UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard/Archive 34

New Category Request: Skyrim-Items-Permanent Items

Maybe items described on  should have their own category? Because list is becoming clumsy. But I do not know what is the procedure for creating one. Sergio Morozov (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2014 (GMT)
:I think the list on the page works better, at least for now. Not every item in that list has its own page, so not all of them could be categorised properly. Thus the page is a necessity.        20:13, 4 March 2014 (GMT)
::Then I'll just continue checking items and adding them there for now... Sergio Morozov (talk) 07:03, 5 March 2014 (GMT)

Abuse Filter Spammers

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 

It's been a while since the  got cleared out of its most prolific spammers, so here's a list. These are the most prolific but include a couple that managed to beat the filter and named accounts. Some pages are repeatedly attempted to be spammed so it may be worthwhile protecting those page names from creation.      16:35, 5 March 2014 (GMT)

:I'll get to work on blocking these, then I'll take a look at what pages need protecting. Out of curiosity, how did you come up with this list? I've just pulled a similar list from the database, and it highlights a couple where I think range blocks will be a good choice, but I'll have to check if there are legitimate edits from those IPs first.  &ndash;       20:32, 5 March 2014 (GMT)

::Point and click. Click an ip link, click abuse log, look at list. Generally these ones would have hundreds of logs, though many are caught by more than one filter.      20:38, 5 March 2014 (GMT)

:::That works. I've done all the ones above, except for those that may need range blocking. I've got about twenty more individual ones that I've identified from the database, so I'll do those, then remind myself how to do range blocks and do those as well. :)  &ndash;       21:53, 5 March 2014 (GMT)

::::Okay, those are all done. Between the specific IPs and the  , that's blocked the top 100 IP addresses coming from the AbuseFilter, along with any named users that had 10 or more attempted unwanted edits. Just to cover what all I did, for the record....

::::As a safety measure, all IPs (both single and range) were checked against the CheckUser logs in the database to confirm that there were no legitimate edits from those IPs/ranges. Similarly, I checked the contribution history of named users before blocking them so I didn't accidentally block any users (like Din) who might have triggered the abuse filter while attempting legitimate edits.

::::Finally, range blocks were kept as small as reasonably possible (/24) with the one exception being a highly prolific set of IPs from China that was responsible for nearly 5000 abuse filter hits in the last three months alone. I also limited the range blocks to only a year, instead of indefinite.  &ndash;       22:49, 5 March 2014 (GMT)

:::::Oh, I almost forgot about the second part. Pages with over 200 attempted abusive edits in the last three months are now semi-protected as well. Only one was actually a red link. A few I didn't protect, like the AN and a couple of talk pages, because there's good reason to assume a non-autoconfirmed user might want to post to those pages.  &ndash;       02:04, 6 March 2014 (GMT)

Inappropriate ads

When I go to the wiki or forums on my android phone, I eventually get a pop up ad telling me my phone has been infected with a virus. It's very disconcerting and needs to stop. I believe it's "nexusads" or something like that.      01:45, 17 March 2014 (GMT)

:I'll take a look but without more information its going to be impossible to find the offending ad or network. Google AdSense takes care of all that behind the scenes so unless I have an exact URL or company name I can't do much. Especially difficult on mobile but you can try the "report ad" link if it works for you. -- Daveh   21:19, 17 March 2014 (GMT)

::It's masquerading as a pop-up alert. Sorry, I've been trying to get it to pop up again to get an exact URL since I posted this, but it's a bit like the cartoon dancing frog in a box. I'll update when I can.      04:28, 18 March 2014 (GMT)

:::The address I keep getting when I was checking this was ib.adnxs.com -- I got that specific address each time I loaded a page in a mobile browser without using the mobile version. --AKB   23:34, 30 March 2014 (GMT)

::::A few ads came up matching this address which I blocked but let me know if anyone sees it again. -- Daveh   00:49, 31 March 2014 (GMT)

Speedy Deleting Redirects

It seems that either I'm confused or a lot of other people are, so I'd like to clarify and perhaps change our policy in regards to redirects. According to my understanding of our Deletion Policy, redirects should only be speedy deleted if they're the result of typos, what they link to doesn't exist, they're in Main space and recently created, or they're in File space. At least two different editors that I can think of, probably more, have recently nominated redirects for speedy deletion (most of them due to page moves, but not all) that don't qualify according to the rules listed.

