UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard/Archive 16

Possible Block Needed

I think the new user  falls under the inappropriate username category. --78.144.134.29 15:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
:By the way that was me who posted the above comment, I just forgot to log in. --         15:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Subdomain Redirecting

It was just brought up in IRC by Magnus that   now redirects to  This dosen't seem right to me. Is this something that needs to be fixed by Daveh or Nephele?--             02:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
:Good point.  I made a small change on the server which hopefully fixes things so they work the way Daveh intended.  But if I seem to have introduced any new odd behaviours on content1, bring them up. --Nephele  05:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Request Semi-Protection

Please can  be semi-protected?

I'm asking because the last couple of weeks have seen an upsurge in activity on this page and it's difficult to see this in any other light than people pushing either their own mods, or ones that they like. Certainly, none of the additions have been close to "must have". I'm aware that this is a wiki, and I'm also aware of the Etiquette policy, but this is one page where we are giving 3rd party mods the UESP imprimatur, and we should be more careful what is allowed on the page. Restricting edits to "known" accounts at least lets us question the users who add suggestions. rpeh  21:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
: All done. You are right, there have been a load of edits to this page in the last couple of days and it is a nuisance, mostly because people tend to add mods that they created themselves - or, like you said, because they like them. If any other admin's object to this semi-protection, let's discuss it. In the meantime, and until we reach a decision, the page might as well be protected. --Krusty 21:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
:: Thanks, Krusty. rpeh  22:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

New namespace

Please can an admin edit this page to add:
 
...thanks to Krusty's latest purchase :) rpeh  20:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

:Done.  Let me know if I screwed anything up.     --GK  21:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

:: Well it looks like the Western hemisphere escaped, but I wouldn't want to have been living in the East after that change.... ;) rpeh  21:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC) 

::: Why didn't it add itself to the sidebar?--       22:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

:::: The sidebar is static, not dynamic. The Powers That Be have deemed the mobile games to be of insufficient importance to add to the sidebar. rpeh  23:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

::::: That, of course, is a discussion we will have to revisit in the very near future. While I'm not sure we need to list all four mobile games in the sidebar, a simple "ES Travels" link would be appropriate, especially if we end up with good coverage on all four games.  --Krusty 23:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Semi-Protection of Oblivion:Mathieu Bellamont

I want to ask an Admin to semi-protect 's page, becaue if you look at his page history, you'll see that a third of the edits are from anons, and another third are users reversing the edits of anons. Because he is one of the most infamous Oblivion NPCs, people will be naturally drawn to him and call obscure coincedences "easter eggs", and because his diary and life story left so much open for guess, many will try and put it on the page. --   19:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

:I disagree.  Protection of any type should be used to prevent repeated vandalism, which has not occurred on this article.  It doesn't really make much sense to protect it, since every edit by an IP (at least in the last year) though it may have been reverted was made in good faith.  --GK  22:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

:: (e/c) I'm not sure it is a good idea to start semi-protecting every page that gets a lot of traffic. The reason the Mods page was semi-protected recently was that several anons used it to advertise their own mods, and this is not the case here. They more or less acts in good faith and that is fully justified. A much better alternative on a page like this - instead of several reverts within minutes - is to take it easy, take deep breaths for a few hours, maybe send the anon a message - and then revert. --Krusty 22:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

 

Pages Needing Protection

These three pages are in the Full Protection category but aren't protected at the moment. Please can an admin protect them when he or she has a spare moment?



Thanks. rpeh  09:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

: Oh, and as RobinHood pointed out in May,  still needs semi-protection. rpeh  09:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

::Protection set for said articles. --Timenn-  09:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

::: Thanks, Timenn! rpeh  10:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

:::: And from me as well!  &ndash; Robin Hood    17:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Archiving, Revisisted

Subsequent to this discussion, which I interpreted as a small consensus, I started using a chronological archiving process for the Administrator Noticeboard archives. rpeh has now decided to switch back to the old method, for the reasons he outlined in this subsequent discussion. At the moment, I consider this to be against consensus, but in light of how small the original consensus was, I'm bringing it back to the community for discussion.

