching just in case). -- Daveh 13:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

:Always good to have people coming around...as long as they don't vandalize of course. >.> It would be great if there are no server issues. It will be interesting to see how the site's traffic changes over time as we approach Skyrim, and in the months following. Maybe we'll get some great new editors along the way. :D --  14:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


:Wow nice numbers there. Do you know where the views are coming from? --Robertmassaioli 10:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Update -- 8 Aug 2011
New Site Record: With the recent news of the collector's edition we hit around 1.25 million page views last Sunday (Aug 7th). Average daily views over the month of July is just over 1 million. -- Daveh 21:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Another Record: 1.33 million page views on Sunday, August 14th. Average for August so far is over 1.1 million page views/day. -- Daveh 23:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Troublesome One

 He has Vandalized 1 page. just a heads up.
Edit: Lets make that 4 plus one he vandalized twice.  

:I have a feeling that the same anon keeps using different IPs. They all seem to have a obsession with the N-word. --  16:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

:: It seems that this isn't done, although the IP has moved on. Over the past couple of days, 67.159.36.29, 67.159.36.24, 67.159.36.22, and 67.159.36.21 have all made similar edits. I just did a quick test and blockers are able to issue range blocks as well as blocking individual IPs. For instance, to block all four of those IPs (and others in a similar range), you can block 67.159.36.16/28, which blocks 16 IP addresses from 67.159.36.16 to 67.159.36.31.
:: This should never be done unless there's serious, sustained, repeated vandalism from one particular range - and I mean more than a few hours. Range blocks can go up to a /16 range, which takes out 65,536 IP addresses in one hit. Any IP range block should be posted on this page, even if made by an admin, as it's not always obvious exactly what's been blocked. See this MediaWiki page for more info. rpeh  22:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Recovering Account

I had an account on this site a while ago, and no longer remember my password. I tried using the "Forgot your password?" function multiple times, but my password is not being emailed to me. Is there any way that I can get the password? I know the email that should be on there, if any verification is required. The user profile is Puddle. Thank you for reading.- 24.247.55.44 23:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
: Hey Puddle. Unfortunately, I can't help you with the password problem. Try and contact Daveh on his talk page. --Krusty 06:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
::The password will be getting mailed, but it's probably ending up in your spam folder. If it's not there, contact Daveh as Krusty suggested. Good luck. rpeh  07:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Range Blocks

Looks like we're in for a fun night. See the post a couple of threads up for info on range blocks. For now, I've blocked 74.63.112.128/27 - which means everything from 74.63.112.128 to 74.63.112.159 - 32 IPs. It looks like these are all associated with HideMyAss.com but there might be exceptions so admins should be aware of this. Please mark any other range blocks in this section. rpeh  23:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
: Blocked the same range on the 18th of June 2011 at 15:06 for 3 hours
: Blocked the same range on the 20th of June 2011 at 22.02 for 12 hours --Krusty 22:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Spambot

178.165.68.12. Left this message, which is translated on that page's deletion template. --Legoless 01:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
: Done. --Krusty 06:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Deleting to Restore

You may notice I've deleted a few pages with the comment "Deleted to restore minus nonsense" and then restored them again. The other admins can see the results of this by looking at the deletion history for the page - some revisions remain deleted. Basically I got bored by the latest load of nonsense and decided to remove it permanently. This is a slightly non-standard use of the deletion tools (although it's been done a few times before) so I thought I should explain here. Admins can still see the deleted revisions and they still show up in the Deleted Contributions for each IP. If this use of deletion isn't popular, it's easy to undo - go into the deletion history for a page, click the "Invert selection" button to select all of the deleted revisions, then click "Restore". rpeh  08:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
:I definitely find it useful. It keeps the history of many articles clean (from spam and offensive material). ''   ( ) '' 02:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
:: Incredibly useful tool and not only because of the things mentioned by Elliot - it also clears all embarrassing bull and inappropriate Edit Summaries from the Recent Changes with a single click.  :) --Krusty 04:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