Now, having said that, I think they should. The links were all taken care of, they show no external links, and the redirect left behind serves no real purpose other than the remote possibility that someone might try to access the page by its old name. To me, a redirect in this state is a trivial deletion unless the name of the page is so common that it can be reasonably expected that someone might try to enter that name in the search box and the new name is dissimilar enough to the old one that it wouldn't pop up in the inline search results. Right now, it's only considered to be trivial if it's in File space and we rename it according to specific rules, while other spaces are excluded altogether. Is there a reason we can't treat redirects much the same as general maintenance and simply speedy delete them as long as there's no reason to believe they should be kept?  &ndash;       20:03, 17 March 2014 (GMT)
:I'm probably one of those editors who speedied a non-file redirect. I support this completely. Jeancey (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2014 (GMT)
::While I was hoping for a clearer consensus, in the absence of any objections, I'll update our policy on redirects sometime tomorrow and put it into effect for the existing redirects.  &ndash;       03:41, 26 March 2014 (GMT)
:::And done. I kept the criteria wording very open to allow administrators to decide on a case-by-case basis.  &ndash;       02:20, 27 March 2014 (GMT)

ESO for Admins and Editors

ESO's release is quickly approaching! Like past games I'm offering to purchase the game for admins and senior editors, i.e., basically anyone who is currently active with the wiki. It looks like I can only purchase the physical edition for other people so you'd prefer the digital editor, or have already bought the game, we can work out something to reimburse you the game's value. Once Zenimax Online reveals their monthly payment options I'll probably also offer to buy some monthly passes for people. If you'd like to be considered for this just [mailto:dave@uesp.net e-mail me] and we'll sort out the details. -- Daveh   13:01, 18 March 2014 (GMT)

Protection for 

Twice within a few hours this page has been hit by bots. Can we just nip this at the bud right now and have an admin lock down the page for a brief while? -      &hearts;    05:08, 22 March 2014 (GMT)

:AKB removed the spam revisions and blocked the two IPs, but since the page hasn't been hit again, I don't think there's a need to protect right now. There also haven't been any other edits by anything in that IP range, either. If it happens again, though, re-post and we'll either range block the address or protect the page.  &ndash;       18:23, 22 March 2014 (GMT)

TESO Temporary Policy Changes

With no sign of this discussion coming from those who have a better idea than me what needs done and when, I am here to start it. 

;(1) Limit Page Creation. 
This is now policy so all that needs decided is when to start. I would hesitantly suggest that if additions keep up their pace then Lore, Main, and Skyrim, should be locked ahead of time. 
Time period: Soonish - June 4th

;(2) Ease Patrolling Guidelines.
As with any new release information will be hard to verify immediately. Spelling and grammar will not be a priority, so therefore if its not obvious or clear vandalism, please patrol and move on. Be careful to check anything that may have been already added by a bot (e.g. Summary Table Information) as that should be correct already.
Time period: April 4th - June 4th.

;(3) Temporary Admins.
I just don't know if there is a need, so input is needed from those around for Skyrim. There are 4 active admins, AKB, Dwarfmp, Legoless, and Robin. There was about the same amount for Skyrim yet five were promoted. Below is a list of some patrollers listed by known ESO participation and activity (excuse any mistakes):
Jeancey: Active, and getting ESO
Jak Atackka: Not too active, and but getting ESO afaik and should be back
Alfwyn: Active, knows tech stuff, not sure on ESO
Minor Edits: Active, and getting ESO afaik
The Silencer: Active, and getting ESO for PS4 in June/July
Kiz: Active
Xyzzy: Active
Velyanthe: Active
Forfeit: Active

The four others I left off (with no offense intended) are   (Don't want the position, thanks though. -      &hearts;   ) , Holomay (not very active), Hargrimm (very recent promotion to patroller), Nocte Canticum (same as Hargrimm).
These are not nominations just a suggestion. 

So, have fun debating.      00:40, 23 March 2014 (GMT)

:Unfortunately, I won't be getting ESO. Partially because I'm too busy, and partially because I want to hold out until it's free to play ($15 a month? Get real). I'm fine as a patroller; I don't think I have the requisite tech savvy for admin duties. Everyone else on the list are trustworthy contributors who I'm sure would be very fine temp admins.      00:54, 23 March 2014 (GMT)

: I approve of all points, Silencer made, and in regards to administrators, I want to add this:

:I am in fact active, and I will be through the release and onward, and while I won't have it for the first few months or so, I plan to eventually get ESO. That said, I am not interested in adminship, temporarily or otherwise. I'd do it if I had to, and I wouldn't mind, but under normal circumstances (these aren't necessarily 'normal', admittedly), I'd not vote for myself. I can perform the functions of an admin, but there's more to just pushing buttons, and adminship wouldn't necessarily be needed to perform my current functions