So, can I get some opinions on what archiving process we want to use for AN, please? Based on the above discussion and this related one, I believe we should be archiving AN in large archives based on dates (probably either a full year or half a year per archive) with important discussions moved to their own page and then transcluded back. Any other opinions?  &ndash; Robin Hood    19:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

: The system was working fine until you started to try to change it. Why change a working system? The only argument I've seen for large archives is that if we stick to smaller ones, we'll end up with too many. 19 CP archives and 15 AN archives in 5 1/2 years argues against this, unless we keep having irrelevant discussions about archiving. Long pages take longer to generate and load, and take more CPU power to process too. They're less useful because the date range will be much less specific.

: As far as I'm concerned, I'm not "switching back" to anything and I really can't believe somebody who's edited the wiki as much as you is really claiming you had a consensus for your suggestion. If we said that everything that came up on CP and AN and didn't get a response is approved nemine contradicente, we'd have some seriously weird policies and pages. rpeh  19:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

:: Skipping the denigration of my personal opinions, which isn't really helpful to the discussion, I already consider 19 and 15 archives to be exceedingly large. Since a lot of that is recent, as the site gained popularity, I expect that to increase even further once TESV comes out.  &ndash; Robin Hood    19:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

:::(warning, this became longwinded) - What is the purpose of maintaining the archives? If its purely to get the information off the page, then it dosen't matter how you do it, and one bog archive would be fine. If your actively expecting people to reference them, then you probably should theme archives by topic rather than by date (Which I notice already is how Administrative Requests and Vandalism are dealt with). My gut feeling is no-one aside from me and rpeh ever feels the need to read the things, and for me personally a page per year would be fine. Obviously rpeh prefers things more split up than that. I suppose in a nutshell, we need to answer why you feel 19/15 archives is to many? How do you feel its detrimental or why do you feel a smaller number would be beneficial? Jadrax 02:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

::::If you think that's long-winded, you clearly haven't been reading my posts or Nephele's! :) There are probably a few different answers to your first question, but to me, the primary point of an archive is to have a searchable record of previous discussions (usually used in discussions just like this one). After that, you've made me realize that there are really several questions here, rather than just one, and I think that's adding to the overall confusion. So re-thinking/re-stating, here are the questions I see and my thoughts on them:

::::# What size of archive is appropriate?
::::#: Contrary to the impression I seem to have given rpeh, I'm not really a fan of huge archives. Large archives are usually faster for the computer to search than the equivalent number of small ones, but that depends on the system, and in this case, the time difference for something like this is probably negligible in any event. (Nephele has a much better understanding of that than I do, I think.) Time to transfer the page to the viewer is more of an issue, and rpeh is correct that smaller is better in that regard, though on the flip side, the pages are not highly accessed, so I tend to feel that...errr..."size doesn't matter" (much). I tend to prefer larger numbers of topics than we've had historically (prior to Archive 13) for the simple reason that it allows you to search/read through more than just a handful of topics at a time. This is useful in a number of situations like searching for something that isn't categorized into an existing topic, searching for a post by a specific author, searching for a specific word you remember being used in a discussion, or whatever other unforeseen need-of-the-moment you may have.
::::# What archive organization is appropriate?
::::#: I think it makes a lot of sense to have some coherence to the system where, for example, each archive spans x number of months and is set on a year-boundary (i.e., January automatically starts a new archive), rather than some random amount based entirely on when someone felt like archiving the page. This was the main thrust of my previous discussion. Given the size of the more recent archives, I was figuring that a break-point of every 6 months would make sense, but if the general preference is for smaller pages, then every 3 or 4 would also be logical. It would also allows us to simplify the archive table to something like "2010: 1 2 3 4" rather than listing each archive individually. If we're going to move to a by-topic organization, then that's fine, but I think we should move entirely to such a system (though that would be a whole other organizational discussion). I personally find this mish-mash of chronological but separating out only some discussions by topic to be very chaotic. But maybe that's just me.
::::# Should archives be categorized?
::::#: It's not the way I tend to search, but it's commonly done with archives of most kinds and I can certainly see the benefit of it. Assuming we keep categorizing discussions, I would suggest that we start categorizing as a discussion takes place rather than leaving it to the archiver to figure it out. It would make it easier to find for all involved if they knew what it would be categorized under when the discussion took place and it's less likely that categories will get left out. If we don't want to categorize the whole page, then we could put them in an HTML comment or template designed to only categorize when in an archive page. (Though again, this may be better off as its own discussion.)
:::: &ndash; Robin Hood    04:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

 

 

New Set of Blocks

Just a quick note to whichever Admin looks at  : the list is dynamic for all TOR exit nodes at the time, so some or all of these nodes may have disappeared from the list by the time you check them.

