UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard/Archive 26

SEVERE caching issues on ths mobile site

Title says it all. On a whim, I checked the CP on my iPhone, and it's way out of date. I'm talking December out of date. Hard refreshing did not fix it, so it's definitely server-side. When I log in, it takes me away from (and keeps me off of) the mobile site, so I can't purge it. Can someone please take a look at this? •          01:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

:It looks like the entire mobile site is down. Every time I try to go to mobile.uesp.net I get a database error. Did Daveh just turn the mobile site off? •      23:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

::Not on purpose. Perhaps me playing with things on content2/3 yesterday broke something. -- Daveh 00:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

::I believe me updating PHP on content3 yesterday changed the error reporting level which resulted in a previous warning becoming an error...or something. Anyways, the mobile site is back to working now and I've disabled the file cache for now which was causing the out of date issues (it has low enough traffic to not be a concern at the moment). -- Daveh 00:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Mass Proposed Deletion

I'm going through and cleaning up , and a lot of empty faction categories still exist. All 364 are listed below.
 

Now, some of these are just alternative descriptions of currently used faction categories, but some are used temporarily for individual quests. I am not too sure these should be kept as categories, though; rather, they should be described on the faction page. elliot   04:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

:So, after thinking about, I want to go ahead and propose all empty faction pages for deletion. I really do not believe they serve a purpose by "being empty"; it doesn't really add to the fact that there is no one in that faction. So any of them found on  are officially proposed for deletion. elliot   05:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
::Being 10 days old now, these can be deleted. elliot   01:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

::Done. --AKB   02:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
:::Thanks! Not to be picky, but my second comment prodded ALL of the faction pages, which includes Tes3Mod and Morrowind. However, I still want opinions regarding those. elliot   02:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

::::And Oblivion, right? Well, they would be useful, if we could determine who is ever a member of the group. However, I see no way of going through the game scripting to determine who joins what faction. As such, I don't see a problem with them being deleted. However, I think we should err on the side of caution with Tes3mod factions, as all of those factions are a part of Tamriel Rebuilt, which is still a work in progress. We may have a need for them yet. The others however, should be deleted. If we were going to figure out a way to add all relevant NPCs to their factions, surely we would of done this already when the bots were running. Most of them also appear to only exist for the PC, so there intended purpose (categorizing what NPC is in what faction), can never be fulfilled as the faction only exists for the PC. --AKB   02:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Actions to be Made

This is a list of actions that I believe are required to be made for this community to continue to function. After recent actions, many users have been driven away from the site due to a number of recent actions and a rise in drama. Some of these actions were only made possible by a degree of mercy to those involved, which obviously did not work out for the best. While these actions will appear to be rather dramatic in themselves, I don't think this site can continue until we get past this. I've given this quite a bit of thought, so I hope this comes off as logical as I can manage. As a final note before I begin listing my reasons for these actions I'm about to make and my request for several others to be done for actions I cannot make myself, I sincerely apologize that I did not make them earlier.

#rpeh is to be blocked immediately. After his removal from the administration of the site, very few of his actions couldn't arguably be considered a personal attack, or at least disruptive. As examples, take this (where he insulted the founder of the site, and is grounds for immediate block in itself), this (which while not a personal attack, is in no way polite, violating our Etiquette guidelines), this (while there is nothing wrong with opposing a nomination, there is something wrong with making accusations about someones personal behavior (i.e. accusing Robin of sucking up to other editors to get his way) without evidence to back it up), and this (where he described Robins actions as a "Total disgrace"). For these actions, I do not see how continuing to allow rpeh to edit will benefit the community when I can find only two actions (replies to messages on his talk page) since his de-adminning that hasn't been disruptive or have been grounds for blocking, I find it hard to defend allowing him to continue to edit for now. If he wishes to contribute positively, I will be both willing to listen to a block appeal and unblock him if the community agrees that he wishes to provide assistance to the site as an editor again.
# 
#Being lenient on administrators and long time editors for inappropriate actions must cease. Throughout this site's history administrators are given much more leeway than any other group of users on the site. This is ridiculous. Administrators and long time editors should be held to a higher standard if anything, not a lower one. Making excuses for "bad days" and the ilk needs to come to an end. If anything, these editors should clearly be the ones to know when they need to log off for the night, or when they shouldn't take part in a conversation, or if they do, they must be as diligent as possible to remain getting upset over it. These past few months have been all the proof we will ever need for this consensus to ignore the wrong doings of certain users does not benefit the site in anyway whatsoever. It's not like this isn't the first time that this hasn't led to problems for the site, and I'm not entirely sure this was even the worse fallout due to this, but I do intend it to be the last if I can. The amount of damage done to our community due to this unofficial policy may very well be irreversible, but it does not need to be repeated.

While some other users may have made inappropriate reactions over the last few days, I do not intend to bring those to light as I believe them to only be unfortunate reactions to the actions of others. This may very well be one of them for all I know. Just to make it clear, I do not wish ill will to any user for any recent action, I'm merely doing what I think is necessary here. Some seem to think that there is such a thing as an entirely happy, one-minded community. I don't think this is the case, nor has it ever been the case. Users have always disagreed on issues throughout this sites history, which is only appropriate for any community-driven site. No community can hope to be one-minded without becoming stagnant. However, divisions with thought between users does not need to be expressed with hostility, and it shouldn't. While discussions can be emotional, expressing your emotions rationally and logically without attacking the other sides is absolutely necessary for discussions to happen without people getting upset and leaving. 

While only one of these actions I can immediately make (blocking rpeh). I ask that you all agree that my other two recommended courses of action need to be made. 

For all of the users who have left these past few days, I do ask that you return when you wish to. I apologize that administrative action on my part wasn't taken earlier to keep these recent issues from getting so sullied. I erroneously thought that inaction was the best action. For those who wish to leave specifically because of my actions, I simply ask that you explain to me what I did wrong so I may rectify my actions. Finally, if the community feels it is I in the wrong here for what I'm about to do, I would like you to consider this my resignation from all duties relating to this site. I bear no hard feelings to any of you if you feel this is the case. --AKB   01:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

:I do not disagree with your actions and I very much agree with them, especially the third proposal, which appears to be a reason for lots of drama around here lately and the cause for allowing tension to rise so high. I am glad that someone is taking action in some way, and it's been needed for a while now. Late action is better than inaction. Hopefully things will cool down now.         01:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

::We all know that this RH thing has been controversial, but there's really no reason to ragequit because of it. Any issues that the community has should be resolved by the community, and that can only happen when we have the whole community. People have different opinions about things, and suggesting that people's opinions classify them into "cliques" or whatever only invites trouble. I see so many people holding grudges against either Krusty or RH that they're unwilling to view any action taken by those users in an objective light.
::Now, maybe it's because I don't use IRC, but I never noticed either Krusty OR RH making edits that couldn't be justified as improvements, and I certainly never noticed any "cliques" forming. Either way, this is a site dedicated to cataloguing knowledge about TES. The reason we registered is because, as a community, we are connected by our love for a great series of video games. This site is OUR "clique", as it were. The concept of cliques developing within cliques is one that disturbs me, because just by registering, we've all signed on to the only clique that needs to exist.
::In short, by ragequitting over something as insignificant as this, you're taking your own voice out of the equation; more importantly, you're taking your valuable contributions out of the equation. "The wiki is going downhill" is not a logical justification for quitting, because as long as we're all here, we'll all be around to keep improving it. The only real way for the wiki to go downhill is for all of its most valued contributors to leave. If you really care about the quality of the wiki, you won't take the easy way out every time there's a setback. ThuumofReason 22:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

:::I am adding Thuums comments here because I feel they are appropriate (He also needs an explaination from you AKB). There is definately a feeling among some users of cliques forming for whatever reason, and that does need looked at. I can't disagree with blocking rpeh in consideration of constant removal of subjects from this page, however care should be taken with everyone else. Feelings are running high at this time and consideration is due before taking further action. I joined after this happened and the fact it is still running shows how much people care about this, but a line needs to be drawn, we need to move on from this and forget about it, things happened, who gives a sh*t, well we all do but its getting us nowhere, so for the good of us all we need to move on, give everyone else one chance, and breath. The Silencer has spoken    01:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

::::I do not endorse the comments of rpeh or Krusty in this instance; I disagreed with them on the underlying issue. But they had the right to speak their minds. I think blocking rpeh was wrong; all he did was express an opinion you disagree with. His comments regarding Robin were very harsh, but were they personal? They were tailored to RH's conduct and performance on the site, and anyone who accepts a nomination has to be open to hearing some criticism. I don't think pulling up non-profane comments from two months ago helps justify a three-month block for expressing his opinion on the merits of Robin as a candidate for adminship (and that was, after all, the subject). These aren't personal attacks, these are attacks some people are taking too personally. I think the number of people who changed their votes evidence that the opinions and arguments of rpeh and Krusty were persuasive to some people, and it seems to me that's what they were designed to do: persuade, not insult. De-adminning Krusty would be similarly inappropriate. I don't mean to be overly-dramatic, but in my opinion you are in the process of punishing them for dissenting. This isn't right. 

::::And can we just stop for a moment and recognize this is all politics? Rpeh and Krusty's opposition to Robin has nothing to do with his skill or trustworthiness. They oppose him because they don't want him having a greater voice or be given deference in making site policy. And you, similarly, are now acting to reduce their voice and influence. The fact is, no one would make a rant like Krusty's rant against Robin unless they cared deeply about this wiki's future. Daveh should count his lucky stars to have an admin that cares that much. Rpeh has done enough for this wiki for his opinion to be worthy of some consideration, despite the (understandable) lack of substantive contributions recently. You've found yourself in this situation where their dedication has become an annoyance to you, so you want them marginalized. Well, things always go smoother when you stifle the complainers, but sometimes disagreement is healthy.      •   02:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

:::::At this point, I really can't make a point without repeating those of others; oh well: here's my two cents. Though I've been mostly silent, throughout most of the recent drama, I've been keeping up on most everything major on this site (particularly on the AN and CP), and due to my detached view of things, I feel that my view is a little more objective than those involved.
:::::#Though in the past I've generally sided with rpeh (so as to not digress here, I more or less agree with Krusty's opinion on the matter). I feel that ES's actions were the beginning of the end for this wiki; the site has, for the few months since, been nothing but a place for outrageous accusations, which in turn get short and rude responses, and a site where two separate schools of thought battle for dominance (best illustrated by the arguments between Krusty and RH70). While I am not of a mind to think that there is a conspiracy on this site (nor do I think anyone thinks that; I honestly see no place where Krusty literally says that certain editors are conspiring to bring this wiki down), I do think that Krusty was referring to said schools of thought when he mentioned "cliques". On the one side, you have people like myself and Krusty, who feel that rpeh's de-adminning was unnecessary and an overreaction to *off-site behavior*, and that this site has been seized with a peculiar fever of "less is more" (no offense Minor Edits xD); by that, I mean that people seem to think that small additions and patrolling are more important than quality control and running a detailed, consistent site. On the other hand, you have users such as RH70 (who I am actually just as fond of as I am of Krusty, rpeh, ME, Legoless, or AKB, though I don't know him quite as well) feel opposite. I'm not saying that anyone's opinion is better than anyone else's, however this is undoubtedly one of the roots of the tensions here on UESP. In that respect, I do not agree with Thuum of Reason: yes, Krusty has every reason to quit, and yes these recent events do imply a downhill spiral; that's my opinion, in any event. 
:::::#As for rpeh's blocking: a month ago I would have said no. However, his recent behavior and constant attacks on other users show that he does not deserve to remain as an editor on this site for the time being. Since he is unwilling to take time to cool off of his own accord, we have little choice but to force him to do so. However, I would also ask that users refrain from making attacks on the past of rpeh and users like him; this is one reason why they continue to harbor resentment towards users on this site. So please, just realize that it takes two (many more in this case) to tango.
:::::#On the second count, however, I must disagree. I myself see no real reason to remove Krusty's admin rights; he is already taking a wikibreak, and aside from one (understandable) intrusion in a recent RfA voting session, he shows no signs of doing what rpeh has done.
:::::#I couldn't agree more with this last section. Although I may seem sympathetic towards rpeh and Krusty, it is only because they are human, not because they are senior editors. It is their nature (as it is mine or that of, say, Elliot, who is another member I hold in high esteem despite his participation in drama past and present) to quickly become short with users when it comes to what we perceive as injustices or foolish moves. I just tend to walk away, which is why nobody notices (to my knowledge); that's not really possible when you're a senior editor like the aforementioned users. However, though I understand this, I extend no extra rights towards these users, nor do I wish to have any such rights extended to myself should I ever become regarded as a "senior editor".
:::::Since this basically outlines how I feel about the state of UESP at the moment, I think I'll go ahead and go back to my wikibreak (despite what my page says, I am on a break for the weekend as far as editing goes). Happy editing everyone!--Kalis Agea  02:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
   Minor Edits has hit the nail on the head. I agree to everything he's said above. Especially about rpeh's so called personal attacks: they were harsh, but not personal or uncalled for per se; and also especially about Krusty's devotion to the site, and the politics.. everything! That doesn't mean you're WRONG, AKB, definitely no reason to resign! Also, regarding me being banned from the IRC was a reaction of Krusty's frustration with how he thought the wiki was going downhill. He admits that was a big mistake and has apologized, and as far as I'm concerned it never happened ~ Dwarfmp 02:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
: x2- I refrained from adding any comments to the RfA after Krusty's post because I thought keeping silent was the only way I could help to minimize the drama. Still, I have a billion things I would like to say, and have now typed out and deleted so many of them that it's taken me over twenty minutes to write two sentences...  I think that AKB has summed up so much of what needs to be said in a very logical and rational manner, and I agree with him on many (but not all) points. Since I didn't become an active editor until just before Rpeh left, I can't say much in regard to blocking him based on past history, but I do agree that his most recent contributions have been disruptive. Perhaps a warning would be best? Then, one more disruptive contribution would result in a block. That seems fair to me. As for Krusty, I don't think removing any administrative rights is necessary or appropriate, especially given his self-imposed break. And the third proposal is spot on. There's no point in having policies, rules, or guidelines if they only apply to the masses. Though I haven't been around long enough to have seen many instances of the leniency AKB may be referring to, I agree with this one on principle completely. There's no reason not to have the same standards for everyone.  There are a couple of Thuum's comments which really stick out to me: ''As a community, we are connected by our love for a great series of video games... as long as we're all here, we'll all be around to keep improving it.'' I have grown to love this site and its community, and while people will always have differences in opinion, I believe we can find a way to continue improving both the site and our interactions with one another. This should be fun and enjoyable, not tense, stressful, or drama-ridden. I do hope that anyone who has left in frustration over recent drama decides to return soon; it disappoints me to see them go, and think having them around can only benefit the site and its community.      02:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
:: x3-To reply to Kalis, it's small additions and patrolling versus quality control and consistency? Is that what this battle is all about? I don't know, but for the record, I don't think those concepts are mutually exclusive, nor do I think one is more important than the other. It seems to me it's more about personality conflicts making people lose perspective on why we're here. 

