UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard/Archive 15

Semi Unprotected

I just noticed in my Watchlist that   was recently vandalized by an IP address. It's supposed to be semi-protected based on the   template in it. Can someone please check that? Thanks!  ‒      15:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

: Looks like the protection was temporary - it ran out on 6 Feb. In any case, it should use   rather than  . rpeh  16:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

:: Just a reminder, this still needs to be fixed.  ‒      15:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ban For 98.126.56.178

He/She has made multiple personal attacks on Nephele.
:And me and Timenn. Timenn just logged off so It'll be a while, we can make it for now.--             00:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

:agreed i agree!--  00:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

::Done --Nephele  02:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Virus found on site
 

On Tuesday the 1 June 2010, my AVG encountered a virus on the following page:


AVG labeled it as "Exploit Neosploit Toolkit (Type 1109)"

I just wanted you to know ASAP! and I have no idea wehat to do or what this means.
Love your work
eid_broughton@yahoo.com
:GK will be gone for a while and that seems unlikely, are you sure it was from that page?--             01:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

::According to a forum where a user had a similar experience:
:::''It means YOUR computer is infected with a virus (malware specifically).  You'll get this error message regardless of what site you're on.  It seems to only affect Firefox users.''
::Which definitely sounds more likely than UESP being the source of the virus.  --Nephele  02:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Updates to Archived Discussions

To let everyone know, some quick feedback on assorted updates I've implemented based on old discussions:

Database Corruption
I started the refreshLinks maintenance program running last night... it's made it about 80% of the way so far.  It's fixing all of the issues with bad category links, etc.  But I've also been struggling with an obscure code bug that's been adding a lot of bizarre entries to wanted categories and wanted pages -- things like Special-NPCs as a wanted category.  Since it only happens when pages are processed by the job queue, it's really annoying to track down; I keep thinking that I've taken care of it, and then more start appearing.  So I'll be continuing to try to deal with that situation.  If there's still strange stuff in places like wanted categories by the end of the week, let me know; in the meantime, assume that I'm working on it.
New User Group
Implemented.  Blocker group has ability to block for up to four hours, and admins have the ability to add/remove from the group.  I took the code Nx wrote and simply added it into UespCustomCode since that made the majority of the code unnecessary -- I'm assuming Nx doesn't mind, but if there is an issue, I can change the implementation.
Skipcatcha please
I did not follow through on this, pending the possible Userspace Patrollers group.  That group has been given skipcatcha authority, and it's possible that membership in that group will be fairly widely available, in which case adding it to all confirmed users is probably unnecessary.

However, this probably is the end of my wikicode editing spree, short of dealing with new bugs that I may have introduced in the process. 

   --Nephele  18:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

:I'm tentatively (cross my fingers) concluding that the bug creating all the wanted categories/pages has been fixed.  It's been five hours since a buggy entry was created, and I've been throwing everything I can at the bug during that time.  Nevertheless, it's still going to probably take a day for the wanted lists to get cleaned out.  I'm also running a script that will make sure, eventually, to refresh any pages that have been processed strangely at any point in the last couple days.  Again, it'll be about a day before it's done so in the meantime reports like the following might continue to trickle in.
:One other point: some of you may have noticed the site not responding a few minutes ago (specifically content2 not responding).  That was my fault, triggered by another bit of database updating I was taking care of.  Basically I needed to monopolize the database for a couple of minutes for some reorganization, the upside of which is that now every time someone does a full-text search that search won't monopolize the database for a couple of seconds.  In other words, 120 seconds of work now to fix a constant stream of little 2 second jobs.  That should clear out one of the most common reasons why the database can be slow to respond to a request.
:Other than the above-mentioned cleanup scripts that will still be running for a while, that should be the last of my server disruptions for now.  --Nephele  22:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC) 

::So was that why for about 15-20 minutes everything kept timing out ?--  22:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

:::TheAlbinoOrc:  Yes.  One of the servers became completely overloaded, to the point where I couldn't even force it to restart.
:::One hopefully final update: all changes have now been made live on all servers, and all the update scripts have finished running.  So no more restrictions on making use of the new features.  --Nephele  19:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Quest links not displaying correctly

Why aren't the links to the quests always being displayed correctly? When I bring up the Skingrad page, I get several lines like the following instead of quests and links.

 }:  }

Skingrad isn't the only page like this.  