Also, I was initially just blocking for the fact that they were harassing/vandalizing, so I didn't put Proxy warning messages on the affected pages, since I hadn't confirmed that they were TOR at that point. Given that they're all currently blocked for vandalism, it seems a little redundant to put additional messages on for the fact that they're also TOR addresses.  &ndash; Robin Hood    03:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

:Same thing goes for today's — all TOR exit nodes have been verified against the TOR servers themselves. If a Wikipedia/Google link is desired, though, let me know and I'll provide those with my Block Notifications.  &ndash; Robin Hood    08:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

 

Proposal for Allowing Official Notice Archiving
Traditionally, our policy has been to leave warning and block notices on a user's page indefinitely. For users who continue to edit after their warning or block, however, this can eventually move away from being an appropriate warning and turn into a badge of shame, which is not the point of an official warning. I would like to propose that legitimate official notices be allowed to be archived (never removed) to a    page after 6 months, provided that there is consensus among the Administrators to allow the move. A link to the Warnings page must also be provided on the talk page in an easy-to-see location, as would normally be done with any other archive. This will allow Administrators to easily view recent history, and know where to look for older history. Bad behaviour or additional warnings during that 6 months would presumably negate any Admin consensus, but that could be stipulated specifically, if need be.

As Nephele suggested, I agree that complete removal of an official notice can be allowed in cases where it was clearly frivolous or incorrect, with any dispute about the legitimacy being, again, based on Admin consensus.  &ndash; Robin Hood    18:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

:This proposal works for me.
:The only minor question would be whether there needs to be some clause comparable to that found in current policy, namely "in cases where the editor has acknowledged and made efforts to correct the original problem(s)."  Which, I suppose, comes down to having some type of reassurance that any warning messages are no longer needed as active, regular reminders against inappropriate behaviour.  --Nephele  14:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

::Were there any further comments or concerns with this proposed policy, or should I go ahead and put it in place, with Nephele's amendments?  &ndash; Robin Hood    05:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

 

Edit to Protected Page requested

Please can an admin fix this page so it doesn't link to the Knights of the White Stallion disambig page? It should link to the quest page instead. Thanks. rpeh  11:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
: Done. --Krusty 11:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

rpeh...again

Would an Administrator please have a look at the series of edits to rpeh's talk page from here forward, please? I acknowledge rpeh's right to edit his own talk page, but he's not respecting my right to edit and/or remove my own post. I would appreciate it if someone could have a talk with him about it.  &ndash; Robin Hood    01:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

RobinHood70... AGAIN
: You don't have any such right. I am not misrepresenting you because I haven't edited anything you said or changed the order of your posts so nothing on this page applies. So nice to have another productive discussion. rpeh  01:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

::You have implied that I'm wrong and are removing any reply I make to the contrary. How is that any kind of good faith or good wiki editing practice? As for the page you just linked to, "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page." Removing my comment inherently changes the meaning, since it makes it appear that I don't disagree with your statement.  &ndash; Robin Hood    01:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

:::It doesn't change the meaning at all. You said that rounding was why my program was producing values different by 13 from the existing ones. My response was that rounding has nothing to do with it. It doesn't. That means that, although I didn't say it on my talk page, you were wrong. I have no idea why you want to spread the fact that you were wrong over the admin noticeboard, but that's up to you. Now, I'm having nothing more to do with yet another thread designed to do nothing but distract people from useful editing. rpeh  01:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

::::No, if you look at the very first sentence in the post that you've forced me to leave on your page, I said that not adding 5 for the class attributes was the problem, and that rounding was what made the difference between the 12.5 that I stated and the 13 that S'drassa was seeing.  &ndash; Robin Hood    01:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

:::::Apart from the fact that this feels as an unnecessary escalation of matters, I think rpeh is right in this case. He's free to remove posts from his talk page, and the full responsibility for doing so is his. 