::Here's my polestar: this should be the best, and preferably only, TES wiki around. I don't see any reason for another TES wiki to exist, and time people spend editing such sites is better spent here. To achieve total market capitalization, you fundamentally need numbers. Great numbers of editors brings great diversity of skills. Diversity allows for specialization. Specialization allows for maximized opportunity cost, meaning we get greater returns for the amount of time editors invest in this wiki over others. That maximized return on editors' time naturally produces a better product, and a better product means greater and greater popularity. Growth is readers brings growth in editors and the wiki just keeps refining itself. But it begins with numbers, and to grow and maintain your ranks, you can't sweat the small stuff. I feel that should be a formal policy itself, or perhaps just a corollary to the etiquette policy: "don't sweat the small stuff". You people can antagonize each other over petty garbage until the whole thing crumbles like a house of cards, or you can be tolerant, and allow each other to make the wiki better in whatever ways you each can. Since I still think that's what rpeh and Krusty want to do, make the wiki better, I continue to support them. Making sure the UESP remains a big tent is the only way for it to reach its full potential.      •   03:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

:::ABCface managed to say exactly what I was miserably failing to articulate. Blocking rpeh would be a rash move that, although justifiable, would do little more than strain the website even more. People are still peeved that he was de-adminned, and blocking him would only aggravate them more and prove little. De-adminning Krusty is also a terrible idea, which although certainly justifiable would also only harm the website even further. The last thing we need to do is take a hammer to the wiki at a time that it's so fragile. As for the last proposal, I agree with it in principle, but as ABCface said there's no reason not to have the same standards for everyone. •      03:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

  People seriously need to stop defending rpeh. It is absolute insanity that people continue to... no. I'm going to call people out by name, because it needs to stop. Minor Edits, AKB didn't block rpeh because "all he did was express an opinion [he] disagree[s] with". Rpeh made blatant personal attacks. The links provided by AKB are just a few of the disgusting remarks rpeh has made to other user around here. Alphabetface, we have given rpeh chance after chance after chance. Any other user would have been given the boot a long time ago. This is exactly what AKB means by providing experienced users with a different standard. Jak Atackka, decision about retaining the integrity of the wiki shouldn't be based on "who will this piss off". If a user has been poison to the wiki, then that poison must be removed. Plain and simple. A hammer is needed, because nothing will change without it.

Even if you don't believe rpeh should be blocked for making personal attacks, he should be blocked for using a meatpuppet in the administration vote. He's already used a sockpuppet before, so why this was ignored is beyond my comprehension.

Now, AKB, I absolutely agree with every action you have taken and suggested. Krusty's continued attacks towards new user and user who happen to focus on edits other than content edits are problematic. His actions are not that of an administrator. I had a person who had never been on the wiki, and his comments shocked the person. They even wondered why they had any authority at all.  Now, that's essentially hearsay, but I felt it necessary to mention. 

The leniency towards experienced editors does indeed need to stop, even towards myself (although I believe I get the leniency less than other edits, such as rpeh and Krusty). Users should not be able to buy their way out of indiscretion with an edit count. 

Again, AKB, I thank you for decisiveness with this issue. It was definitely needed. elliot   03:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

: I'll do my best to reply to everyone here in opposition to my actions and call for action. If I miss any points, I apologize

:First to Silencer, there are no "cliques" or whatever you want to call them. There is nothing to suggest that there is besides a few accusations without evidence backing them. To be crass, this topic in itself is rather ridiculous. Who the hell would create a conspiracy around taking over the volunteer positions of a gaming site? I would not assume that there is any sort of unofficial organization acting unilaterally on the site. As I do not count current evidence as being conclusive, if anyone has more proof, please feel free to contact me privately to avoid a derail of current discussion.

:Second to Minor Edits. All users can speak their mind, as long as they follow etiquette. Creating a hostile environment for users does not benefit any line of thought. They were indeed in violation of site etiquette as I interpreted them. Even if the points in question needed to be said for their opposition to count (and they did not, if they simply claimed that his actions when it came to patrolling and user relations were outside their standards, their would of been no issue), there were much less volatile ways to say them. Unless I have a much poorer grasp on the English language than previously believed, I don't see how I interpreted their comments incorrectly. I also wish to state that I hold a deep respect for both rpeh and Krusty, and even consider them to have been mentors to me in times of need. Finally, I wish to point out that I did not participate in Robin's RFA, the IRC (at all), rpeh's de-adminning, or the Request for a New Group shortly after starting it.

:Third to Kalis Agea, I don't really consider myself to be of a similar line of thought as Robin when it comes to editing. I mainly add content, at least those are the edits I make that I care about. I would also add that I agree that attacking rpeh is inappropriate, as it is for literally anyone on the site to to do to anyone. I, however, can't find myself wishing to allow Krusty to remain an admin. He is a distinguished editor who has helped me more than I think I am capable of admitting without giving him credit for most of my NPC work. However, I don't see how allowing him to remain an admin helps us. He is human and prone to mistakes just as much as any of us are, but it's not like what we write is revealed in real-time. We have time to temper our reactions. If a user doesn't take the time to do that, especially for major posts, they are likely to make mistakes or say some really harmful things. Krusty did this, partially inspiring some users to leave. He has made a lot of errors recently when it comes to policy and user relations. Removing administrative rights will surely help cool down in the end. Ultimately, the option to become an admin again if the right is removed is still available. For now, he should not have the rights.

:Fourth to Dwarf, I agree that Krusty is dedicated to the site. Dedication doesn't make one immune from making mistakes, even if they are out of love. As for him caring for site politics, what are these? We have ****ing politics? What the hell??? I thought we were just a bunch of fans of a game series creating a collaborative guide on it, not freaking politicians. If anyone has ever made a move for "political" reasons, then they don't get the purpose of the site, at least from what I've seen of it. Also, I only intend to resign if my third recommended course of action isn't met, which basically requires the other two to happen, I admit. I don't believe I can administrate this site if everyone gets into a frenzy over "He said, she said, you can interpret this action or what this person said to mean this" every few months. Especially when the current consensus suggests just not making any definitive actions to stop it.

:Onto ABCface, lenience will not resolve these issues. The issues leading up to this were met with lenience, and we all saw what that lead to. Further leniency will only lead to continued problems.

:Next onto Minor Edits second reply, not sweating the small stuff is what lead to these major problems. I don't see how you can consider them to be anything else when administrators are walking out. The best way to deal with the recent problems are the actions I suggested.

:Finally to reply to Jak Attacka. Why in the same paragraph that you state that being lenient would be beneficial in this situation do you say that my call for an end to leniency is correct? I don't get it. I'm sorry if I'm interpreting what you wrote wrong, please correct me if I don't understand. Blocking rpeh doesn't strain the site in any way besides an emotional one that I admit I don't understand, he hasn't contributed positively for months. And I don't see how Krusty can't continue to edit without administrative rights for the foreseeable future. Administrative tools aren't a right, they are a privilege given to people we don't think will mess up with them (that badly). --AKB   04:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
::My point on leniency was apparently not made clear. What I was trying to get across is that leniency is not tolerable. The same standards should apply to everyone-- whether they are admins or not. When I said "on principle" I didn't mean that I don't agree. I meant that I haven't been around long enough to have seen many instances of the leniency you were referring to.      04:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

:::  In reply to elliot's comment about blocking for meatpuppetry, I'm not sure using a meatpuppet is a blockable offense. If it was a sockpuppet, sure, but a meatpuppet implies that rpeh or Krusty contacted someone else specifically to have them vote on the matter. That's just Electioneering 101. The meatpuppet's vote counts as much as the next person's, the only difference is that a suspected meatpuppet's opinion is far less persuasive to others, and may repulse some voters who would have otherwise voted in the same way as the meatpuppet.  The punishment already fits the "crime".

:::I support AKB's third proposal, I just think he and I have different understandings on what constitutes leniency for long-time contributors and how to interpret the etiquette policy. I don't think I've extended long-term contributors any inherent privilege not available to a new editor. I think that's because I'm more lenient towards everyone in general- whether their anons, new accounts, or admins - compared to others. I think a big reason for this difference is that I never stop assuming good faith until I absolutely have to, regardless of how long someone has been contributing or what position they may have on the site. I extend to rpeh and Krusty the same courtesy I would give to any new user and presume that they are not here to cause trouble, but rather to make the wiki better. Re-reading their comments on Robin's RfA, I think the only way to conclude that either of them made a personal attack is by assuming that they made the appearance for malicious reasons, and not because they had legitimate reasons to oppose making Robin an admin. So in short, that's what I meant when I said don't sweat the small stuff: the assuming good faith policy should act as a guide for how to interpret and construe other policies. So, if there's any reasonable doubt about whether a person's comments violated the etiquette policy, for example, then the doubt should be decided in that person's favor. When it comes to the actions of rpeh and Krusty, I sincerely doubt that they have violated basic etiquette. Others have found what they had to say offensive, and thus imputed them with the intention to be disruptive and offensive. I don't think that's fair, so I won't hold to it. 

:::You're aces, AKB; I didn't mean to imply you were executing some kind of inappropriate vendetta against them. I assume good faith, and I guess I presume others will assume it in my words. And I hope that no one is assigning anger to me; I don't hold grudges, and I take pride in having a disagreement and resolving it amicably whether my opinion was heeded or not.      •   05:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

::::  You're right, my last point wasn't clear at all. I'm still trying to make sense of this entire situation. Just forget what I said there - I'm still undecided on the issue. I certainly agree with it in principle, but in action I always give a fair bit of leeway to our more experienced editors. Part of this is that as the representatives of our website, they have much more attention focused on them, and their mistakes are amplified. Part of it is blatant rationalization on my part - I'm still trying to figure out how much. That's a topic I've given a lot of thought yet still don't have a clear idea on. Looks like this'll be a busy weekend. The way I see it, there are two different approaches to this obvious problem. The first is to approach the policy aspect of it. An editor abuses their privileges, they get punished. It does not matter who did it, they are all treated equally. The other approach is the personal aspect. This action will cause much more harm than good, so it shouldn't be done. Blindly applying policy versus completely ignoring it and allow our editors to do whatever they want because they have a high edit count. Both arguments are valid. I can't say which one I support, because frankly I don't know. That's the abstract side of this whole debate. The literal side is how we treat the abuses themselves. I strongly dislike what rpeh did, and it is quite frankly disgraceful. I did defend him before, but after discussing it with Elliot I've since changed my stance on the issue. I'm not sure about blocking him. On the one hand, I strongly dislike the idea of blocking people (besides IPs and spammers) because it'll most likely turn them off the wiki for good, but on the other hand I think rpeh is gone for good anyways. I am also unsure about Krusty's de-adminship, but I'm leaning towards opposing it (meaning he should stay admin). If you are looking for my stance on the issues, they are currently undecided, undecided, and undecided. This discussion has given me food for thought, and I'm going to have to mull over this a while before I have anything meaningful to say. •      05:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit Break

  Minor Edits, please do not continue to ignore such behavior. Your type of thinking is precisely what has allowed this to go on for so long. Regardless, meatpuppetry is a serious offense. 
:''Sock puppetry policy defines "meatpuppetry" as the recruitment of new editors to Wikipedia for the purpose of influencing or editing on a Wikipedia matter. This is forbidden, and new accounts which engage in the same behavior as a banned editor or blocked account in the same context, and who appear to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, are subject to the remedies applied to the editor whose behavior they are imitating. (source)
Whenever we don't have an established policy, we defer to Wikipedia. Please also see the Arbitration decision that banned a user and her meatpuppets. So yes, Minor Edits, it is blockable (see Wikipedia:List of banned users and just search for the term meatpuppet). I don't know how I can make this point any clearer. elliot   07:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