74.63.112.151

This IP, despite being blocked, continues to add racist phrases (Rassistische Sätze in deutscher Sprache. Yeah, I speak a little German, though my writing isn't too great... :D ) to his User page. Usually this would not be a problem, but he continues to add it back after I remove it. So can we please remove his Talk Page editing privileges?--Kalis Agea  04:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
: All done! --Krusty 04:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
::Thanks, Krusty!--Kalis Agea  06:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for new right for blockers

I would like to request, if at all possible, that members of the blocker group have the ability to remove talk page privileges when blocking someone. This way we can avoid further vandalism from certain vandals who are likely to end up on the permanent block list as soon as an admin takes care of it. I believe that this is something that only Daveh can change but if it is possible for admins to do this I would request that they do. Or if you have a reason for why this can not be done I'd love to hear it. --AKB   15:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

: Probably a good idea, but only Daveh can make that change. rpeh  16:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

:: A previous discussion on this proposal can also be seen here, for anyone who's interested. --Legoless 16:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

:::A good idea, but blockers need to be careful not to choke accounts too soon; it should really only be used by them in cases of extreme vandalism. ''   ( ) '' 22:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

::::I'd like to bring this up again, it would be easier to stem the tide of nonsense in many cases if we can shut accounts out completely. --AKB   04:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

:::::Complete support, as a Blocker and a user who has seen more vandalism than...something witty. --  04:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Checking Site Status

Rpeh notified me of a short outage this morning and that many links on the  page were broken. I've updated the links on that page and thought I'd just explain how other admins and editors can use the various monitoring and status pages if needed and other potentially useful tips:

:* Quick Status --  A quick status of content servers can be viewed by the Apache/Lighttpd status pages at:
::* 
::* 
::* 
::* 
:: This gives a quick overview of what each server is doing, requests that are being served, etc.... With a little experience you can easily tell if a server is overloaded or has a normal load. If I suspect an issue these pages are usually the first ones I'll check.
:* Zabbix Monitoring --  The Zabbix monitoring site is available at monitor.uesp.net and statistics are available to view by anonymous access. It does ask for a username/password but just ignore that and hit the Monitoring link in the upper left corner. There is a lot of data being collected so it can be difficult to find what you need. I usually start on the Monitoring--Latest Data section, choose the host in the upper-right, find a stat and click the Graph link on the right. Zabbix is using the backup MySQL database on content3 so using it won't affect the main site at all. There are a lot of stats, rules, and triggers that can be used as well as email or SMS alerts.
:* Bypassing Squid --  The default www site goes through the Squid cache on squid1 and, if needed, accesses dynamic content on the content1/2 servers. If there is an issue with squid1 you can bypass the Squid cache by using content1.uesp.net, content2.uesp.net, or content3.uesp.net. Content3 is an extra/backup/test server not normally used and may be available even if www/squid1/content1/content2 are not available (depends on the exact issue). There is no harm in using content1 instead of www other than a slight loss of performance and you may occasionally be redirected back to the regular www sub-domain.

Generally you shouldn't ever need to use these pages but there will always be the occasional site issue where I'm not immediately available and the services listed above can help diagnose a large number of issues. It helps greatly to get an e-mail saying "content1 is overloaded due to a DoS from IP ##.##.##.##" rather than just "the site is broken". I still have to look into the site issue this morning but I do know there have been CPU overloads on content2 a few mornings around 8am this week. -- Daveh 01:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

:Ah, and when you reply "what is broken exactly?" you'll probably get a response similar to ''"well... it doesn't work!"''. ;-)
:Good to have the links by hand again. --Timenn-  09:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

:: Thanks for updating those, Daveh. Hopefully I'll be able to give you a better error report next time! rpeh  10:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Spam Bot

See this user's contributions for an example of spam. Quick question, would it be better to just use my blocker abilities to give these guys a short block and report it through the block notification page (Saving the admin board from being covered in topics like this), or should I just report it here and wait for an admin to deal with it. The reasoning behind this is one that Elliot brought up a while ago, spam bots rarely bother to do more then one edit of spam before stopping. Of course if there was a more major spam attach which saw a spam bot making multiple edits to spam links I'd block it but I would prefer to know how you admins would have me deal with these situations. Either way, it isn't the most important issue, but I'd prefer to know how you would have me deal with spammers such as this one. --AKB   03:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