:::::You claim that you simply intended to remove your own post, but in fact you replaced it with another post (the "comment remove by author" was no neutral message), changing the initial discussion. The context of the earlier posts doesn't change with the addition of newer posts, it's just the nature of the discussion that evolves. Posts are traditionally accepted as comments made at a specific time and conditions not permanent statements you can never change your mind about or elaborate on. 

:::::That being said, I would really like to see from both you more attempts to not have these things escalate. Not every minor detail needs to be defended if it only means the rest of community must suffer another conflict. --Timenn-  11:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

::::::Okay, that's a fair enough assessment. I would, however, like to remove my original post since it's clearly being misunderstood, and any attempt to "elaborate on" it is being reverted. That seems contrary to the very point you made. If I'm not allowed to elaborate and clarify, then I should be allowed to remove it, and my entire contributions to that discussion can be as though they never happened.

::::::As for rpeh and I, I would not take it amiss if an interaction ban were enacted. I don't want our interactions to become as disruptive as his and Elliot's were, but I don't see our opinions of each other changing any time soon.  &ndash; Robin Hood    18:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

:::::::You have twice posted on my talk pages, then twice brought the same matter up on here, and now you want to ban me from interacting with you????? If you're getting fed up with arguing with me, stay off my talk pages. I certainly have no interest in talking to you. Oh, and it should be "rpeh and me". rpeh  19:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

  Okay, enough. Rpeh, could you please remove RobinHood70s messages from your talk page so we can get back to what we do best? This discussion serves no purpose whatsoever and while it is a bit saddening that two of the very best editors on the wiki can't get along at the moment, I hope you guys can solve it somehow - some time. I see no reason for anybody to participate further in this discussion unless they have something meaningful to say - and I believe Timenn was the last person to do that. My suggestion to you guys are as follows; stay off each others talk pages and do not participate in discussions if you can't get a grip. Try turning off your browsers instead of writing uncomfortable messages on the AN - take a deep breath, possibly a two-minute break - and look at a picture of a Khajiit or Argonian. That is what we are working with here - it is not the end of the world, it is a video game series. --Krusty 19:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

: Sorry, but if somebody is going to post patronising, incorrect messages on my talk page, I'm afraid they have to live with the consequences. And I, at least, have continued to edit productively despite repeated irrelevant distractions. rpeh  19:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Moved from User_talk:Username

seventhdigidestiny@yahoo.com I am trying to fix a spelling error of Assurabitashpi for THE ELDER SCROLLS III MORROWIND. I have the game of the year platinum eddition for Xbox. anyways the proper spelling is Ashurabitashpi but I can not change some of them. in addition to this someone keeps changing it back to Assurabitashpi but the changes I make are made I know because I check to make sure so I know that there is no problem on my end. someone from administration needs to change the parts that can not be eddited by non registered users for the Assurabitashpi to Ashurabitashpi maybe this will fix whoever is messing up my correction. I play the game all the time and I am in fact playing it right now and looking at the map on world view with the pointer on the AKA Assurnabitashpi and it is spelled Ashurnabitashpi in the game. And yes I am looking in the right place as is described by the location and everything else on the page is accurate so far when I compare it to the game I am playing so once again I am not wrong please fix it and in case you forgot the proper spelling is Ashurnabitashpi
	 
- 	
There is a Assurnabitashpi, shrine South of Ashurnabitashpi if this is the place they are talking about then there needs to be two seperate page for both places

:Now, I'm pretty sure the page is correct...I remember some kind of note on the page about a cell and door spelling discrepancy. Confirm/deny?--             20:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