::Alright, let's see if I can't pull of making a coherent post after all. :)
::Firstly, in response to Minor Edits, perhaps I should rephrase. The point I was trying to make (rather unsuccessfully) is that the idea of a "clique" and a schism of sorts is not so much literal (i.e. there is no conspiracy to take over the wiki on the part of any editor(s); I didn't get that message from Krusty's posts at all, as some others did). In no way am I trying to say that editing preferences are destroying the wiki (if only it were that simple!). Rather, I am saying that there are certain editors who already have something against a certain editor or other groups of editors (I hope that makes sense). These editors will find anything to use as ammunition against others, even something so trivial as editing preferences. I was merely supplying an example of the many-layered complexity that has become the drama of UESP.
::Now, as for AKB: I suppose I see your point; I also see that you are quite determined to see this through. I don't have any real reason to oppose point #2 other than that I don't yet known how Krusty feels about this. Once that is known, I will be able to say "yea" or "nay", should this come to a vote.
::My main point in the first place was simply that the past few months have seen an unfortunate and dramatic turn of events with which I am highly dissatisfied; so much so that I have refrained from posting responses longer than a small paragraph on such issues. Even now, I see no reason to continue actively editing on such a site, especially when I have very little left to actually contribute to it time-wise. At the same time, I feel that I am most likely just overreacting and should just leave the site completely and come back with a level head; a fresh start, as it were. And for my part I intend to do so.--Kalis Agea  08:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
:::As much as I hate to admit it, rpeh has been making too many personal attacks lately. I don't have to like it, but if he can't be constructive, blocking him might be the best solution. That's the only thing I'll voice a definite stance on, as I'm still not sure where I stand on #2. I will say that before doing anything rash that will invite more trouble, we should take everything into consideration. As Krusty is always saying, we need to think of the consequences our actions will most likely have. ThuumofReason 11:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
::::AKB, I agree that there's leniency that causes a lot of trouble. And you're right about that it should stop. As Kalis Agea said, before we debate whether Krusty should be de-admined for a while or not, I'd rather hear what he has to say about it (because if he simply agrees with stepping down for a while, then why argue). As for rpeh's block, Elliot raised a good point regarding the meat-puppetry. I have absolutely no qualms with that block if the reason is changed to meat-puppetry. Seeing as you said it was simple recruitment, AKB, that just proves there's politics on the site. I agree that the whole politics business is bad for the wiki, because in the end, we're all headed towards the same goal: improving the wiki ~ Dwarfmp 14:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::I can't agree with either of points 1 or 2, i'll comment on the 'clique' as well. I wouldn't there has ever, or will ever, be a conspiracy. What I meant is: that whilst the two groups oppose each other they are obviously not putting as much thought into editing as they could be. Blocking rpeh can only possibly drive him away further, so thats an editor who has made 78944 edits being discarded for a further amount when he could be contributed positively to UESP? (Thats not counting the 81516 edits his bot made under his control). That just seems odd. Removing Krustys Admin rights in my opinion gets even odder, but I don't have much other than his contributions in either of there defenses. On the subject of coming back to vote, they both obviously felt the need to voice there opinions on the matter. I think the leniency levels work... to a degree. A bit more strict yes, (3 strikes and your out rule in regards to warnings?), but not by loads I don't think. --       14:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::Kiz, can you please tell me what makes up a personal attack in your mind? Calling a user a "total disgrace"? Calling a user a "troll"? I mean, please let me know, because apparently, rpeh can say whatever he wants, and you wouldn't care because you are afraid of "driving him away". Did you miss the entire point of holding a double standard for experienced editors? Your thinking is part of the problem. And you also said that rpeh could have contributed positively... sorry, but from what rpeh has told me, he has no intentions of coming back, which makes his actions that much more worse. I could understand if this were his first time attacking another user, but it's not. This is just an endless cycle perpetuated by users who let him get away with it. elliot   17:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 If we're starting on personal attacks elliot, don't bother, you called me a troll in IRC which is no better at all, by your standards that makes you as bad as rpeh. I purposely avoided commenting on personal attacks, because I have no further comments on the matter. --      17:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
::I'd like to point out that saying I called him a troll is a complete fabrication. elliot   01:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
:After some thought, I have to agree with Elliot here and call for rpeh to be banned. I strongly dislike banning people, but rpeh has clearly violated the rules (with both personal attacks and meatpuppetry) and clearly has nothing constructive to add to this wiki. He can't hide behind his edit count, and people need to stop blinding themselves with his contributions. Rpeh needs to be banned. •      18:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
::I've taken some time to think about this, and in light of recent events, I feel it would be entirely inappropriate for me to comment about what actions should be taken in regards to rpeh and Krusty, though I will say that I don't think it's fair to take any action in absentia. Instead, I'll focus on point three, as well as some of the ensuing discussion.

::As anyone who's ever been in a position of authority knows, there's a balance between ignoring the rules and enforcing them. Different people tend towards different sides of that. On a wiki, when it goes too far towards ignoring, people often have a lot of fun at first, but many quickly become frustrated with the unfair application or non-application of rules and they stop editing. After all, why have rules if nobody pays attention to them - it only lets bullies come to the fore. When it goes too far towards enforcing, people often like the structure and fairness at first, but tend to stop editing when it becomes an authoritarian regime. Similarly to the above, why edit when the slightest misstep gets you a warning or a block?

::I think it's fair to say that in more recent times, the wiki has tended more towards the ignoring side than the enforcing side. I would go so far as to say that it has swung too far to that side, and yes, some people are feeling unfairly treated. Obviously, AKB tends more towards enforcement than we've had in recent times, and I think that can only be a good thing, since it will undoubtedly be balanced out by those who take a less strict view of things.

::In regards to our various policies, specifically those around personal attacks, I'd like to point out that personal attacks aren't the be all and end all. The Etiquette policy also includes statements like the very first bullet point, and bolded no less, "Be patient and courteous". It also includes points about being polite and assuming good faith. I agree with AKB that any long-term editor, regardless of what rights they may have, should be held to at least the same standards as others. If you've been a regular editor around a wiki for more than a few months, it should be pretty clear how they're supposed to work. If you've been around for a few years, these sorts of things should come naturally. Sure, we all have times when our temper gets the best of us or something just plain comes out wrong, but we apologize for them and move on. It's when the apologies aren't sincere or are absent altogether, particularly when someone points out the issue, that the etiquette policy and others really need to be brought into play in my mind.

::Kiz brings up a great idea with the three strikes rule, or some variant of it. This sort of thing has been used very successfully in forums for ages, and even Wikipedia has a variation of it with their user-warning levels. I think if we combine that with a balance of Template the regulars (for warnings about etiquette and similar issues) and Don't template the regulars (for reminders about previewing, signatures, etc.), we'll have a workable system that's fair to everyone. There would need to be some method of having warnings removed over time, but specifics of any such system might be best for a new topic.  &ndash; Robin Hood    21:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit Break 2
The first thing I thought when coming across this section was: "Wow! Steady on guys!" I've only just made sense of this flood of drama given my prolonged absence and I was surprised to find so many competent editors, most of which I held in high esteem when I was active, are literally at their throats. This obviously can't be constructive. I have problems with the first two issues proposed by AKB. I have thought a lot about them and have had private talks with both users involved, who I'm not afraid to consider friends. I've already given my opinion on rpeh's block, so I'll tackle the second point before explaining why I'm 100% behind the third point.

Krusty's de-admin request is not a good idea, as many above have pointed out. Most importantly, Krusty has already decided to take a wiki break and cool-off. Yes, Krusty did return to oppose RH's RfA (as if that were a reason to be stripped of adminship!) and to be honest, whether you agree with his points or not, he did bring forth the fact that there was a rift in the community and people have acted on it largely thanks to his post. His words for a certain group of users certainly wasn't loving but there is no denying that there are some editors, and there have been for as long as I've been here, who see themselves as the paladins of righteousness; always ready to jump when they perceive "abuses of power" and conveniently forget their own precedents (and in case anyone is wondering, I'm talking about Elliot). Krusty's "idiocy" comment and his blocking of Dwarfmp on IRC stand out as his worst actions as administrator, but if we look at the bigger picture of his adminship it is clear these are the exception, not the rule. Everyone makes mistakes and this was at a time of great stress. Removing his administrator rights now would be the worse course of action.

The third point, which I believe should have been the thrust of this post but was inevitably overtaken by the other two, is a very, very good point. Although personally I don't believe I have ever been given any sort of special treatment, it is true, as RH pointed out, that there is a history of this sort of behaviour on UESP. Cracking down on that is everyone's interest. It hard to write up policy for this sort of thing. What we need is for everyone of us to say: let's draw the line here and now - we won't tolerate privileged treatment anymore. I know this may seem to contradict my opposition to Krusty's de-admining but if we decide to crack down on this behaviour we must do it for all who have benefitted from it in the past, not just the convenient recent targets. Because this isn't feasible, let's start off with a blank sheet, but let's be serious. --SerCenKing   20:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
:Nice to see you come back. If you feel like trying to bring me down in order to invalidate my opinion, then you need to go to another wiki. I know what I've done, and I know what I've not done. So, if you are going to bring up a two year old discussion in order to disparage me, then let's bring up every single thing that rpeh has done wrong (remember, this is a discussion about rpeh). That's sarcasm, by the way. We are discussing things that have happened in 2012, not 2009, so if you could keep your points relevant, that would be a great help. Thanks. elliot   21:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
::Good to see you back from you wiki-break too Elliot! Two days have been long and hard without you! (That's also sarcasm by the way.) The reason why I mentioned you should be obvious. I don't like to make claims without supporting them with facts (I couldn't care less when they occurred) and I wanted to avoid people thinking I was accusing them. Also, please stop victimising yourself. That link isn't even close to being the central point of my post, but rather an aside to avoid confusion. It isn't always all about you Elliot (you're honestly not that important) and, despite your claims to the contrary, this conversation isn't just about rpeh. It's actually about a lot of things, which include rpeh's block. If you stepped back and stopped your hatred of rpeh guiding your every action, you'd see all this by yourself. Really do try to do this: I'm actually off to study for my finals so I won't be here to explain it to you again. --SerCenKing   21:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
:::I never did say it was about me. But I don't really hate rpeh, it's more of hating how people give him special treatment, including yourself. elliot   21:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Page Protection

I've been doing some more bot work tonight, and I've come up with a list of pages where the expected page protection doesn't match the actual page protection. You can see the list here. (Sorry for the reverse page sorting...change in logic that I forgot to fix before the bot ran.) Mostly these are archives, but I've added checking for our Javascript pages, site financial data, and I'd like to suggest that we also protect the various  subpages as well. Now, I have a few questions:

# Do the pages in the list all look like reasonable pages to add the suggested level of protection to?
# Are there any others the bot should be checking?
# Once we're happy with what the bot feels needs to be changed, do we want it to go ahead and change them all or would an Admin rather do it?

A little background on that last question: when we originally granted bots permission to change page rights, rpeh was an Admin and he was the only one actively running a bot at the time, so it was of little consequence. In my case, the bot's rights exceed my own, so I thought I should check that nobody had concerns with that. The bot can be made to either produce a report or actually change the rights at the flick of a switch, so it's not a big concern for me either way.  &ndash; Robin Hood    09:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

:I personally don't have any objections to it, but I'm not an admin. You only suggested semi-protecting  - you should also archive . •      18:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

::  Please note that due to a design change in MediaWiki a while ago, some older protected pages aren't being reported as such. I'll ask Nephele or Dave to run the maintenance script that updates this and regenerate the list shortly.

::Jak: Currently, the bot isn't looking for archives in non-talk pages other than UESPWiki. It's not hard to do, but I'm concerned that it would probably get a lot of false hits as a result. Once I've gotten Neph or Dave to run the maintenance script, I'll see what the bot would "want" to protect if I included all namespaces.  &ndash; Robin Hood    18:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

:::For the Admin who has too much time on their hands: ;-) can I get someone to unprotect and reprotect the following list of pages? From what I've been able to gather Googling around a bit, they were all protected a long time ago when we were on an older version of MediaWiki and the internal protection coding has changed since then. The maintenance script failed to fix the problem for whatever reason, so a number of pages aren't showing as protected in some lists, but they're fine in others. In addition to the obvious issues it's causing with my bot getting confused (which is a minor concern that I can work around), it's possible that the protection may not propagate properly whenever we do future MediaWiki upgrades and we might not even be aware we'd lost it, which is a much bigger concern. Anyway, here's the list of the pages the bot identified   Unless Daveh is planning to upgrade the wiki in the next few days and surprise everyone, there's no big hurry. :)

 
:::* :File:Mainpage-logo.png (full)
:::* :File:Somerights.png (full)
:::* :File:UespPages.png (full)
:::* :File:Wiki.png (full)
:::* :Index.php (full) - note: this one can be hard to get to due to the redirect to the main page. Use this to get there
:::* :Main Page (full)
:::*  (Edit=none, Move=full)
:::*  (full)
:::*  (semi)
:::*  (semi)
:::*  (semi)
:::*  (semi)
:::*  (semi)
:::*  (semi)
:::*  (semi)
:::*  (semi)
:::*  (Edit=semi Move=full)
:::*  (Edit=none, Move=full)
:::*  (semi)
:::*  (semi)
:::*  (Edit=none, Move=full)
:::*  (semi)
:::*  (semi)
:::*  (semi)
:::*  (semi)
:::*  (semi)
:::*  (semi)
:::*  (full)
:::*  (Edit=none, Move=full)
:::*  (full)
:::*  (full)
:::*  (semi)
:::*  (semi)
:::*  (semi)
:::*  (full)
:::*  (Edit=none, Move=full)
:::*  (Edit=none, Move=full)
:::*  (full)
:::*  (full)
:::*  (full)
:::*  (full)
:::*  (full)
:::*  (full)
:::*  (full)
:::*  (full)
:::*  (full)
:::*  (full)
:::*  (full)
:::*  (full)
:::*  (full)
:::*  (full)
:::*  (full)
:::*  (full)
:::*  (full)
:::*  (full)
:::*  (full)
:::*   (full)
:::*  (Edit=none, Move=full)
:::*  (full)
 
::: &ndash; Robin Hood    22:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
::::I've unprotected all (but 1, read additional info below) of those pages and reprotected them accordingly, all with infinite expire time (assuming that was necessary for all). This one: , didn't have a protection tab, Krusty says that's up to Nephele or Daveh to do, so I did all I could :) ~ Dwarfmp 14:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::That's great, Dwarfmp! I don't think the Common.css file is all that big of a concern, since the entire MediaWiki space is limited to editing by Admins only in the first place, so even if it loses its protection at some point in the distant future, not much will actually have changed.