:While we are here, here's another spammer. Google confirmed that this IP has been used to spam Wikia in the past as well. --AKB   04:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

::I would say don't use them. It is pretty obvious when a spammer is human or not. It's when there are countless edits pouring in. These bots (or sometimes third world one timers) shouldn't be blocked because it isn't being used a preventative measure. A administrator will come by and indef them. You should only use your blocker rights when you are trying to prevent ongoing vandalism. ''   ( ) '' 06:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Can Someone Do Me A Favour?

I need someone to go to this Photobucket site and get a link to every image in that album (the Morrowind one). The easiest way to do this is to hover over the image, move over "Direct link" in the popup and click, which causes the URL to get copied to the clipboard. Please put ALL the links into an Email to me. In case you're wondering, I'm doing his Oblivion album, where the little b*****d has copied hundreds of our images. I need this for an email to the PB people, who require a direct link for each image we want deleted. Please help - it's tiring me out doing the OB ones. rpeh  15:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
:I have sent you an e-mail with all of the Morrowind images. mxk101  16:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
::Brilliant! Surprise, it went into my spam folder. 285 Oblivion images and 67 Morrowind images. I hate these people. rpeh  16:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, for future reference (and in case any other admin needs to know) this is Ticket#2011062910000744 at Photobucket.

It's worth pointing out two other things here.
# If you spot an image copied from UESP, it's probably best to bring it up here so an admin can contact whoever's necessary rather than trying to do it yourself. Apart from anything else, it might not be a violation - remember our Copyright and Ownership policy allows copying with credit.
# Do not upload copyright images to UESP, as it can get us into trouble. If you created an image yourself and uploaded it in other places, please say so on the image summary. Uploading or posting copyrighted material is grounds for a warning, and even a block if performed repeatedly.

In case anybody thinks I take our images too seriously, I'd point out that many of them are the final results of efforts by several editors to come up with an ideal picture. All our new images are carefully taken to ensure they're of the best possible quality, and a lot of effort goes in to ensuring this is the case. If someone wants to use an image, all we require is a credit, which isn't much to ask for given the effort expended. rpeh  16:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

: Aaaaand gone. Thank you to Photobucket for dealing with that so quickly. Now I just have to wait for the Google Images cache to clear itself before going after the next lot... rpeh  16:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

::Great job getting that whole thing taken care of. Good to know that Photobucket is prompt at taking care of such issues. --  17:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Oversight Extension

I think I speak for everyone when I say I'm getting very bored with our latest vandal. The latest version of MediaWiki has some really useful functionality called RevisionDelete that lets us hide details of any action on the site, including usernames and so on. An upgrade is a huge job, however, and won't be happening just yet. In the meantime I'd like to suggest that we install this extension, which should let us hide the worst of the idiocy without having to do the delete/restore thing.

If everybody's okay with this, I'll suggest it to Daveh. rpeh  08:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
: Definitely okay with this! --Krusty 08:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

::That looks like a handy little extension. Hiding without having to upgrade would be great until the MediaWiki is upgraded at some point in the future. --  13:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

:::Definite support from me. One question though, is this intended to be a tool for the admins or the patrollers as well (Or some other group, but I believe those are the two most logical choices for who would get this)? If it is admin only it would definitely save you guys some time, but given to the patrollers we should be able to clean up most particularly nasty vandalism. --AKB   15:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

::::Admins only. Remember that we're talking about a utility that can wipe out any record of any post. On Wikipedia they have an extra group (Oversighters) because it's such a potentially dangerous tool.
::::Okay, I'm going to ask Daveh to install it. I know this is a short debate, but given recent activity I'm sure you can understand why. If a later consensus develops against this extension, we can stop using it or remove it entirely. rpeh  22:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::A little late, but I support this as well. I have for awhile now. I recommend making an extra group, just to be safe. Right now, I would only want rpeh, Krusty, and GK (and Daveh obviously) to be in the group. I find it a bit worrisome to have some people who haven't edited in years to have that ability if they decide to come back... Plus, having a focused group of members would be more efficient. ''   ( ) '' 22:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Move Rights