::As the note on the page says, the exterior cell in which the shrine is contained is called "Ashurnabitashpi". The two interior cells are called "Assurnabitashpi" and "Assurnabitashpi, Shrine". Additionally, the double-s version appears in dialogue three times: "Nuleno Tedas gave me directions to Urshilaku camp. The camp is due north from Maar Gan, but high ridges lie in the way. Follow Foyada Bani-Dad, a deep ravine just north of Maar Gan, northwest to the sea. A shipwreck at the seamouth of the ravine is a landmark. Swim east around the headland. Pass east through the ruins of Assurnabitashpi Shrine. Urshilaku Camp lies east of the ruins, inland in a low hollow.","Urshilaku camp is due north from Maar Gan, but high ridges lie in the way. From Maar Gan head east past the Silt Strider, then take a trail north to the Foyada Bani-Dad. Follow the Foyada northwest to the sea. A shipwreck at the seamouth of the ravine is a landmark. Swim east around the headland. Pass east through the ruins of Assurnabitashpi''' Shrine. Avoid Daedra here. They're powerful and aggressive. Urshilaku Camp lies east of the ruins, inland in a low hollow." and "At the ruins of Assurnabitashpi, they have an old shrine to Mehrunes Dagon. Stay far from that place -- it is cursed."'' Ashurnabitashpi does not appear at all. The paper map spells it with an h (in Daedric) but the clear weight is on the side of the double-s version. rpeh  20:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Minor question

 is currently semi-protected and in the :Category:Semi Protection category but there is no indication of who semi-protected it in the history, and on editing the page the notice "Note: This page has been locked so that only registered users can edit it. No matching items in log." is displayed at the top.

This doesn't seem to be the case with other pages (such as ) that have been locked for a long time, so I wonder how the relevant entry for this page has gone missing? It's almost as if the entry was deleted from the database, perhaps when somebody was deleting other items? In any case, could an admin re-protect so we at least have a name on it? Thanks. rpeh  21:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

:Just as an aside, this looks to be an issue with the wiki software where the protection level was moved when   was moved to , but the record of who protected it ( ) wasn't.  &ndash; Robin Hood    00:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

:: Ah, thanks. Good find. rpeh  07:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Block Needed.

82.21.230.96 needs to be blocked. Please see the history of  for why.--       18:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
:At the moment I don't see any evidence that a block is needed.  The IP has only made one edit since being warned -- which means it's very likely that the person didn't read the warning until after that edit was made.  In the hour since then, nothing has been done, so I think the warning was sufficient. --Nephele  19:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Protection requested

Please could an admin fully-protect this page in line with previous policy on communal Javascript snippets? Thanks. rpeh  22:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Excuse Me
: Discussion moved to the Reference Desk. --Krusty 22:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Another Edit to a Protected Page please

Please can somebody edit  and change the link to OB:Battlehorn Castle to OB:Battlehorn Castle (place)? It's showing up on  (there should only be 7 links on that page). rpeh  11:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
: All done! --Krusty 11:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible Proxy

 

I meant to post this last night and got side-tracked: we had a couple of vandalism edits from the above address, but I wasn't sure if it should be flagged as a proxy or not. The reason I wasn't sure is that the [ Wikipedia block reason for the address (see AOLblock template) is self-contradictory to my mind, in that it indicates both a block and an error condition. Can someone more familiar with proxies and such have a look over it and figure out if that address (or the three ranges mentioned) should be blocked here or not? Thanks!  &ndash; Robin Hood    19:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

: From what I can see it's a cache for AOL users, so "Yes" it's a proxy, but "No", it's not an anonymous proxy as such, as all AOL users pretty much have to use it. rpeh  20:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)



Is there any reason for which this template isn't protected? Considering that it's being used in pretty much all the quest pages for Oblivion and Morrowind, I think that it should be at least semi-protected. --   •   19:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

:Makes sense to me.  I've just semi-protected it.  --GK  02:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

:: Didn't notice this until now for some reason: the sub-template  also needs protection if its parent is protected. Thanks. rpeh  10:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

::: Done. Can't figure out if we need the padlock or not? --Krusty 14:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

:::: Everything's fine now. Thanks for doing that. rpeh  15:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Confidence

I believe we should include at Oblivion's NPC's summary their confidence as it can be important information. --Rigas Papadopoulos 12:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Protection