:::::Now, does anybody have any concerns with the bot protecting the various archive pages list here? I've got a tiny bit more code tweaking to do, so rather than drag this out too long, since I know everyone's busy, I'll go ahead and protect the pages appropriately unless someone objects within the next 48 hours. My thinking is that we could easily have created an Admin Bots group if we'd been all that concerned about it, but we didn't, so it seems reasonable to me that if we gave all bots the right to protect/unprotect pages, that we should feel free to do exactly that, especially since I'm duplicating the exact task they were given that right for in the first place.  &ndash; Robin Hood    19:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Rpeh's Block Appeal

Per the Blocking Policy, all editors are entitled to an appeal on the Administrator Noticeboard, so at Rpeh's request, I am starting a thread here, and posting what has been said on his talk page, so that everyone can see it, and he can provide his argument for appealing the block. I am aware that some may not see me as the guy to start an appeal for him, but we have to play this by the books.      • •   19:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

: Please specify the alleged "personal attacks" and "multiple disruptions", and please highlight the warnings given about them. rpeh  17:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

::I would first like to start off by saying that no formal warning has been given about this. However, as UESP Blocking Policy states: "Although this three-step process [Warn, Temporary Block, Permanent Block] is the normal procedure, administrators have the authority to bypass one or more steps at their discretion." The policy page goes onto include personal attacks as a reason to not just bypass a warning, but can be grounds for an immediate permanent block. I made note to remove any mention of a warning from this block due to this. 

::As for your request for examples, you have claimed that Daveh is sycophant and incompetent, left a sarcastic reply to a user during a previous request to have you blocked, claimed that RH70 was sucking up to other users (according to Wikipedia Policy, accusing a user of a certain kind of behavior without evidence to back it up is considered a personal attack), and you were disruptive when a user's eligibility in a discussion was called into question due to perceived signs of meat puppetry here and here. 

::I apologize that I don't have time to go into detail with anything but I'm rather busy IRL at the moment. I may be disposed to reply swiftly to any other message, but I will try to get back to you. --AKB   18:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

::: Quite simply, none of those are personal attacks. At a pinch, the comment to Daveh was on the line, but it took place over two months ago so handing out a three month block now is a clear violation of natural justice. As for my comments on RH, Krusty had already provided the evidence. I was simply adding my voice in support. No justification for this block, so please undo ASAP. Thanks. rpeh  19:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

::::I do have to add that, and I quote: "A pattern of hostility reduces the likelihood of the community assuming good faith, and can be considered disruptive editing." Considering your inactivity on the site, it is likely these posts were meant to harm the wiki.

::::If that doesn't convince you this block was justified, I'll add this link, a vote which is suspected to be meat puppetry. Since meat puppetry is as good as impossible to prove, it is up to an administrator to act as a judge. Considering the user in question has made a total of only 4 contributions, of which 2 are edits to their userpage, and the other 2 being the vote on the rfa, it is highly unlikely this person has sufficient knowledge to cast an actual vote. While it is not impossible for the user to have observed the wiki, the lack of previous votes since they subscribed leads one to believe they also lack the interest to vote. If you check their userpage, you can read the following line: "I am a newbie to the Elder Scrolls world - having been introduced by Rob, one of the admins on this very portal." At the time this addition was made, you, Robert, were an admin. This should provide enough evidence of you two being friends, which makes their vote (in which your argument was simply repeated) a mere "back-up" from a friend, which is prohibited ~ Dwarfmp 18:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

::::: I'm quite honestly astonished by the hypocrisy taking place on this site at the moment. I was de-adminned because I committed "censorship" by removing a totally unproductive discussion from the site. Now I'm blocked for standing up for my right to comment on an RfA and a user's right to cast a vote? Seriously???
::::: The entire premise behind this block is that nobody making the active users list deserves a right to vote. That is, quite simply, wrong. The reasons behind my block then move on to what another user has said on their user page! Seriously, people! Try putting forward this kind of "evidence" in a real court and see how far you get!
::::: I have made no personal attacks and committed no other blockable offence, yet was banned without warning. An unblock is the least that needs to be done. rpeh  19:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

 Per the Blocking Policy, all users are entitled to an appeal on the AN. Is this to be considered and appeal, and shall I move this for you, Rpeh?      • •   19:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

: I was wondering how long it would take. Yes, please. There's absolutely no justification for this block. rpeh  19:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

:: Absolutely not. Considering he still sees nothing wrong with meatpuppetry and his attacks on other editors, I feel compelled to ask for an admin to extend the block, rather than shorten it. I have made my comments in the above section, so there is not much else I can say on the matter. elliot   20:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

:::I'm not going to comment too much on this because I don't have a lot of time on my hands. All I'll say is that if rpeh should be blocked at all, the only grounds that should be debated upon are the alleged meatpuppet. That's all. --SerCenKing   20:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

::::So how is it appropriate to ignore rpeh's attacks other users again? elliot   21:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

:::::I support the block based on the links others have provided, and believe them to be attacks on individuals, indirectly or directly. Saying "Unfortunately, you decided to go for "Oh, good!" and sycophancy instead of actual competence." may or may not have been insulting Daveh, but it most definitely insulted RH70 by calling him a sycophant and incompetent. ''"As for the claim about competence: I've got a TESV map up and running. It works well, and I've played around with things like gamma correction and contrast so that it doesn't look too bad. Tell me, RobinHood70, how does your map look?" is an inappropriate insult to competence when something more like "I've got a map up and running that looks pretty good, and I know you're not too great at maps, so I'm fairly confident in my competence."'' would have worked just fine. It's a minor difference, but that last line in his post--"Tell me, RobinHood70, how does your map look?"--was completely unnecessary and rude. (Civility guidelines say that "belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen", "snipped crap")" counts as rudeness, and I view that statement as being judgmental in this manner.)

:::::"His main input has been to spend hours splitting hairs and pushing his own idiosyncratic POV on policy debates while doing nothing but fixing typos, over-complicating templates, and sucking up to people he thinks will benefit his wiki career." On one hand, I can see how this is an evaluation, but on another, it's snide insults. If someone's messing with templates in a way you don't like, it can be changed or conversations can be had. Everyone has the right to voice their opinions on policy debates. Typos and other tiny edits are absolutely necessary towards the quality of the articles on this wiki. They may not be large edits, but one need not insult another's activities based on the amount of the page that is edited ("nothing but fixing typos").

:::::Calling RH70 a "total disgrace" for calling up a policy is something that absolutely does not assume good faith. It was a discussion of established wiki policies, and the insult was not necessary, along with saying that RH70 was ignoring policy despite him bringing one up. If it was not a misunderstanding on rpeh's part, then it seems more like needless aggression to me.

:::::If I have misunderstood anything here, please point it out.         21:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

::::::Okay, let's do this "by the book" then and examine all the examples of rpeh's conduct being used to support his block. First of all, rpeh never accused Daveh of sycophancy or incompetence. Rather, he accused Daveh of "going for" (i.e., supporting) sycophancy over competence. He confirmed this in the second comment AKB linked to, where he stated that he had previously accused Daveh of being "subject to sycophancy" (again, not calling Daveh a sycophant; the sycophant is the flatterer, and rpeh was saying Daveh was the person being influenced by flattery). I don't agree with rpeh's assessment, but it's a stretch to say he had no basis for thinking that way.

::::::The second comment AKB cites to is sarcastic, yes, but I think we're going down a very dangerous road when we start saying that sarcasm is a blockable offense. I believe utilizing sarcasm to drive a point home can be done at the discretion of every user here, rpeh included. As for the third comment about RH "sucking up" to people, rpeh incorporated by reference Krusty's reasoning, which mentioned several concrete situations where RH's conduct could be perceived that way. So it's false to say that rpeh accused RH of certain kinds of behavior with no evidence to back it up.

::::::There's something in the background of this discussion that I feel should be brought to the fore: some people seem to believe that making our jobs easier is the same as making the wiki better. It's not. It is wrong to assume that any "disruption" a person may cause is necessarily detrimental to the site. It may be easier for some to block rpeh or someone like him than to allow him or her their right to speak on the site concerning site matters. We wouldn't have to convince them, argue against them, or be challenged by them. However, it would not necessarily make the wiki better, and that's what the goal should be. Making our jobs easier is fine up and until we reach a matter where our jobs are supposed to be hard. People management is not easy, but it's not supposed to be, and simply silencing people for the sake of convenience is the coward's way out.

::::::Anyways, it's clear to me, at least, that the months-old comments AKB dredged up were only mentioned to buttress the weak foundation for this block, and really the only substantive reason was rpeh's opposition to RH's RfA and the suspicion of meatpuppetry. Allow me to reiterate: (1) Opposing someone in an RfA by expressing an opinion on the merits of the candidate for adminship is a valid form of participation and not a "disruption" to the site, (2) "meatpuppetry" is just a derogatory term for what is, essentially, an acceptable electioneering practice which doesn't justify a block, (3) the punishment for suspected meatpuppetry is that it is unpersuasive and repulsive to other voters, and that it may be discounted by Daveh, not the implementation of a block, and (4) blocking rpeh over likely misguided perceptions and prejudices rather than for actual violations of UESP's policies and standards is offensive to my conscience.

::::::In response to Vely, when you say rpeh's "total disgrace" comment was "needless", how do you define what was needed or not? The presumed goal was to dissuade others from voting for Robin, who already had a substantial number of votes in his favor (including my own). Hopes of achieving his goal must have looked bleak, and rpeh likely felt he needed to state his opinion as forcefully as he could to help turn the tide against Robin's nomination. Judging by the aftermath, he was correct in that assessment. And while "total disgrace" is hardly favorable, it's clearly rpeh's assessment of the merits of Robin as a candidate to be an admin, in the appropriate forum, and not a personal attack or grounds for a block.      •   23:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

 RH70 pointed out a policy with suspicions about Haysie--without definitively stating more than that suspicion--to which rpeh replied with a statement that RH70 was misusing policy. I don't see how a simple mention of a policy (with reasonable suspicion, as the only person we know Haysie knows on here is rpeh and there were only userpage edits before then) is grounds for being called a disgrace.         23:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
:I'm genuinely hurt by what I'm seeing. I respected rpeh as an editor, and I don't deny that I don't approve of how he was de-admin'd, but if he shouldn't have been then, he definitely should be now. Regardless of what happened, there is no reason to speak so harshly with so little provocation on so many occasions. I'm equally disappointed to be seeing so many editors I used to have so much respect for using semantics as a way to justify needlessly provocative comments. Let me repeat: I   rpeh, and even I can't deny that his posts are inflammatory. As Kenny said, we cannot continue to overlook infractions because of a history of good contributions. Hell, if Daveh himself started breaking the community rules and being rude like this while never contributing anything worthwhile, I doubt many people would disagree with a demand for his resignation. ThuumofReason 23:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
::  To Velyanthe, I don't see how, either; Rpeh's explanation was not perfectly clear (again, not a blockable offense). I imagine it went something like this: he understood the wiki policies to mean that all users are presumptively welcome to participate. He also must have thought, rightly or wrongly, that the users were preparing to categorically discount Haysie's vote and that there was nothing in the policies which allowed for this. The most relevant sentence, "Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, and meatpuppets", does not specify who may discount a vote or what measure of certainty is needed. So he either thought that this was guidance for individuals, that they may consider a vote so unpersuasive so as to not count it at all, or else that it allowed a vote to be categorically discounted by an administrator at the final tally, but doing so required hard evidence, not circumstantial evidence like what we have here. Just to start, it's certainly possible that Haysie makes contributions without signing in, it's also possible that he or she made the account with a good-faith intent to participate, and without any agreement in place to support rpeh's endeavors. While allowing for these possibilities might mean that discounting a vote for meatpuppetry would rarely happen short of a confession, that's not such a bad thing. It doesn't stop individuals from concluding that someone is a meatpuppet. Like I was saying before, that's the real, organic punishment for suspected meatpuppetry. A block is disproportionate and ultimately unnecessary.

::Regardless, it's clear by what rpeh said that he thought that the basic interest this wiki has in promoting participation is important enough that in this case the mere suspicion of Haysie as a sockpuppet or an inappropriate meatpuppet was not enough to officially discount her vote. Whether we agree with that or not is not really relevant; it's enough that he had a reason and he tried to explain it in a persuasive way, at the appropriate place.      •   00:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

::: The one counting the votes would have been Daveh, and guidelines say that a vote can be discounted if meatpuppetry is suspected. While we couldn't prove or disprove it, there was some evidence for it. I also see nothing wrong with suspicions. We could even ask Haysie herself.