:If I had to select some (I am of the opinion that 2 are needed at best with the current number we have), I'd give my vote to Jeancey and Alfwyn. Jeancey has a good idea of what's going on, is working heard on ESO's work, and he'd be a good person to turn users to who need help with the namespace work and others, and despite being here a year, is one of the top five editors all time (excluding bots).  Alfwyn is effectively an admin having direct server access, so he's already trusted with more work than an admin typically has, and naturally, I'd support his adminship. -      &hearts;    01:01, 23 March 2014 (GMT)

::I wasn't nominating anyone cause thats all our active patrollers, and that wouldn't be all that wise.      01:05, 23 March 2014 (GMT)

:::I never suggested anyone was in a nomination. I said if we nominated someone, I like those two for those reasons... And, that I didn't want to be on any lists. :) -      &hearts;    01:08, 23 March 2014 (GMT)

::::Minor correction - we have at least 6 active admins, counting myself and Daveh.  Yeah, I was out of it for a year, mostly because I was under NDA on the beta and didn't want to risk conflict of interest, but I'm back for the foreseeable future.  Though being on the job market may cause some interruptions in my contribution.  Also - why do you want to lock Skyrim and not Online?  Or is that an error? — TheRealLurlock (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2014 (GMT)
:::::I believe the idea is to lock the most recent game's namespace so people don't accidentally create Online pages in that namespace, though I think there is less of an issue with ESO than there would be with a new single player game. Jeancey (talk) 01:49, 23 March 2014 (GMT)

 To be up front with this, I had thought most of this was assumed to be happening. The page lock has been performed more than once, its standard practice now. As for the lowering of patrolling standards, that was also expected I had thought. Good and perfectly correct is less important than done as quickly as possible.

As for the temporary admins, which is the only real point of contention here, I am going to just say what we administrators had already considered (which we were already doing). For starters, all ESO admins will lose the rights once its over, even if they are just going to ask for them back afterwords. As for candidates, comments suggest we are most comfortable with Jeancey getting it, as well as Alfwyn and Jak (I would ask for Jak to be more active, however). As Alfwyn and Jak can most likely just make themselves admins anyway, there is little reason to not just give them the rights on a more official basis. As for Jeancey, he is a very talented and dedicated editor, and has worked impressively hard towards helping with ESO. It's worth remembering we have a much stronger administrative team right now, so I don't think we need as many hands for the moment. If it becomes too much of a burden, we can put some more forward in a hurry, but too few is better than too many right now. --AKB   01:54, 23 March 2014 (GMT)

:Did we lock Oblivion when Skyrim came out?  I don't seem to recall anyone being too confused by that, they're clearly not the same game.  Usually what happens is people create pages in Main that should be in the new game's namespace.  That's the only one that really needs a creation lock I think.  Also, it's likely that by the time the early-release period is over, most of the important pages will have been created already.  (I assume that the item redirect pages will be mostly done by bots.  Mainly it's things like places and NPCs that people are likely to create.)  As for Admins, I agree with the 3 AKB listed.  The others may be good as well, though I haven't been around lately to see how active they are.  (I don't know Forfeit at all, he/she must be relatively new?)  I don't mind having a few extra hands around, but there honestly haven't been that many Admin-only jobs that have needed doing lately.  (Most of the deletions I've done lately have been due to my own mistakes, and I haven't seen much call for blocking lately, so the spam filters seem to be doing their job.  Also, we have people with Blocker status that aren't Admins, so maybe we should do more of that if it becomes necessary.) — TheRealLurlock (talk) 02:52, 23 March 2014 (GMT)

::Yes, we protected Oblivion and Lore when Skyrim came out. See here and the Status section at the bottom. Main space is permanently protected against page creation except by trusted users (autopatrolled, user patrollers, patrollers, and admins).

::As for item redirects, I'll take a look at what Rpeh and Nephele did last time, but I'm probably going to need some direction on that. Since I'm not playing ESO, I have no frame of reference to make sense of what's in the uespLog files that Dave uploaded. But that can be taken up on my talk page or in IRC if anyone feels they have a good handle on the info and can provide me some clear instructions on what to do.

::I agree that we probably don't need too many additional admins, and I agree with the people suggested. I'd rather wait and see if we need more than promote too many and have people not have a firm grasp of what they're doing because they don't have the chance to do it often enough.  &ndash;       04:06, 23 March 2014 (GMT)

:::I pre-ordered ESO and will be playing it as soon as I can (5 days before launch), and subsequently will be active. I wouldn't mind being a temporary admin if I was asked to, but it would be best to rely on the admins we currently have. As was the case with Skyrim, many activities needed can be done without even owning the game. I suspect we won't have as big of a rush as Skyrim, but due to the sheer size of the game we'll likely see as many if not more page creations and edits.