Would anybody object to the idea of removing "move" rights from users and moving it to Autoconfirmed Users instead? That would stop newly created accounts moving pages around. rpeh  08:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

: There's rarely a need to move pages around. I would certainly support this. --Legoless 10:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

:: Agreed. I was watching from the shadows as some of today's events unfolded (I missed his moving of the pages, but looked over it later) and was certainly appalled by how much work was needed to reverse it. This would definitely help all of those who have to clean up the mess!--Kalis Agea  12:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

:::There isn't really a reason for unconfirmed users to be moving pages. If one would need to they could easily ask somebody else with those rights to do it. --  13:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC) 

::::Yep, if it needs moving, they can ask an Autoconfirmed user. It's not like there's a shortage of them.--  Ghurhak gro-Demril        15:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

:::::I'd support that, moving can easily screw things up if you don't know what you are doing, I believe you need at least four days and ten edits under your belt until you can be trusted with the concept. --AKB   15:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

::::::I'll ask Daveh to make the change. As with other recent discussions, this one has been necessarily brief. If consensus develops in a different direction, the change can be reverted. rpeh  22:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  Following a rather clever suggestion from Elliot, I modified the Titleblacklist page to prevent page moves by non-autoconfirmed users. It's a bit of a hack and once Daveh gets back from holiday and changes the rights I'll take it off again, but it's a great idea for now. This means new users and users who haven't made a certain number of edits (I can't remember how many) can't move pages. We get get people asking for help on this one. rpeh  17:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

70.110.19.238

This IP has been causing a bit of trouble. It has received three warnings (which probably isn't necessary), two of which were from Honda1996. In this edit the IP signs itself as Honda. But in this edit it vandalises a talk page in a similar fashion to the "Negro Bob" vandal. It could be a shared IP, but the continued warnings it's received, as well as the single vandal edit, made me bring it up here. I don't feel it's deserving of a block, but I don't know how to handle the situation appropriately. --Legoless 14:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

: Whoa, there is no reason to blame any of this on me, I believe that it should have gotten one warning and then after that if it vandalize anything again should be blocked Honda1996 13:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)}}

:: Honda1996, there is absolutely no doubt that you are connected with the IP - and there is no reason to argue. Please stop this behavior right now - if you feel wrongfully accused, at least stop adding warnings to the IP. --Krusty 14:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

::: ok I won't argue anymore about this thing, but it is my personal opinion that you block the ip address thank you Honda1996 10:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)}}

Blocking a Few Choice Words

I recommend adding a few choice words to the filter that prevents page editing. Mainly the N-word, used commonly by our recent vandal. I can't remember what was already in there, and I can;t remember where I found that page anyway... --  03:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


We should block:

Nigger, and every possible variation of the word,

The phrase: HEY RPEH WHY DON'T YOU MAN UP TO USING MULTIPLE ACCOUNTS TO FIGHT YOUR BATTLES LIKE I HAVE? WE'RE THE SAME NIGGA!

Butt****(You know the word)

--I a m g o o f b a l l--Need Something? Drop by on my Talk Page. What I've done for this site. 03:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

:It's already been done. :) ''   ( ) '' 16:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Spambot

This user is a likely spambot. --Legoless 14:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
: Done. --Krusty 14:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Gameinformer used my screenshot



They used my screenshot of the Gray Fox. As cool as that is, is that allowed? ~ Dwarfmp 06:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh and on page 4 they use the Bloated Float at sea as well ~ Dwarfmp 06:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

:I believe under our license you need to only credit the site for it to be allowed (Read about the license here if you are interested), I didn't see them give credit anywhere so this isn't allowed under our license (I think). --AKB   06:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

:: Plus they used the Arene Gate image and a picture of a Vampire. I've sent an email and just this moment got an automated response that they'll reply in 24-48 hours. You'd have thought a magazine would be more aware that you can't just copy images from the internet... rpeh  10:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