:::I agree that the single incident would not be a blockable offence, but the multiple incidents that took place in February and the vote are all somewhat similar. If not insults, they are rather close to them, and have been far too frequent to be simple accident. I do not know if it directly fits into the disruptive editing category, but it seems to follow the point of "Their edits often avoid gross breaches of civility, by refraining from personal attacks, while still interfering with civil and collaborative editing meant to improve the article." 

:::What do you mean by ''"Whether we agree with that or not is not really relevant; it's enough that he had a reason and he tried to explain it in a persuasive way, at the appropriate place."? What is the "it"?  '''       00:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

::::Thanks for clarifying. Nevertheless, rpeh's thesis that nothing disqualified Haysie from voting remains true; Haysie had the right to vote, even if Daveh has the right to discount it. So rpeh becomes guilty of throwing up a straw man (again, not a blockable offense, just a subversive method of argument that may not have been intentional). Rpeh is abrasive with people when he thinks he's right and he's being ignored. I don't think he will deny that, or even wants to. But he's certainly not interfering with my ability to be civil or collaborate.

::::He's not swearing, he's not spamming, all of his comments, while apparently unpopular, have been related to the site and placed appropriately, and all there is against him in terms of fraud is ungrounded suspicions. That's just the simple state of affairs right now. Do you think the person I just described should be blocked? 

::::For that last sentence, I meant that whether we agree with the reasoning of rpeh as I had proposed it, it's enough that he was positively contributing (as ironic as that terminology may seem). The "it" was his reasoning. We don't have to agree, for example, with rpeh's "total disgrace" comment, but in this context, I believe it's necessary to conclude that he had no basis for coming to that conclusion to hold him accountable with a block for expressing such an opinion. I believe he had some substantive, legitimate reason(s) for his opinion, poorly explained and possibly misconstrued as they may have been, so it would be wrong to silence him for uttering that opinion.      •   00:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

:::::  Calling people sycophants and disgraces for attempts to contribute and mentions of site policy, calling someone incompetent simply because he has done more on maps, and just about calling someone's edits useless and perhaps detrimental ("doing nothing but fixing typos, over-complicating templates") doesn't sound like comments that have been site-related and appropriately placed. I also forgot his comment about the whole nomination being a façade, which is really uncalled for, unless there's some huge underlying issues that I'm completely missing. He's free to express his opinion, but bringing strong emotions and perceived plots into play isn't the way to do it. 

:::::To address a point I missed earlier, I don't think that the wiki's policy on meatpuppetry should be discussed in terms of this conversation, if you've got feelings about changing it. Whether or not it's acceptable is a unique issue on its own, and I'm fairly certain it's policy (written or unwritten) to not alter policy while events regarding the policy are going on or in the middle of such an event.         01:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::I feel similar to how ThuumofReason is feeling. Anyway, I agree that in no way were there any clear personal attacks. Though I was under the impression that meat puppetry was a good reason to block, and I find it rather obviously so to be the case ~ Dwarfmp 01:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Meatpuppetry is a form of fraud, just like sockpuppetry, and I presume it's blockable. The rub is that sockpuppetry is sometimes hard to spot but usually easy to prove, while meatpuppetry is usually easy to spot but almost impossible to prove with any reasonable degree of certainty. It may be just a disguised form of sockpuppetry. You're essentially trying to argue res ipsa loquitur, the thing speaks for itself; I say you need more to go on. How do we know Haysie doesn't participate as an anon while at school or work? How do we know the account wasn't started in good faith? How do we know that they made an agreement for Haysie to support rpeh's goals? And even assuming Haysie has a standing agreement to take certain positions and never contributes beyond that, how do we know that agreement is with rpeh? I'm not asking for proof beyond a reasonable doubt like this is a courtroom, just something that doesn't turn this into a witch hunt. So I just don't see how a block is necessary or just in these circumstances.      •   01:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 Would asking Haysie be appropriate in this situation?         01:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
:Certainly, if you feel that would be productive. For the moment, I'm just thinking about how easy it would be to frame or be framed for suspected meatpuppetry in the future. Someone who doesn't like what I'm saying could be making an account right now at the local coffeeshop, under a different IP, saying their old buddy Minor Edits told them to join the UESP. Times goes by, eventually someone will have a problem with me. Then this inactive account suddenly starts making comments in support of me, someone takes notice, and I'm blocked on the mere suspicion of meatpuppetry. It would be so easy. I don't know about big conspiracies, but there are certainly plenty of individuals out there with a bone to pick with rpeh. All it takes is one crazy person, and since this is the internet, is it really all that unlikely that someone will do this eventually? And regardless of what you think of rpeh or the truth behind Haysie, do you think that other person really deserves to be framed and blocked?      •   02:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
::I don't know about blocking policy on meatpuppets, just with throwing out their votes if suspected. I feel it may be productive to ask Haysie about it, as if she admits to being asked by rpeh to add a voice or to being pointed towards the discussion by him then that would prove it, whereas other answers would disprove it or stay ambiguous. Don't forget to assume good faith--without that, we'd all be seeing conspiracies, in which case we might as well say that JR is trying to slowly remove me from patrollership by gradually pointing out grammar issues.

::I don't hold much opinion on whether or not Haysie is a meatpuppet, nor do I have huge issues with rpeh based on her vote (since we can't prove it in the first place). It's everything else I've mentioned that I have issues with, but please note that my opinions aren't very strong. 

::I don't think that the fact that most of rpeh's posts were from two months ago really matters either, since his attitude has been similar recently and he has been negative towards RH70 in the same manner, even after taking a break.         02:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

:::To be honest, I don't agree with Rpeh's block. However, since AKB just went and blocked him like that, without discussing it with other admins, also threathening to resign if his actions were considered to be wrong (as would be the case should the block be removed), there wasn't much I could do. Considering the whole drama, I didn't feel the need to make AKB look bad as well, so I tried to support him in the block (we already look bad as it is). Though I really think that the meat puppetry is a good reason to warrant a block. Since it cannot be proved, but the term exist and is a reason to block, well then someone has to take a look at the facts and decide on their own whether this is legit or not. And I believe it is not. I've put forth what I can call evidence. Perhaps we need more opinions from other admins/patrollers ~ Dwarfmp 02:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

::::That's the thing; what exactly is meatpuppetry? Just pointing a new or existing member towards a discussion is not enough to warrant blocking a person. As I said earlier, I think that's just electioneering 101. People have posted on my talk page before asking me to take a look at a particular conversation where some important matter was being decided; I don't consider that to be unjustified, and such behavior should be protected. That's just fundamentally about encouraging participation in the site, which is rarely a bad thing. For a meatpuppet, I think you need someone who joined and participated for, in practice, the sole benefit of another user's agenda pursuant to an agreement between them. That's pretty hard to prove. If Haysie would be willing to confess to this arrangement, it would rule out some other possibilities, although not the possibility of framing I mentioned.

::::Rpeh's comments in Feb. were at least borderline; I believe he acknowledged this is true. All I can do is reiterate that criticism, negativity, whatever you want to call it, is not necessarily unconstructive site participation.      •   02:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

::::This is basically just talking in a circle now. As of now, as far as I see it, the majority of the users who have either felt the block was justified with the reasons I've given or would be justified (maybe under different parameters, I assume) if it were for the perceived meat puppetry (which he has more or less denied, though he never explicitly denied any relation with Haysie). Says most of the remaining arguing seems to revolve around whether his actions count as personal attacks (which I and many others consider them to be), and whether certain contributions should even count at all (I consider them to be valid due to the lack of any activity on the site between them). As of now, arguing over this isn't going anywhere, and I don't see the purpose of continued discussion on this subject. Unless Haysie intends to respond (and since there are already claims that this may be an elaborate frame job, I'm not entirely sure those opposing this would count any statement as genuine, meaning this discussion would just continue even further without any progress), or rpeh wishes to provide reasons for what he intends to do if he is allowed to edit again (which is a critical part of the appeal process), then I suggest we call this done. As of now, I don't see anyone persuading anyone else with any argument imaginable. --AKB   03:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  I apologize for prolonging this discussion.  However, I started writing these comments before AKB's last post, and I think they still have some merit even if the discussion is coming to an end; perhaps they'll give a few editors some new perspectives.

In brief, I think rpeh's recent edits have been disruptive, and that some action to prevent further disruptions is necessary.  Therefore, a block is appropriate.  I had been thinking that a less severe administrative action might also be equally effective.  Paradoxically, however, rpeh's appeal request leaves me more in favor of the block than I previously had been.  Without his appeal, I'd been able to give him the benefit of the doubt.  But if rpeh can't provide any reasons why we should think that his edits will be any less disruptive in the future -- or can't even tell us that the block might prevent him from making constructive edits -- then I feel no need to invent such reasons on his behalf.

In my opinion, rpeh's recent actions have not been appropriate.  Although no single sentence of rpeh's is a red-flag, unambiguous disruption and/or personal attack, his contributions need to be evaluated as a whole, not word-by-word.  Overall, he has made repeated inflammatory comments, without any intervening productive contributions to the site.  Each of his comments in Robin Hood's RfA was 100% negative; there was no redeeming value in terms of constructive suggestions -- unlike every other editor with a substantive oppose vote.  He has not followed up with anything to lessen the negativity of those comments.  His block appeal would have been a perfect opportunity to provide some type of explanation or extend an olive branch.  However, he hasn't even acknowledged that the community has concerns about those edits.

I whole-heartedly belive in Assume Good Faith -- but there has to be some minimal basis for assuming good faith, and the entire circumstances have to be taken into account, not just a single out-of-context sentence.  Rpeh's comments were not made in error; there is no evidence that they're being misinterpreted.  He has made no effort to say that he thinks there was anything inappropriate about his edits, or that anything about those edits should have been done differently.  As a result, I just can't see any way to interpret his comments as well-intentioned edits that were supposed to benefit UESP.  Rather, he simply appears to be venting, presumably because he is upset about being de-admined.  He is completely entitled to be upset, and it's a natural reaction, but that doesn't mean that he is entitled to act out on UESP in response.  He needs to be able to put the de-admin behind him and be willing to move forward -- otherwise I don't think he's ready to return to the site and return to being a productive editor.

There is no questioning that in the past rpeh has been a valuable contributor to the site.  However, Rpeh is not currently behaving/contributing in a manner consistent with a valuable contributor -- including the fact that he has not been making any productive edits.  We need to make decisions based upon the current situation.  In my opinion, allowing him to continue editing right now is only likely to lead to more inflammatory, negative comments posted on talk pages and noticeboards.  Allowing those edits to continue will cause more disruption and harm to UESP, and therefore the community is justified in trying to prevent more such edits.

Rpeh has made no attempt to convince the community that lifting the block will benefit the site -- even though the Appealing Blocks section explicitly recommends including such information in an appeal.  Rpeh doesn't even suggest that he is planning to contribute to the site.  Editing UESP is not a constitutional right.  It is a privilege given to editors solely because we want to allow editors to help improve the site.  People who don't want to improve the site don't need edit rights.  Also, talking about courts of law and judicial evidence standards is irrelevant -- we're not talking about a decision that sends someone to jail. UESP decisions arguably are more like a group of friends deciding who to invite to a party than a court of law.

All of which leads me to conclude that some action needs to be taken by the community to prevent rpeh from causing more disruption. A block accomplishes that goal. One argument against the block is that no warning was given first.  AKB has already rightly pointed out that admins have the discretion to block without first providing a warning.  One purpose of a warning is to make sure that the editor knows the site's rules and policies -- not necessary in this case.  Another is to tell the editor that his behavior has been inappropriate -- but rpeh has already been told exactly that in the whole de-admin process.  That was a pretty unambiguous message that the community disapproves of his negative comments directed at other editors.  Placing a bright pink official warning message on rpeh's talk page immediately after de-admining him would have been rubbing salt in open wounds.  Ultimately, a warning message is given in the belief that it may be sufficient to change the editor's behavior and prevent a block -- but based on rpeh's past behavior when given warnings, and based on his current argumentative responses, I see no reason to think that he would have paid any serious attention to a warning.

Also, I think three months is an appropriate duration given that in the two months since the de-admin, rpeh has shown no signs of moving past that event.

A final factor here is that we are talking about an existing block.  Administrative decisions are judgement calls.  In this case, AKB made a good-faith, thought-out decision based on the situation at that time and the information available to him at that time.  Second-guessing after the fact whether that was the single best possible course of action at that point in time isn't really helpful.  The question now is whether there is a definitive reason why the original decision needs to be changed.  In his block appeal, rpeh didn't provide any reasons for how UESP would benefit if the the block was lifted, and I'm not aware of any such arguments from other editors.

Given AKB's above comments, I think it may simply be best to close this discussion. However, if other editors still think that there are reasons why we need to lift the block -- reasons why that would be better for UESP than leaving it in place -- then I think those editors need to provide an alternative proposal about what can be done to prevent continued disruptions.  Even though I strongly feel that simply lifting the block and doing nothing is the wrong course of action, that doesn't mean that there aren't other possible compromise solutions.  I think any continuation of this discussion needs to be focussed on identifying such compromises/alternatives -- on finding a consensus rather than just voting.  Otherwise, I agree with AKB that it's best to call this done. --Nephele  08:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Emotions are running high

Everyone here has a common interest or two, and that is the glue that holds this fan-site together. We could all be friendly.