Can someone semi-protect ? It suffered many attacks form vandals at the past. --Rigas Papadopoulos   12:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

: Why bother protecting it three months after the last episode of vandalism? rpeh  12:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Because it has been vandalized many times. I believe there will be more racists that will refer to them as "Niggers" and "Rapists". --Rigas Papadopoulos   12:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Anybody? --Rigas Papadopoulos  14:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It has been vandalized AGAIN, can somebody semi protect it? --Rigas Papadopoulos  17:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I was totally wrong at my edit summary, it has been vandalized THIRTEEN times. --Rigas Papadopoulos  17:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

:Of the several times it's been vandalized, only once has been by a registered user, so I think semi-protection makes sense.  Thanks for the reminder.  --GK  22:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Inapropiate Username?

Would Better than you be out under the current guidelines? Someone just made that account.--  Ghurhak gro-Demril        19:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
: Sorry, I really can't see anything wrong with the username Better Than You - sure, it is special and all that, but unless we have some very strict guidelines that I've managed to overlook, I think it is okay. --Krusty 22:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

And Another One...

User:Im a troll :) was just created. While I don't actually think they need a block (they seem well intentioned; see ) I think they should be warned unofficially that their username is inappropriate. Just wanted to make sure I was complying with policy which states "Whether a username is considered inappropriate is decided on a case-by-case basis by an administrator". If there's disagreement over this I'll withdraw the advice that I'm going to give on this is posted.--  Ghurhak gro-Demril        00:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

:It's not stated in our policy anywhere that I could find, but on the Create Account page, it says, amongst other things: Your username should not contain...names that imply that you intend to cause trouble (e.g. "Vandal" or "Trolls").  &ndash; Robin Hood    03:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

::The only thing I could find was this discussion. I'd like to assume good faith: did you consider that troll could be an actual troll from the games? (you know, those usually green, strong beasts) The user hasn't done anything wrong at all. -- Jplatinum16 02:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC) 

:::I didn't think much about that. I did believe they weren't a WikiTroll though, which is why I put this instead of something more official. I'll actually add to that though and say that they should create a userpage stating explicitly that are referring to "those usually green, strong beasts" (a phrase I like by the way - To my Userpage after this!) if they mean a Troll from OB.--  Ghurhak gro-Demril        04:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

:::: Well, I don't think this account name justifies any admin actions. What I do want to mention is this; each and every time a person creates an account using a  "controversial nick", they hope for a reaction. When they see posts like this on the AN, they achieve it. If you simply ignore them, they will go away 99% of the time. --Krusty 08:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC) 

:::::Done. He made a userpage saying he means the trolls from oblivion.--  Ghurhak gro-Demril        19:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Uh-oh

I got this when trying to edit my userpage:   What does it mean?--  Ghurhak gro-Demril        13:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC) 
:Note: When I went back and checked the edit had been made to my userpage.--  Ghurhak gro-Demril        13:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea. I believe that rpeh or RobinHood70 will be able to answer this. --Rigas Papadopoulos  13:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

An update, I believe that "70.38.12.115" is the IP adress that you are using. Try logging out and make an edit to see if I am right. --Rigas Papadopoulos  13:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

: No, that's the IP address of the database server - db1.uesp.net. Don't worry about this error. I've had it happen once or twice and usually means some kind of update was going on at the time. It's only a problem if it keeps happening. rpeh  14:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Tamriel

Please could an admin move   to  then put the former into :Category:Redirects from Moves? The existing redirect at the latter page means I can't do it. This should have been done a while back as the final stage of the namespace move, but it seems we all forgot about it. Thanks. rpeh  10:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
: Done. If there's a Redirect I missed, please just prod it for Speedy. --Krusty 14:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
:: Thanks - that's perfect. I can't believe I hadn't noticed this before. rpeh  15:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Probable Sockpuppet Accounts

Rigas Papadopoulos brought this to my attention, and I'm cross-posting it here for an Admin, as I'm not sure what, if any, action should be taken here. Between 19:30 and 20:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC), a large number of user accounts were created. The bottom-most one seems almost certainly legit, but the rest look to have been randomly-named accounts created by an IP-hopping user. Here's the full list (and, of course, you can see it in the User Creation Log as well):