: There are various updates taking place at the moment (see the previous section on this page).  looks fine to me, which probably means you have a caching issue. I just purged that page: try again now. Otherwise, you'll just have to wait a little while. rpeh  19:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC) 

I just checked  also, it looked fine... except that the people were too far down in their section.--  20:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:Just a thought, I was getting lots of things like this with IE8. Whats your browser?.--             20:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC) 

Firefox.--  20:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:I meant the anon, but it looks fine for me on that page.--             21:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

 

 

 

Scorpio

What should be done with scorpio? Hes using bad language deleting pages removing warnings but I dont want to be hash so what else can be done to him other than a block (warnings have no effect on him) --Arny 19:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
:Just give things time to cool down. If he's willing to stop a block is not needed.      19:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

search

Hey I just wanted to ask that when you search for something why does the search show you the script of the page? Why doesnt it show you the text that is on the page instead? Arny 10:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
:By script, I'm assuming that you mean the page source and wikitext. How's how the MediaWiki search engine works. I personally prefer wikitext being used in the searches, since links tend to be piped (eg.    ). This sort of search also makes it easier to find and view external links. --Michaeldsuarez   13:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

::An additional problem is that it can give problems if you start parsing an article in the middle, instead of the beginning. Imagine having to create a table from only the middle section, you need the whole of it to show the correct layout. --Timenn-  14:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Adjustments to template subsections

After some experiments (and a few mistakes) I've found out that editing a section of a page with a template directly edits the template's original page. The effects can be described as followed:  is divided into a section (County Anvil} which is divided into a sub-section (The City of Anvil) which is further divided into sub sub-sections (the districts). Editing just regular Anvil brings up the template, while editing the section County Anvil brings up its section text. Editing the City of Anvil allows one to edit its section and sub-section. This causes obvious problems as if someone wanted to add namespace specific info to Oblivion, it will also affect the Lore Anvil and any page that uses template Anvil. Basically, it shouldn't be possible to edit a template's subsections besides on its template page, as this could lead to a big mess. Is it somewhat possible to integrate an almost     into a template, so that only a temp's sections can be edited on the temp's page? Or, is it possible to merge all sections to a template, taking the option of editing it away? I probably sound confusing, so if anyone needs it I'll be happy to clarify -- Jplatinum16 03:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
:That wouldn't fix the "problem". Even if you add    to the article, users could still edit articles in the "Lore" namespaces (by simply editing the Lore namespace articles). In addition, we have RecentChanges patrollers who could find problems within the Lore namespace. Also, namespace-specific data and templates aren't really things new users know about, so I can't see inexperienced users causing such a problem. I don't see any reason to change anything. --Michaeldsuarez   12:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
::The problem is not allowing editors to edit the Lore section; the problem is that editing a template section on one page will edit the template's orginal page. If I make an edit on one page, save, and end up on another, that seems like a problem. This problem can affect inexperienced and experienced users, cause I doubt most (if any) users know this. True, our trusty patrollers are always on the lookout for namespace specific info, but this affects:
#A template's page
#A page's (with the template) info
#A potentially useful namespace specific edit
Example: I want to add under the Oblivion Leyawiin Chapel District section that "the Best Goods and Guarantees general store can be found here, next to The Dividing Line". I click [edit] for that section, edit it accordingly, and then save. I am now on the Lore:Leyawiin page, instead of the Oblivion one. Now, Lore:Leyawiin has Oblivion specific info. A patroller sees this, and reverts it, saying it's not lore specific. Now, the Oblivion:Leyawiin page doesn't have that info. All of this could have been avoided if a template's sections weren't editable on other pages. May not be the biggest problem, but it's one nonetheless. -- Jplatinum16 00:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Vandal

: 
We currently appear to have a vandal at work. Would an administrator please block him as soon as possible. Thanks!  ‒ Robin Hood    23:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

:Also, while undoing the vandalism, I accidentally patrolled   which makes major changes to a paragraph in a Morrowind article, and I have no ready way to confirm. Can someone double-check it and take appropriate action, please? Thanks!  ‒ Robin Hood    23:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC) 

::(Edit conflict) Yep it's fine (far better than the one it changed) the only thing I need to change is that the ebony dart only appears at higher levels.--       23:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

:::i was going to put one of these please blok him--  00:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

::::Thanks for the confirmation, TAO.  ‒ Robin Hood    01:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC) 

:::::I'm not sure if just adding the template works but I tried to full-protect the warning since he was vandalizing it.--       01:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::Yeah that doesn't work (It'd be darn useful though) by the way thanks for blocking him Nephele.--   01:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Policy Discussions

The various policy discussions currently on the page have been languishing, as near as I can tell because they're a mess of inter-related proposals and it's difficult to separate them. In the interests of moving forward, I'm about to do my best to call consensus (or lack thereof) on the various discussions. If further action is warranted, I will indicate what I believe the appropriate action to be based on the discussions. Even so, it may be best to wait a day or two in case there are objections to my interpretations of what to do.

As I said, this is a mess, so I won't take it hard if anybody thinks my interpretation of consensus or the actions to be taken are incorrect.  ‒ Robin Hood    03:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

:Okay, all done, I think. There were two discussions that I simply archived as old, but the second one may need further action:
:#Request for Block of Rpeh lacked support, nor was it a formal vote. Since it's entirely an Admin decision in any event, I saw no point in providing a consensus to it.
:#Request to remove warning was slightly in favour of removing Corevette's warning from Elliot's talk page (the other warning and block would remain since they were from an unrelated incident), but there was very little input overall and it was implied that there may have been a behind-the-scenes discussion amongst some of the Admins to let it stand. Other comments in the various related discussions were also mixed as to what should be done, but there was an overall feeling that both parties shared the blame to some degree. Since there is no warning on rpeh's page, I suggest that Corevette's warning also be removed from Elliot's, but clearly, there are divided feelings and I'm not about to take action under these circumstances. I'd recommend the Admins hash it out, but in the absence of action or an agreement at that level, it lacks a clear consensus from the community, so existing policy of leaving the warning would prevail.
: ‒ Robin Hood    04:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Block Needed