We all contribute a little and use the great resource built by everyone for our own entertainment. This wiki is a group effort.

Feelings are what drive our editors to edit and all the other actions we do. Emotions are our brains way of helping us make decisions.

So please consider these three things as you argue over the finer points which must be made. This site is one of the best quality on the internet, and I wish for it to stay on top. While participating in this drama, I implore you all to think about what your choice of action means to everyone including yourselves.     Lukish    01:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Protection Template

To make Admins' lives easier, I've updated the   template to work almost identically to how page protection actually works. The template is mostly backwards compatible with how you're used to doing things, but it's no longer necessary to specify "move" as the second parameter. The move protection level is now assumed to be identical to the edit protection level. Apart from that, the biggest difference is how you specify pages that are only move-protected, which is now:  .  &ndash; Robin Hood    22:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Semi-Protection Request

Not 100% where to request protection so, can I request semi-protection status for . It is not heavily edited, but there is very little being added to the page by any of the edits, it's nearly as good as can be, and it's a waste of time to keep undoing the semi-useless/non-specific information that keeps being added. The Silencer has spoken   
: Hey Silencer! Sorry, but even if the page appears as “good as it gets” it still contains a vn-tag, a poorly formatted bugs section (filled with the forbidden words ‘sometimes’, ‘for some players’ and ‘may’), so it needs more work. Besides, we rarely semi-protect articles based on heavy traffic, unless it’s repeated vandalism or heavy edit warring. Unless some of the other administrators disagree, I’d recommend taking a deep breath and just keep looking after the page and make sure it's up to standards. All the best,  --Krusty 09:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
::I agree with Krusty.  Other than cases of heavy vandalism or edit warring, semi-protection is meant for pages where low-quality edits are very frequent (like , for example).  Besides, the whole idea of the wiki is that anyone should be able to edit an article regardless of how good it already is, and there's almost always something that can be improved, even if the "regular" editors don't see it.  I know it seems like a pain to keep maintaining an already very good page, but an easy "undo" just takes a few seconds.  Traffic always slows down as the game ages, so I'm sure we'll survive ;).          18:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki Upgrade to 1.19

Just an FYI that I'm in the process of upgrading the wiki to v1.19 of MediaWiki. Since we're running v1.14 this is a relatively involved process due to a number of custom changes we've made to the MediaWiki code as well as having to upgrade all the extensions, some of which are no longer needed since their functionality is now built into v1.19. There should be no downtime involved if everything goes well but I do expect there to be minor issues after the upgrade which will be dealt with as they appear.

If there are any other MediaWiki related feature or extension requests just let me know as it would be easier to do everything at once. -- Daveh 13:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
:That's nice. I recall viewing a recent blog post that suggested a upgrade :) --Michaeldsuarez   17:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
::As far as extensions, there are times when I've thought Loops might be useful. We can get some of this functionality from MetaTemplate, but having it directly would be nice. Another one to reduce the number of times we have to go to you or Neph would be Interwiki, which lets all Admins alter the interwiki list, rather than needing to have server access.

::On the opposite front, Icon can go if it doesn't integrate well with 1.19. The functionality is now all built in to the    link anyway. If you can get it integrated with 1.19, so much the better, as it'll make for a smoother transition, but I've been marking any templates that use that extension in a   to make it easy to transition very quickly if we need to.  &ndash; Robin Hood    22:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

:::I was personally hoping for the CSS extension, but it isn't strictly necessary. •      22:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Update --  I've done a test upgrade with a separate MediaWiki installation and database copy which is available at   It includes the v1.19 of MediaWiki, database structure update, and all extensions. If anyone wants to do some quick checks to see if anything is obviously broken they are free to do so (it is a completely separate database so feel free to do anything). I've tested it and while nothing seems to be broken I figure you all know where the quirky dark corners of of wiki code are better than I. 

Depending on how many issues are exposed I'd like to do the real upgrade to v1.19 sometime later this week. All the code is written and just requires being copied to content1/2. Unfortunately, the database update took around 1 hour to do so the wiki will at least be in read-only mode for around time and possibly the site partially inaccessible (in theory the database slave and caches *should* work to prevent any significant interruption). -- Daveh 01:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

:Here are some issues I encountered: (Some you probably know about or will be fixed once the site is fully upgraded)
::#The   tag no longer works. 
::#The CSS for diffs, tables, and galleries are set to the standard wiki colors. (Note: see "Heads-up for MediaWiki administrators", first "BREAKING CHANGE" bullet.  &ndash; Robin Hood   )
::#External links no longer show an arrow image, but the space is still there.
::#I can't view categories.
::#Some links on the editting page are in raw text.
:That's what I can see right now. I'll update if necessary. Thanks, Dave. elliot   02:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

::The #icon images aren't a big concern, since they can (nominally) be converted to File links now. , however this has demonstrated another problem: links like   (16x16px|Test|link=User:RobinHood70) aren't working properly on 1.19. That link should reliably be displaying "Test" as the hover text, yet in most cases, it doesn't. I was able to get it to do so briefly in a Show Preview on my user page, but then it stopped doing it again. Testing this same link on Wikipedia works reliably with the correct hover text every time. I've also tried switching browsers to those I don't use often, and clearing my cache, none of which seem to make a difference. The "title" parameter either isn't being emitted or it's being scrubbed by some kind of HTML cleaner.   &ndash; Robin Hood    02:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

::A few more:
:::# The "Edit Summary" link is being displayed as HTML text instead of being properly rendered.
:::# "Category:Templates Using Icon Extension" is considered to have one page in it (expand that category in  ), but I get a 500 error if I try to go to  .
:::# Purge functionality of the clock gadget doesn't work (no link at all...possibly related to the other linking issues?).
:::# No short links (i.e.   vs.  ).
:::# Given that there's now Revision Deletion built in, do we still need Oversight?
:: &ndash; Robin Hood    03:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  Dave: I noticed in your upgrade instructions that you're copying our current Monobook .css file over top of the new one. The new one looks to have numerous changes to it compared to 1.14, so I've gone through and compared our current Monobook/main.css (after extensive reformatting) to the default 1.14 Monobook/main.css file. With the exception of one line (more in a sec), it looks like all our code is just tacked on at the end, so I've created a copy of the 1.19 file with the additional CSS tacked on and uploaded it to Main.zip. The one line that wasn't added to the end was a change to the   near the top, but as I understand CSS, that would be overridden by the second   line near the bottom of the CSS file anyway, so I didn't make that change (both intended to replicate our parchment background).

Unless there's something else going on, we should consider moving the tacked-on code to  so we don't have to worry about it in the future. I believe that should work, though you and Neph have more experience with that than I do, so if it doesn't, I'd be curious to know more about it.  &ndash; Robin Hood    04:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, note that it's no longer necessary to "uglify" the CSS just to keep it minimalist. The ResourceLoader strips out the comments and whitespace automatically (e.g., my CSS file:   /  ).  &ndash; Robin Hood    06:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

: Great stuff, thanks! Slowly looking into all the issues and updating below as they are fixed.
::* Icon extension disabled (can be re-enabled if needed)
::* CustomCategory extension removed
::* Reverted to the original main.css
::* Moved custom changes in main.css to Mediawiki:Common.css (seems to work fine but need to test further)
::* Two minor CSS changes (this in combination of moving things to Common.css appears to have fixed the noted color issues)
::* Missing "arrow" on external links is back (assuming the CSS changes fixed it)
::* Fixed the errors of viewing categories resulting in a crash. An API change in CategoryViewer needed to be fixed on line 29/33/35 of MetaTemplateCategoryPage.
::* Updated  to fix the "Edit summary" link (not exactly the same as it was before as its missing the custom link title).
::* The lack of short links is on purpose and only for testing.
::* Fixed the missing "purge" feature of the clock gadget by updating  to the latest version.
::* The main page top row link issue is something related to the CSS. On the Main_Page there are three blocks which are hidden in Common.css which causes the bodyContent block to "cover" the top row of links preventing them from being clicked. The quickest solution is to re-display the 3 blocks normally hidden on the Main_Page at least until a better fix can be figured out.
::* Fixed the missing spaces between links by deleting  .
: -- Daveh 01:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

::One more I just noticed: on the Main Page, only the left-most tab works; the others are completely disabled.  &ndash; Robin Hood    01:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

:::Another: the space after pipe characters | is not there. Compare (cur | prev) with   and  . And I'm still noticing the color issues with tables. elliot   02:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

::::Can you give some example links of tables incorrectly colored? I can't find any from random browsing. Make sure your browser cache is clear or you force a complete page reload as there have been CSS changes in the past few days which may not show up otherwise. -- Daveh 23:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

:::::All the standard "wikitable" tables seem to display this issue. An easy example is the archive box at the top right of this page. Compare that to  . The header bars are standard blue-grey there instead of the peachy colour we have here.  &ndash; Robin Hood    01:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
::::::See  . I did rest my cache, and it still is showing up. elliot   01:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 On the pipe separator issue, what happens if you just delete the custom MediaWiki page? I know rpeh put it in place to stop a few oddly formatted separators from popping up, but I'm wondering if maybe those have been fixed by 1.19 and it's no longer necessary.  &ndash; Robin Hood    01:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

:Good point...this indeed did the trick. -- Daveh 23:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Update --  A bunch of issues have been flushed out and fixed and we should be good to go for the actual upgrade. I do expect minor issues to pop up over the next few weeks but we'll fix them as we find them.

Read-Only Notice -- 7-10:00 EST 12 May 2012 --  I'll be doing the update this Saturday morning when I can completely devote the day should anything go wrong. The wiki will be set to read-only for a few hours  but there should be little to no service interruption, especially for anonymous users. I'll try to minimize the amount of time in read-only mode but a lot of it depends on how long the database update actually takes (makes me wonder how Wikipedia handles things). Part of the upgrade process will be a database backup in case something horrible does happen to break when the load of 10-20 requests/sec begin hitting the upgraded Wiki.  -- Daveh 23:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

: A reminder that the Wiki will be locked for an hour or two starting shortly. -- Daveh 11:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Upgrade Failed/Delayed
The upgrade to 1.19 itself worked fine but as soon as any load was put on it the database queries quickly overloaded db1 causing the site issues over the past hour. I've reverted to v1.14 and unlocked the wiki. I'll have to figure out why all the write queries are overloading the database in v1.19. Until then the upgrade is postponed. Note that the few edits done on v1.19 of the Wiki are "lost" (technically they are still in the v1.19 of the database but it is not worth trying to save them). 

If you get any page that doesn't display properly try purging it. If this is a continual issue I'll have to look into it further. I'm assuming it is just an issue of some pages in the cache being v1.19 which don't work any more. -- Daveh 14:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

:I have had to purge or refresh some pages to get them to show up, or to have the site show that I am logged in, but the one that doesn't work is the Recent Changes page. If I go to the link normally, it gives me the Main Page error page that was showing up earlier. Refreshing it does not fix it. I can only access it by the purge address.         16:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

::I've just purged Enchant for a Forum user, I've also had some oddities described by other users - I think resetting your browser cache might remove the problem for yourself (i'm not seeing any errors at all since I cleared mine). --       17:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
:::That fixes that. Thanks. The Silencer has spoken    17:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

::::I'm getting the same cache issues we had a few months ago on almost every single page. Refreshing works fine, but it is rather frustrating. --AKB   22:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::I was having this problem when AKB posted that^ a few weeks ago, and I'm still having the same issue now. It doesn't happen as often, but still quite bothersome when trying to make or patrol edits.      21:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC) 

  I'd noticed the first time you were testing that there were a few formatting issues on my user page, but I wasn't all that worried about it because I figured the formatting was fairly complex and I could always try something new. But looking at Markarth locally vs.  , it looks like whatever formatting problems there are might be more significant than I first thought.  &ndash; Robin Hood    02:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up: It looks like this is a change in the styles applied to the   command. Whether that's because it's been deprecated or it's some other coding change, I'm just going to switch our templates to use CSS and/or classes, I think, since CSS is generally preferred anyway. Other instances outside of templates can be dealt with as we find them. (And yet another edit: I've just had it confirmed that this has been deprecated.)  &ndash; Robin Hood    02:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

:Also, while looking at Eshe's question about the proposed deletion category, I noticed the text "UNIQ67d5fc7720c66f41-catpagetemplate-00000000-QINU" showing up on the MW1.19 test version of the page, which means that MetaTemplate is not working properly.  Doing a quick comparison of a couple MetaTemplate files, I found one error that had been introduced, namely line 627 of MetaTemplate_body.php had been changed from:
:: 
:to
:: 
:That is supposed to be an assignment (=) operator, not a comparison (==) operator: the result of GetCanonicalIndex is being assigned to  , and the result is then being checked to see if it is null.  However, that introduced mistake is not responsible for the UNIQ...QINU text appearing on the category page.  I'll do a more complete comparison of the changes made to the MetaTemplate files to see if I can find other problems. --Nephele  15:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
::OK, I found another mistake, this time in MetaTemplateCategoryPage.php, where line 72 (   ) had been deleted.  I've restored the deleted line and that fixed the category's QINU...UNIQ text. --Nephele  15:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Upgrade Testing Problems
The upgrade testing being done on content3 is causing serious problems with the main site.  For example, I just pulled up Special:Contributions/SFK363 (posted as an external link to highlight that I was using www.uesp.net when I hit the problem), while logged in to the site, and got a contributions listing that was two weeks out of date -- missing a dozen contributions made since May 5, including several just hours ago.  In other words, while accessing the main site I was shown a page generated by content3's out of date version of the database.  To see a valid version of the page I had to explicitly request the page from content1.  I've been noticing several other reports (such as this one, plus what seems like a higher-than-usual number of caching problems) that make me suspect it's been happening for several days at least.  Every day that passes is going to make the problems even worse, because content3's database is going to get further and further out of sync with the true database.