:::Yes I thought it was allowed if credit was given, but it hasn't been. I read the license now though, thanks. Good think I noticed, staying up till late in the morning has its advantages! Indeed, I was shocked to see them doing this, I thought this was a professional site. Let's see what happens next, thanks ~ Dwarfmp 19:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

::::I'm really surprised they didn't credit us!  I'm flattered they like our images so much, and with attribution it'll only add to our reputation for quality content.  (Also, it was this image of the arena gate that was used.  Just wanted to mention it in case you were sending links to our images in an email.)  --GK  23:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

:::::I got a response that directed me to a different page to lodge the complaint, so I've re-sent it today. Bit late now, but we'll see what happens next. rpeh  13:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

::::::And now at the end of the article... see for yourself. Thanks to Matt Bertz for swift action. rpeh  15:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Spammer

Sfidelmaxwellp is obviously a spammer. --AKB   01:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

:I've noticed an annoying pattern, this one, and this one have names notably similar to the previous spam bot. Also worth noting that I believe they've all shilled the same product. If an admin will confirm my hunch, can we please see if there are any other obvious connections between all three that we can block to avoid more. Blocking account creation for all accounts with "maxwel" in their name should stop this if it is just some mindless bot attack I believe. --AKB   06:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

::They're IP-hopping, so it's not possible to block them like that. Blocking "maxwel" might prevent legitimate accounts, so I'll add that to the blacklist only if the level of bot activity becomes a problem rather than an annoyance. For now, blocking them one at a time is easy enough to do. rpeh  07:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

  Cute00 is another. --Legoless 15:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
:: Done. --Krusty 15:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Warning Modification

I was just thinking, it might be beneficial to add a link on warnings and other similar notifications to the user's Contributions page, as well as a note about ignoring if there are no detrimental edits listed there. I think this could have multiple benefits, not included to the now occasional IP mis-messages. Offhand I'm not sure how the messages work, with the boxes and whatnot... --           02:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
:The messages are preloaded onto pages such as . However, I'm not sure that your suggestion is important enough to actually be implemented. The cache issue isn't as big as some people may let on. ''   ( ) '' 05:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Oversight

Okay, we now have the Oversight extension installed. This lets admins delete revisions from public sight without having to delete and restore a page. It's a seriously PITA tool to use, and that's good because it should only be used for situations where we really, really, really don't want the vandalism to remain in the logs. In other words, "You all suck" shouldn't be oversighted, but a stream of racist, sexist, whatever-ist filth might need removing.

You can't oversight the latest addition to a page, so you've got to rollback the latest edit (and make a note of the revisionid) then oversight that id. I strongly suggest that admins practice in a sandbox before using the facility.

This is only a stopgap before the site gets upgraded to the latest version of MediaWiki, so hopefully it won't be needed too often. I'll write a quick policy tomorrow, but for now every admin should assume that the correct action is not to oversight. 99 times out of 100, a rollback will be fine. rpeh  23:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

: Okay, I've created   as a really, really quick start. Comments welcome on the policy's talk page. rpeh  13:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Uploading pictures

User  has uploaded two pictures of himself to the wiki, can somebody delete these or something? Kitkat1749 14:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

: I was waiting to see if he did anything with them... rpeh  15:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Two Dalimyrs?

An account has been created with what at first looked like the exact same name. I see now that there's a Dalimyr and a DaIimyr with the 'l' being a capital 'i'. Not only is this confusing, but I noticed the former getting a weird message, which she deleted, but the delete edit keeps getting undone by IP adresses. This second account is most likely created to impersonate or similar. Also, this new account was created a minute after the last revision undo of Dalimyr's talk page  ~ Dwarfmp 01:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
:Elliot spotted that this second account has been editing the userpage of the first. I didn't even realize ~ Dwarfmp 01:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

:: I've blocked the second one because it's too confusing. The editor remains (just about) in good standing, however, and if he or she asks for a new name, the account can be renamed and unblocked. rpeh  08:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested Semi-protection

I think semi-protection on these articles is warranted:
Most of the edits since it was haphazardly split have been reverted because they were useless. The main article was protected long ago, so a protection on these was most likely missed. If it were up to me, I would just delete them, but the protection should be okay for now. ''   ( ) '' 01:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