Udicudalu
Ywomysax
Enuvowiz
Awobubyjo
Ekewisy
Iqowekax
Ozumuni
Ohetywim
Yfemizotoh
Aryjofogox
Eduvobo
Ysosaqanyr
Ysavunef
Umunevak
Yhewuhaxop
TheHorrorGuy

My instinct would be to do a CheckUser on all the randomly-named ones, and assuming they come up as all from proxies, to then block them per proxy-blocking policy.  &ndash; Robin Hood    04:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

: Well, it looked like a Spambot attack at first glance and I managed to get worried and e-mailed Daveh about it - as soon as the e-mail was sent, the account creations stopped. Both me and Timenn monitored it from the beginning from the IRC while discussing what we could do. When everything stopped, we agreed to let it rest for the moment. I have used CheckUser on  a few select accounts, and sometimes it comes up with nothing, sometimes not. What I'm trying to say is this: We are aware of the situation and are keeping an eye on it. --Krusty 06:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

:: Thanks. I didn't see anything about it here, and I know you're busy for the next couple of weeks, so just wanted to make sure it got noticed.  &ndash; Robin Hood    14:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Spamming

A new user is advertising a movie, "Inception". I don't any block rights so can the first admin that will see this to block them?   
: No more advertising from this new user. All done and cleaned up. --Krusty 06:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent Changes Problems?

The Recent Changes page seems to be messing up a bit for me. Some edits that haven't been patrolled are being marked as patrolled, and some other weird glitches are appearing (sHivering Isles being spelled like that, the current date randomly switching). Is anyone else having this problem? -- Jplatinum16 05:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

:I was just noticing that as well with "sHivering talk:Cutter". Playing around, it seems to be content1 that's causing the issue, but that's just based on a few random page views/refreshes, so that may be luck of the draw.  &ndash; Robin Hood    05:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

::I just switched back to using the Squid cache yesterday so I assume these problems are a result of that. I noticed that RecentChanges doesn't update properly as an anonymous user unless you force a reload which should be a cache invalidation issue. The content1/2 may be due to the old problem of using two different memcached servers but I'll look into it some more. If you notice anything else just let me know. -- Daveh 12:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

:::Here's an interesting set of links to go with my previous post:
:::*content1 sHivering_talk:Cutter - always wrong
:::*content1 Shivering_talk:Cutter - randomly fluctuates between right and wrong
:::*content2 sHivering_talk:Cutter - wrong once, otherwise always right
:::*content2 Shivering_talk:Cutter - always right
:::The comments are the behaviour I observed from each when refreshing the pages repeatedly. I'm guessing that the fluctuations have to do with each server load balancing to the other server.  &ndash; Robin Hood    06:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

::::Can you check these pages again along with RecentChanges and see if you are still getting the same behavior? Both look ok now but I don't know what you mean by "right" and "wrong". Both issues may just have been due to a lack of cache purge permissions being set on squid1 so when a page changed content1/2 wouldn't have been able to purge the old version on squid1. -- Daveh 17:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

:::::"Right" means that "Shivering" is capitalized properly. "Wrong" means that the "H" in "Shivering" is capitalized instead of the "S". And the links still show the same behaviour. Given that the first and last links are consistent, I'm inclined to believe that somehow, the database (or cache) on content1 has picked up an incorrectly-named page, where the one on content2 is fine. When you click on the second or third link above, you get redirected to www instead of staying specifically on content1 or content2, which sounds to me like the page lookup on that specific server is failing over to www. But that's just a guess. (PS, I moved your other response up out of the way so we're not constantly bumping it further away from what it's responding to.)  &ndash; Robin Hood    21:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

::::::It looks like the problem affects the entire namespace on content1. Have a look at the filtered Recent Changes lists on  .  &ndash; Robin Hood    00:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

:::::::It was just a capitalization error in LocalSettings.php on content1 which should be fixed now. -- Daveh 02:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

  Looks good! Thanks for looking into it.  &ndash; Robin Hood    15:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)