Obviously, Mike needs another blocking and I suspect he's not done. --   03:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
:If ChampionQQ needs to be blocked, then how come he hasn't been given a warning?  The blocking policy is pretty clear about warning users before blocking them. When I'm checking the site from my iPhone (as I am right now) it is very inconvenient to do extra research into whether this is one of the few exceptions where blocking without warning is appropriate. --Nephele  03:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
::But not if he has A.) Vandalized many pages or B.) Doesn't seem to be stopping or C.) Has made personal attacks. --   03:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
:::What I'm primarily trying to say is that if you think someone needs to be blocked, the most useful course of action is to warn the user rather than post an unnecessary message here.  It would take me 30 minutes or more right now to check your A, B, or C conditions -- but only a minute to see that the user has been warned.  --Nephele  03:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Since the nature of the edits makes it clear that ChampionQQ is the same person as mike484 (who is permanently blocked), isn't the warning stage unnecessary? Furthermore, shouldn't the new account receive the same permanent block as the initial account? Dlarsh  04:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
: That may be my fault, since I set a bad example and took steps out of order yesterday — I asked for a block a couple of minutes before realizing that nobody had yet issued a warning.

:Also, on that note, I've verified that all recent edits have been reverted and patrolled any that were unpatrolled. I also moved the offending file to a new location to make patrolling...I'd say "easier", but it's more like making it "not a nightmare".  ‒ Robin Hood    04:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Innappropriate Username?

Would AssEater9000 be an unacceptable username? Because someone has signed up with that name. --       17:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 

:Based on the discussion on policy here that would depend on  their contributions. The user that was pointed out had a username of about the same potential unacceptability but made a valid contribution; since the username wasn't prohibited by law, harassing, spam, or gibberish, there was no reason to block them. I think that that applies here also.--       18:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

::TAO; while those things are all true, with some good references I might add, it is blatant profanity for the sake of being profane. This user has no contributions either, so a block or a forced username change would be in order in my opinion.--             01:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

:::While it's profanity, it's not harassment toward any person or group of people and doesn't make any type of explicit or implicit threat (unlike the username that was recently blocked), so I don't think any action is necessary.  --GK  02:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
::::(Edit Conflict) All true- potentially. But I'd still prefer to ask them to accept a namechange; after all as long as they don't do anything except on their talk page it doesn't hurt anything.--       02:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Block Needed 2

 needs a block not only has he ignored a warning, made personal attacks he has said that he is the same person as a known vandal.--       23:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
:He has been blocked for a while now.--             23:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC) 
::Braska (Dragon Age:Origins there. Elven swearing.). I didn't realize that. Sorry for putting this up here.--       22:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Block Appeal:  / 

Ranger had the following to say:
:I believe it is fair enough to keep the block however instead of a month could you shorten the block to one week (Ranger 16:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC))
:oh and if possible could you delete scorpio i would like a fresh start on this account thanks (Ranger 16:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC))

It should be noted that Ranger is the same user as Scorpio, but the user wishes to continue as User:Ranger instead of User:Scorpio. I've swapped the indefinite block for Ranger with the current month block of Scorpio.

I'm neutral on this one, and I'll leave it others to decide. --Timenn-  09:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

:from the looks of it seems that they want to restart. so i suport his blok removel. but i would keep a eye on him ;)--  13:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC) 

::Yeah I would tend to agree here- his contributions to the wiki since the whole thing with Scorpio (at least the ones I've seen) have been mostly apologies. I personally don't see why Ranger was blocked in the first place.--       19:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

:::ranger was bolcked for being a sock puppet--  19:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

:::: No, Ranger was blocked for using an alternate account to circumvent a block, which is different from sockpuppetry. Given that Ranger's first edit admitted a connection with Scorpio, another edit a few minutes later also admitted a connection and a third confirms it, there's no concern that this was an attempt to create an alter ego. Ditto his other account. It looks to me as if the user has had a chance to calm down, as I asked, and I would support an unblock given edits such as [ and [ which seem to indicate a more measured approach to editing. Obviously, any return to the sort of editing that caused the warnings and blocks should immediately warrant at least the full month block that is currently in effect. rpeh  21:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I oppose complete removal of the block, but I do think it should be shortened to about a week, maybe slightly less. But after what he did as Scorpio and what he did as Scorpi0 I think a complete removal of the block is too lenient. --       20:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

:From what I've seen, changing the block to one week seems appropriate in this situation.  --GK  18:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

::I think we can abort this appeal. Seeing the actions of Popopopo yesterday, an identified alternate account of Ranger, made it clear this user hasn't given up yet on harassing other editors, and vandalizing the site. --Timenn-  16:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

::: I'm afraid you're right. So much for giving him the benefit of the doubt. rpeh  17:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)