: Let's see what other people think. The Glitches page was protected because of the whole Glitches/Proposed mess, and when the split occurred it was decided to ditch that in favour of the usual page/talk page system. We can obviously protect the articles and force people to use the talk page, but the trouble is that it's only moving the problem one step further away. In most cases, the same glitch just gets posted on the talk page and we end up having to archive it after a few weeks because the page has got so long. At least if it's on the article we can just revert and forget! rpeh  08:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

::Any one else have an opinion regarding this matter? ''   ( ) '' 01:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

:::Agreed, semi-protection would be quite useful for these articles. It's virtually impossible to maintain any degree of quality with them otherwise. --AKB   03:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
:::: I agree, a semi-protect seems okay for these pages. Rpeh is obviously onto something, but if we can filter the most...odd....glitches out with a semi, let's just try and see how it goes. If the talk pages explode, we can just make them public again? --Krusty 00:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

latest Vandal

I think this one might be a plus sign vandal as there was 3 ip addreses: 220.255.2.110 220.255.2.121 and 220.255.2.165 (From Fear to Eternity- Eddie The Head 07:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC))

: More likely it's someone with a router that changes their IP address. Good work on the reversions. rpeh  08:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible vandalism?

: It says that the Redguard god at the bottom is the god of "Nobody Really Cares" in the body text; Defacement?--184.66.11.119 14:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

::nice spot, i cant find the edit that caused this and i dont know what its supposed to be so we just have to hope Rpeh or someone knows (From Fear to Eternity- Eddie The Head 14:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC))

:::Sounds like a plan.--184.66.11.119 14:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

::::Moving this to the bottom, as I believe it may belong there.--184.66.11.119 14:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

:::::thanks (From Fear to Eternity- Eddie The Head 14:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC))

::::::I know it looks like vandalism, but it isn't. See Varieties of Faith.... rpeh  14:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

:::::::Thank you, this is why I brought it here instead of simply changing it.--184.66.11.119 16:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

::::::::No problem, but you're usually best advised to ask on the article's talk page. In this case, the same topic is the first item there :-) rpeh  15:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Spammers

Looks like we have a few spammers to be dealt with. There are one, two, and three accounts that need to be dealt with. They all appear to have similar names and the first two are spamming services that are quite similar to one another (The third one is advertising some forum I believe). Not much we can do about this besides blocking them, but I just wish to point out this trend. --AKB   05:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

: I know. It's not just here either - I've seen several other wikis getting the same accounts. Even though they all follow a fairly obvious pattern (capital letter; Name; Name; lower case letter), it's not one that can be put into a regular expression, so we can't block them automatically. rpeh  11:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Bethesda Skyrim Update

Just a quick update on where I've gotten talking with Bethesda. Apparently there is no public beta so there's no chance of anyone getting in on that. I would suspect they're doing an internal or private beta/testing. I asked about the Skyrim construction set and they said they weren't planning to talk about it for a while yet they'd see if anything is possible. I would doubt getting anything before the actual game's release but I'll still ask and see what happens. 

I've also asked for any sort of preview information and if we can get in on any public demo/presentations at upcoming gaming conventions. A fan interview is possible so think about how we'd arrange one on the site (via the wiki and/or the forums). -- Daveh 13:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Random Page Link Broken

The random page link seems to not work correctly for me and after giving me a single random link it just keeps returning me to the same page.  I've tried multiple computers and browsers (IE, Chrome, Firefox and Safari) and even on my iPad it does this - even on different internet connections.  The only way I can reliably get it to work is via Opera.  Anyone else aware of this issue?  

: It's a caching issue. Create an account and it'll work fine. rpeh  08:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

86.24.199.117

 has repeatedly added false information to the Alchemy Aquisitions, despite being warned to stop. Kitkat1749   12:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

:ive seen alot of vandals do this; they add false info or disrupt it in some way and then put it back to normal, its annoying ("    12:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC))

:: I'm giving the benefit of the doubt for now. Any more nonsense and there'll be a short block. rpeh  12:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)