The fact that as a logged-in user I was shown a content3 page when using www.uesp.net makes me believe that squid1 must have content3 listed in its set of servers.  Beyond that, it's also possible that content3 is messing up the site by (a) sending its pages to squid1 whenever it generates a page; (b) storing any pages that it generates in the server-side file cache; and (c) google has indexed content3 as a separate site and therefore will randomly send people to content3 instead of www.  These problems need to be fixed as quickly as possible. --Nephele  15:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

:Looking again at the bad version of the contributions page that I was given this morning, I noticed that in fact for that one page the wiki thought I was not logged in -- even though immediately before that I was logged in (when marking some of the editor's edits as patrolled), and immediately afterwards I was logged in (when I went to content1 directly to see the up-to-date version of the contributions page).  The fact that the system lost my session for that one page is probably somehow related to whatever problem is going on. --Nephele  16:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

::I'm unsure if this is related or not, but since I didn't have this issue the last time I tried to upload files via the bot, I thought I'd report it here as a possibly related problem. I'm getting 500 errors after uploading a file, even though the file is getting uploaded successfully. Since everything seems fine apart from the error, I'm just going to ignore it unless other issues start to crop up.  &ndash; Robin Hood    22:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Censorship

 &ndash; Can someone please explain to me why hyperlinks to sincere critiques of UESP are suppressed? --Michaeldsuarez   20:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
: I’m not sure what you’re trying to accomplish, but I know that it is incredibly unhelpful, useless and mean-spirited. You know the word for inactive users that return to cause (or feed) drama, so please consider doing something useful instead. Thanks in advance. --Krusty 20:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
::I have never heard of that site, however I did notice that searching it in google that the first entries it brings up are all insulting people from UESP ...     (  &#124;  )   20:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
:::Plus, clicking the link brings up an adult only warning. Things that need that sort of notice shouldn't be linked to this site. The Silencer has spoken    20:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
::::The content in the link directly goes against etiquette policies. While outside links might not always have to directly follow our policies to be allowed to be linked to, that link does something that would cause an immediate ban: "Personal attacks are grounds for an immediate block." While a few things on that blog post might be somewhat appropriate, even if they should be expressed through emails or the CP if anyone has those concerns (''"[Daveh] hasn't been able to maintain the site and this latest mess demonstrates is perfectly."), the amount of cursing and name-calling on that blog would cause an immediate ban for the user posting the content. We do not want to see something like that on this wiki, especially since it brings up drama that we should be past.         20:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::If they actually were sincere'' critiques of our articles/policies then it wouldn't be as bad, but thats what talk pages exist for. That blog is purposely agitating, it exists solely to point out the flaws of individual users - in crude and harmful ways. There is absolutely no need to link to such a site. It was suppressed to stop bringing attention to the site, by you fighting for the link - you are creating more attention for that site and belittling your fellow editors in the process. I don't know why your insistent on either of those things but it makes me awfully suspicious since you haven't made a constructive edit in years. --       20:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

  How is UESP Watch a sincere critic? That site is littered with nothing but insults. I pulled up a post at random, and I see RH70 being called a "Whiny little b**ch", Nephele a "Queen of Trolls", myself, a Wikia Stooge and liar, Eshe, an incompetent admin. I could read past the second paragraph and probably find worse if I wanted. A "sincere critique" of UESP would:
# NOT use that kind of language to describe people on site, and
# Would include some kind of constructive criticism and a suggestion for improvement.

Judging from your previous posts, you are quite aware that there has been a little bickering going on. Do you have to start something like this just as the dust is settling?      • •   20:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

:First off, censorship is allowed when the remark is inflammatory and likely to cause drama such as this. UESPWatch is a genuinely nasty site which relishes insulting our policies/editors/discussions/actions etc. How on earth can a blog which bashes anything and everything we work to sustain be considered a sincere critique? Some of the things written on there wouldn't be found in a gutter, let alone in a reliable source. Kitkat   21:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

::I second Krusty. Plus, it is suspicious that you are trying to push the blog, MDS... elliot   02:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Intrusive Ads

Frequently, when I go to pages now, those advertisements that pop up in the corner of the page and take up the entire corner and play videos and follow the screen keep popping up. This is getting extremely annoying, and if I remember right, the wiki doesn't like these.

I just thought I should warn you about these showing up, and about how they aren't staying in their designated area at the bottom of the page, and instead following your area you are viewing.--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. 22:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

:I've had a couple of Dial ads pop up, unmuted videos that follow my location on the page. You're right, intrusive ads aren't wanted.         22:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

::If you can provide any more information about the ad it will help me track it down and prevent them from showing up. This includes what the ad is for and the source of the ad if it is known or displayed. If you can provide the actual ad link that will help immensely. -- Daveh 23:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

:::If I'm right, both the times I saw it show up, it was two different ads, and they were both on the main page. If I can find it again, I'll post the link here. For now, you should keep a lookout for it.--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. 00:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

::::Actually, come to think of it, I believe it was those Dial ads causing it.--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. 02:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

:::::I have been unable to find it as well, but I also only saw it on the front page.         02:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

 I found a ten-second T-Mobile HTC One advertisement, unmuted, followed my place on the page. Disappeared on ending, was unable to get a link to it. Found it on a file page, so I suppose location is unimportant.         15:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
:That should help find the source. If you can right-click on it and save the link to post here it would be good as well (works for non-flash ads). -- Daveh 16:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

::Axe Shower Gels, six-second ad, took me here when clicking on it. It's a flash one, and I think the other ones are as well.         14:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

::HTC One is also flash, takes me here.         14:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

On a related note, is it possible to suppress ads appearing when editing a page?  I have no problem with them appearing on articles, but when editing, they can screw you up because it takes a few seconds after the page loads for the ad to appear, which sometimes interrupts your typing and causes the system to ignore some mouse clicks, which can really cause confusion.  (Particularly annoying when editing a template.)  Plus, I know ''I'm'' never going to click on an ad that appears while I'm editing, because doing so can cause the browser to lose the edit-in-progress.  There's just not much benefit to displaying ads on the edit screen, and several good reasons not to.  --TheRealLurlock   03:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

:I just had one of these video ads for Delta Airlines on the login page, though it (un)fortunately disappeared before I could grab a link for it.          13:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

::Just got a Clear advertisement. I think this is something we can't control, because It's a ton of random advertisements. They mostly seem to happen on the main page, however.--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. 19:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

:::Any chance you can make it so the ads stop crashing the Steam overlay UI in Skyrim? I started coming here when the Skyrim wikia site adverts crashed the overlay, and now this site is spamming adverts that are doing the same! Thanks.  

::::While more rare than video ads, I have been getting some survey ad that pops up in the middle of my screen for a very long time now. I see it on a ton of websites I frequent, and I can't remember what it's called. Got one recently, which reminded me of it.         16:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::I'm getting the same one, it's from "Scorecard Research" and I've also been getting it for a long time.      21:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

:::::: Got another ad from ScorecardResearch, blocking the page at . --Legoless 15:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Spambot

Based on their contributions, CubosPozima would appear to be a spambot... If someone could hit them with a block, please? 

(At least, it's my understanding that one doesn't need to issue warnings to obvious bots before blocking them. But I've been away for a while, so I might be wrong. If so, I'll issue one, and my apologies for making the request prematurely.)--  Ghurhak gro-Demril        09:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
: All done! :) --Krusty 09:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Apologies!

My apologies to our Admins. While the bot thought it was checking for missing pages before saving them, apparently, I had the wrong type of check in there, so it has just happily created 15 pages for the sole purpose of proposing them for deletion. It at least has the good graces to feel ashamed of itself. I'll change them all to speedy deletions and ensure that all other checks are updated appropriately. Sorry for the extra work!  &ndash; Robin Hood    10:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Skyrim eggs page

Can we put the semi-protection on the page back up? It seems like taking it down has led to people making unapproved additions without even bothering to bring it to the talk page. ThuumofReason 00:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

:For anyone who's counting, there have been 8 anonymous users whose edits have had to be undone since April 19.         00:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

::I've protected it for another month. --AKB   02:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Bot Attack

Heads up, it looks like we're going to be getting a lot of bots wrecking our pages. Keep an eye out for anonymous edits that add random strings of characters or generic comments like "very nice site!" --AKB   05:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, server experts!

So this morning I was running through some deletions, and immediately after I deleted Category:Archive-By Date-2010 April and purged :Category:Proposed Deletion, I for some reason landed on  .  I can't for the life of me figure out why this happened.  Anybody know of an explanation for this, or if it's a problem for anyone but me?          13:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Page refuses to load

I have, for a long time, wondered what the  page did. I think it keeps a record of what has been searched for on the wiki, but that's just a guess. If I attempt to access the page when logged out, I get the "you cannot use this feature" message, as expected--so, it at least loads. When I try to access it when logged in, however, I get a white page, with the browser tab indicating that it is loading; it never finishes loading, and is stuck on the loading page. I cannot access any other UESP page for another five minutes or so; they give me the same white loading page. If I attempt to, that resets the five-minute (or so) timer. I've never been able to access the page in the past, but I've never tried too often to get to it, and never had this loading issue until now. 

Purging does not fix it and gives me the same white loading page.         22:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Appeal by NigerianPrince

Per the Appealing Blocks policy, in particular the requirement that an account's first appeal always be discussed on the Admin Noticeboard, I am copying the following "appeal" from :
:''Why'd you block me :(  ''
The account was blocked for uploading explicit pornographic images to the site.  As far as I'm concerned, the appeal has absolutely no merit, and I don't think the community should feel any need to waste its time dealing with this appeal.  So unless I'm overlooking some reason why UESP should tolerate porn, everyone is free to ignore this appeal, let it run its one week course, and let us move forward with denying the appeal. --Nephele  23:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

1,000,000 Edits
It is nearing the moment of the one-millionth edit since UESP was set up. I, personally, believe that this memorable event deserves some recognition; perhaps a news segment would do, but something should be done. I apologize if this is not the right page to post this on. MethodicMockingbird 22:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

:The Community Portal is probably the better choice. I'll move it there.  &ndash; Robin Hood    22:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

New Autopatrolled User

I'm not sure who has the ability to change user rights/permissions, whether it can be any administrator or only certain users, so I'll just post this here so it can be dealt with appropriately. A new nomination has gone through in favor of adding Kiz to the Autopatrolled Users group.      05:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
: All done! --Krusty 05:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Command Creature and Frenzy Pages Messed Up

When I go to command creature, the page background is all white and the description about its effects are not even there. It's like entire sections are gone. As for Frenzy, it's got the info but the background is also white the layout is messed up. Basically, both pages are not displaying correctly. According to the last edit date info, they were both edited on April 18th 2012, one after the other, 3 minutes apart. I hope you guys fix it, and if it was the result of vandalism, block the SOB that did it too.  
:The most recent edits were by a bot, just replacing a .gif image, so they are nothing important; nobody made the white background you are seeing. Try refreshing the page or clearing your browser cache; that may fix it.         01:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

More Bots

Bot attack in progress. Lore gods and categorys being targeted. The Silencer has spoken    02:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

:It looks like they're changing IP addresses, so about all we can do for the time being is revert the edits. I can block any repeat IPs, but blocking one-off IPs will probably do little unless they come up again.  &ndash; Robin Hood    02:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
::I think that's it. One repeat offender, 94.23.25.144. The Silencer has spoken    02:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
:::I've blocked the current set for 3 hours pending Admin action. I'm not sure whether this really helps the Admins or not since, on the one hand, they don't have to worry about posting warnings and it might save a few edits if an IP would've been repeated, but on the other hand, they have to go in and extend the block, which is basically the same work as creating it in the first place and delete my block note as well. If any more pop up, I'll keep blocking them until an Admin shows up, but if an Admin can let me know what they'd prefer, that'd be great.  &ndash; Robin Hood    02:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
::::I wonder if there's some way we could filter this sort of thing - the phrase "Very nice site" seems to be used in a lot of these edits.  While it's possible that a legit user might make that kind of statement, it's not very likely (nor very useful, even if it is flattering), so simply blocking that phrase would help a good deal.  Unfortunately, the spam blacklist seems to only block words and phrases used in URLs, not in general text, and so far this bot doesn't seem to be posting links.  (I can't help but wonder what the heck the point of this thing is?  All it does is waste people's time cleaning up after it.  They can't possibly benefit from it like with spam links.)  Do we have the ability to block unregistered users from posting certain blacklisted words and phrases even if they aren't in links?  I haven't seen it.  --TheRealLurlock   02:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 It's not over yet. Very nice site:P The Silencer has spoken    03:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
:  Unfortunately, the only one I know of,   is only for URLs. There's a server-side variable,   that can block specific wordings, but Nephele or Dave would have to do that. I don't think we have any extensions installed that'll allow admins that functionality.

:Lurlock: Are you getting the new ones that Silencer just mentioned? Also, for whatever reason,  seems to be the target of choice. Perhaps semi-protecting that would help?  &ndash; Robin Hood    03:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

::Thanks, Lurlock and AKB! If the bot decides to spread at all, I have code ready to go that'll add the Bestiary/Gods pages to the bot's auto-protect checks (if that's what we want to do). Right now, though, that's set up for permanent protection, which may not be appropriate here...but then again, we can always have it manually remove the protection whenever we want via that same code.  &ndash; Robin Hood    03:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

:::I think some of the bots are supposed to say "Very nice site! cheap cialis/viagra [insert url here]", but some aren't. By googling one of the IP addresses plus "very nice", I've found those comments plus "Very nice addrgf site"-like comments on pages that are just made for comments. Perhaps they give up when given a captcha, so only the non-url half of the comments make it through. So the bot should give a url on some, it just doesn't bother with the captcha.         03:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

:::: Aww, and I thought they were saying UESP was a nice site. :p Still, even if they were successfully posting links to spam pages, I can't imagine it being all that effective, given that they get reverted almost immediately, and even if they didn't I'd think even our dumbest visitors would think twice before clicking on a link for Cialis in the middle of an article about Malacath... --TheRealLurlock   03:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

:::   I think I got them all, though honestly there's not really much point, since it keeps changing IPs. Simple blocks aren't going to be effective in the long run. If the bot could reliably detect and revert these types of edits it might help a lot. (You'd need to make it regularly monitor Recent changes, I think.) It's a fairly predictable pattern so far, so shouldn't be too big a problem. I know Wikipedia uses bots extensively in this manner, so there's precedent. The fact that we currently only have 2 active bots shouldn't stop us from borrowing their techniques. I'd say go for it. --TheRealLurlock   03:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

:::: Unfortunately, I don't leave my computer running 24/7, and as you point out, it would have to monitor the RC 24/7 as well, which could be a little bandwidth-intensive. It could probably be set up to do one-shot fixes, but we're better off looking at other ways, I think. I know we've discussed server-side bots before, but I don't have any experience with that sort of thing, and I think we were looking at setting up a separate server for that...you'd have to ask Daveh about that, as I'm a little foggy on the details.  &ndash; Robin Hood    03:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

::::: My computer is running most of the time if we wanted to get that set up, though that wouldn't solve the bandwidth issue.  Server-side bots would seem to be the more ideal solution, but we would have to figure that out with Daveh or maybe Nephele.  (She knows more about bots I think, but installing new software on the server might be something only Daveh himself can do, so they might have to work together on that.  We'll have to wait until one of them sees this.) --TheRealLurlock   03:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Block Notifications need to be taken care of

When it is convenient, could an administrator please take care of the block notifications? I have noticed that several of the usernames/IPs blocking lately have either been temporarily blocked by a blocker for multiple spammings and forgotten about, or earlier, I saw Lurlock delete the spam pages, but not block the user/IP, so they are making repeat spam runs. Eric Snowmane (Talk &#124; Contribs &#124; Block) 07:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Dawnguard
Hi, just a few things to bring up here. Firstly, is a separate section for Dawnguard going to be added under Skyrim, like SI under Oblivion and Tribunal + Bloodmoon for Morrowind? Also, should a small number of articles be at least started for pages like Harkan, the Dawnguard faction and fort etc? Sorry for not being around for the last while in case I missed some things. RIM 17:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
:We don't know just yet if it's big enough. It's hard to start a page when it's uncertain if it will get its own section like shivering. The Silencer has spoken    18:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
::They can be moved if necessary. Though, judging from what we've seen so far, I would say it's more like KotN than the Shivering Isles. It probably is good in the Skyrim namespace. Deleting the articles serves no purpose to the wiki, either way. --AKB   18:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 Are we going to reinstate those temporary patrolling standards for Dawnguard content?      •   21:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Mobile UESP
I didnt know where to put this so i just put it here but you should really make the page mobile (Like on I-devices etc.) for easier navigation as it's really hard to navigate in desktop format. I've noticed alot of other wikis doing this and i find myself using them more because i can just pull out my ipod and look something up instead of going on the computer and you would probably see more visitors to the site. Please consider, thanks! (Btw sorry for posting this on the maing page it didn't load the thing where it says please direct all content not discussing main page to the community portal)  
:We do, in fact, have a mobile site.         20:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Block needed for spammer

I believe this account is a spammer and needs a block. --Xyzzy 03:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

:Done. --AKB   03:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Suspected bot accounts

I've noticed a bit of a pattern looking at the new users log.  There's a number of names out there that instantly stand out, as they're unusually long (and nearly the same length as each other), and all consist of a legit sounding name at the beginning and end and a whole bunch of random letters in between.  The users in question are:
JerimyfglzraaozfodxmjbmsnfagbucvxifmksaPresnell
MirtawsiurynzjtjwnqaqvbocjegxvvsgsbmknsrVivenzio
AshleaczswxffpiopccaqbuuewnbnziigdtweygaoScucchi
NevanhfuluvmuatdkbbjlhaqegnsxgeqkofdudvBatty
JaimeplpkwqxgavardhbzmevfcdeqhjppnovnlgiBerney
ArletteeibpxmzwpnzqiehiopmjagfhfciarksmvkjMolinary
Harlandvlolenxhfotwxmeiiobdnwfvuvnzdlitxqgraia
VeolazqwrhndmqqvlsicmmfgqmuezbtxghtvfheoBoakye
JaeflimorpndgpspakhiutzmqyrpcmrouldtffSantomauro
FaymqacbtgscifwkfjnrnkiuozuiqanrdifnnmRosell

One or two of these wouldn't be that big a deal (I could see a legitimate user just key-mashing when asked to choose a name), but I found 7 among the most recent 500 accounts.  So far, none of these accounts has posted anything yet, but I very much doubt they are legitimate users based on the pattern.  I think the real-sounding names at the ends are there to try and fool spam-filters that might reject names which are just random characters.  I've also run the names through an analysis program I have that can distinguish key-mashing from random characters (key-mashing tends to have many series of letters that are physically near each other, and these do not), so I'm almost 100% certain they are randomly created by bots.  What their motivation might be, I can't say, but they make me nervous.  Anyone think it might be worth a preemptive strike? --TheRealLurlock   04:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
:These actually look like the same first name/last name accounts that were being made a while ago (discussed briefly here), just with a bunch of gibberish in the middle.  In any case, I agree it's almost certain those aren't "real" accounts, and it's possible after a while they'll spam us.  Then again, we didn't block Get A FREE IPhone 4G - Easily! or Genuine Free IPhone Offer on sight, so it seems to me we need to either 
::1) set criteria for unacceptable usernames that would include these and block them on sight, or 
::2) keep on with the "leave it be until we taste spam" thing.
:Personally I think if we take any action at all, it should be looking into ways to better block bots from making accounts in the first place.          15:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

:::The account creation limiter thing that stops all the "archmage" and "maiq" accounts could be set to block spammy words like "free" "iPhone" etc., and be set to not allow accounts that are randomly generated characters?     ( • )  18:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

::::The iPhones in the name were blocked, and by Lurlocklikely in response to this user, [ Get A FREE IPhone 4G - Easily! . The Silencer speaks    18:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

:::::Unfortunately, I can't think of any way my random-character-detection program could be tied into the new-account creation system to detect randomly generated names.  I suppose we could block based on length alone (assuming that's possible) - these are easily over twice as long as any legitimate name that I can see.  What I'm wondering is if we might benefit from an upgrade to the captcha system, as it doesn't seem to be doing a very good job of keeping the bots away. --TheRealLurlock   02:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

 The filters need changed, there's been seven today so far, four blocked, three marked. There is a paticular pattern to them, they make an account and then spam about 23 hours later. I'll also add one to the list of suspects, Louvuitton, created just before this post. There doesn't seem to be any spam from the long names, though the blacklist may be working in those cases. The Silencer speaks    10:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

:Ick.  Just took care of 4 of them.  Now I've got spammer all over my hammer.  The fake accounts are quickly outnumbering the real ones.  We've GOT to do something proactive about this.  These things have a tendency to multiply exponentially.  I suspect at this rate we might start getting swamped with these things if we don't find some way of preventing these bots in the first place. --TheRealLurlock   11:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

::Well, what are our options?  We can try picking out things to add to the blacklist, but it seems to me that would be difficult or impossible to  do when the issue is a bunch of random letters.  We could try limiting the number of characters allowed in a username, though that seems like a short-term solution, and not many spam accounts are using crazy long account names.  Is there another version of Captcha we could use that would help, or maybe something in addition to Captcha?  What about requiring email confirmation in order to create an account?          13:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

:::I like the e-mail confirmation idea.  I'm pretty sure it can be done, though it would fall to Nephele or Daveh to set it up.  If the captchas are just being off-sourced to other sites as I mentioned before was a possibility, there's not much benefit to changing the captchas to some other type, as they might be solved by humans anyhow.  But e-mail confirmation is harder to fake.  (Though still not impossible, unfortunately, but it's still probably the best solution available right now.) --TheRealLurlock   02:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

::::I think email confirmation would be a good idea. If you wanted to start lightly on that, though, the confirmation could only be needed for allowing external links to be posted. That would cut down on the spam a bit.         00:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

:::::On another wiki I'm on, we implemented e-mail checks for account creation and the requirement to have an account in order to edit, and overnight, what had been rampant vandalism dropped to virtually nil.  &ndash; Robin Hood    03:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Messages to anonymous users

Do warnings/messages on an anonymous user's talk page result in a "You have a new message" alert when they are on the site? I was curious, since if it doesn't, then posting warning or messages for vandalism or forum-like posts to these users would seem to me to be basically pointless, unless there is something I'm missing (which is all too likely). --Xyzzy 05:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
:Yes.      •   07:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
::Yes with the caveat that IP addresses are subject to change, and thus messages may not be seen if the anon logs off and comes back later with a new IP. --TheRealLurlock   12:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
:::Ok. Thanks. This leads to my next question. I know there is an unwritten policy that we don't post welcome messages to anonymous users, but how about messages for issues such as forum-like posts or not using show preview? --Xyzzy 13:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
::::Those are fair game.  More often that not if it's one edit (like one forum-like post or just a short string of no-show-preview edits) most people don't bother with a message.  If it happens a few times then a message definitely helps ;).
::::And you know, while we're at it, I suppose it's high time we put a note on the messages page explaining the whole "don't welcome IPs" thing...I'll get on that this morning.          13:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Spambots and block appeals

Should we look into the policy of block appeals for these spambots that just create a user or user talk page for themselves with spam?  Generally when we block, we allow the blockee to edit their own talk page in order to appeal it, but in these cases, allowing that only makes it possible for them to continue spamming, since their own pages is all that they were editing anyhow.  I've been disallowing that for these for this reason, but it means I have to edit that part out of the standard block notice every time.  If we decide that it's okay to prevent user talk page edits for these cases, we should maybe consider adding a new block notice template to streamline the process.

Also I'm not sure what the rules should be regarding duration of blocks.  For those that create accounts, I generally make it permanent, but for anonymous IPs, there's the chance this could later on block legitimate users if their IP changes, so the limit on these should probably be shorter.  I think we've been a little inconsistent with these, and it might make sense to formalize some rules for this. --TheRealLurlock   02:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

:I've seen a lot of confusion and inconsistency about blocks lately.  This is how I usually approach these blocks, so I guess this is how I'd like it to be:
:*Spam is spam, and spammers get indefinite blocks.  Sure, most of these spambots seem to be one-time offenders, but we don't know what they'll do a year from now, and some of them do edit multiple times right away.  Anybody else who edits from that IP address should be invited to make an account.
:*Basic blocks first, then add features later. Because only a handful of the spambots are editing repeatedly, I don't see much issue with leaving talk page privileges in place.  It can always be removed later if there are further issues.  We could also protect the page.  This way, if there is confusion from an innocent user, we'll be able to explain the situation.
:*Registered accounts are good!  It seems IP spam is pretty rare compared to how it used to be, but it does happen, and I'm sure it's bound to happen from shared IPs.  I know we don't want to get in the way of people contributing how they want to contribute, but keeping spam under control is important too.  When we do block an IP address indefinitely, we could add a separate message (to make it more visible) to let the innocent bystanders know that the IP has been blocked to control spam, and we'd love for them to make an account.  I think I've seen Wikipedia do this for institutional IPs (schools and the like) that have had multiple warnings/blocks for vandalism.  And besides, having an account hides your IP and therefore your location...not exactly a bad thing!
:I feel least strongly about point 2, I should mention.  I can live with taking away talk page editing for spammers so long as we have a clear message in place for people using that IP who are just trying to help.  So them's my thoughts ;).  Anybody else?          19:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Block needed for spammer 2

User_talk:Adultdating_587. --Xyzzy 18:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Block needed for spammer 3

User:Loansbadcredit564 --Xyzzy 06:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
: Done. --Krusty 07:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Brief Protection for ?

The aforementioned page was the latest victim of the "Very Nice Site" bots, receiving 4 edits within 3 minutes. Should it be protected? Oh, and on a side note, I have temporarily blocked them all, and they are on the Block Notifications page awaiting further action.     ( • )  03:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

:Protection is not really necessary in these cases - That's just the way that bot operates.  It's always 3-4 edits in a short time and then it goes away.  If the same page is hit again, it might make sense to protect it, but I've never seen the VNS bot do more than a couple in a row per page. --TheRealLurlock   12:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Archive

Appropriate page-protection please?      18:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

:HnB's doing a protection run now and should find and protect it shortly.  &ndash; Robin Hood    18:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
::Thanks RH! :)      18:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)