:::As a side note, if we do lock page creation in some namespaces, we might want to create a notice for all page creations suggesting that they create the page in "Online" space, while providing a link to the correct article name (if possible). I'm pretty sure we have an extension that can do that, but I'm not familiar with it. •        20:19, 25 March 2014 (GMT)

::::Page creation is now limited to those with the   permission (see ) in the following namespaces: Online, Skyrim, Dragonborn, and Lore. It looks like we had some issues with this the last time around, and Nephele implemented some custom coding changes, but we've updated the code since then and no longer have her changes active. I'm not entirely sure what the issue was, so I'd like to wait and see how things go on this front, then figure out what, if anything, needs to be done this time around. I'll review our namespace-specific page creation messages after I get back from walking the dog. Oh, and in case I've done anything wrong, the lockdown changes are at .  &ndash;       17:10, 29 March 2014 (GMT)

::::As it turns out, most of the notices we would want to create have already been done. I added one that should reduce the number of clicks needed before users find out that they can't create a page, but apart from that, I think we have everything we need. If anyone notices somewhere where additional help text would be useful, please let me know, if you can't find/create it yourself.  &ndash;       17:55, 29 March 2014 (GMT)

Temporary Administrative Rights for Alfwyn, Jak, and Jeancey
Considering the date, we need to decide on this sooner rather than later. I am fine with these three helping out the administration during this period. Once ESO related content has calmed down, the rights will be removed.

Support: As nominator --AKB   01:10, 27 March 2014 (GMT)
Support (Alfwyn, Jeancey): Jeancey and Alfwyn have my immediate and unconditional support for adminship. They are hardworking and active users. Jeancey is definitely one of - if not the most - the most knowledgeable and active ESO editors, and Alfwyn, given his server access, is effectively an administrator, so why not finalise it? -      &hearts;    01:40, 27 March 2014 (GMT)
:Neutral (Jak):  Jak Atackka, I am neutral for. While he also has server rights, he appears incredibly inactive, with only rare chirping in on random discussions. Since he's rather inactive (or appears so), I don't know how beneficial his adminship would necessarily be to the ESO launch at this present time.-      &hearts;    01:40, 27 March 2014 (GMT)
Support: Yes to all three.      01:46, 27 March 2014 (GMT)
Support: Sounds good.      01:55, 27 March 2014 (GMT)
Support: Jak has said (somewhere...don't remember where) that he'll be more active, so I'm good with all three.  &ndash;       02:05, 27 March 2014 (GMT)
Support: All hands on deck! -- Hargrimm  02:45, 28 March 2014 (GMT)
Support: I've been mostly lurking on the wiki lately, but I don't think I've seen more than a few bad edits from any of these three editors in months. I know Jeancey will be good for this, and while I haven't looked at all the others' edits lately, I would trust them with it anyway, despite Jak's inactivity.         02:47, 28 March 2014 (GMT)
Support: All three are good, intelligent choices. I'd like to say 'active', but Jak hasn't been around too much. Regardless, I'm pretty sure he'll be around more now so that doesn't change my vote at all.        02:47, 28 March 2014 (GMT)
Support: Excellent choices. --Xyzzy     04:37, 28 March 2014 (GMT)

The active community is unanimous and the editors in nomination haven't objected to their position, think we can Snowball this so that they have their buttons and a fast practice with them before the servers launch and new editors flood in? -      &hearts;    05:08, 30 March 2014 (GMT)

Done -- May Stendarr have mercy on their souls...;) -- Daveh   10:23, 30 March 2014 (GMT)

Thumbnail Creation Error

I've noticed it on a few occasions, and have seen some conversation trying to clear up this issue, but a user just reported an issue with our thumbnail generation. While I do not have the technical know how to diagnose the issue myself, my looking for a solution from Mediawiki gave me little in the way of a fix. I did find their documentation on this sort of issue, but am unsure what their suggestions will exactly do. --AKB   23:36, 30 March 2014 (GMT)
:I fixed some yesterday with null edits. Try that. --AN&#124;L (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2014 (GMT)
::Just ran into this issue, tried what Anil said, and it worked; confirmed.        01:10, 31 March 2014 (GMT)
:::I just tried something that may be related. Please post back here if the issue continues to crop up. Note that there may be some residual thumbnails where this has occurred and just needs fixing. The real test will be to see if there are any clearly new cases.  &ndash;       01:43, 31 March 2014 (GMT)
::::We have another reporting on this problem. I'm sure additional reports aren't particularly helpful, as this one appears to add no more additional information than AKB's report, but there's definitely something up. -      &hearts;    06:44, 31 March 2014 (GMT)
:::::It's possible that was a "leftover". If not, I'm at a loss, as I see ImageMagick installed and the file present exactly where it should be on every server we have. I'll bring it to Dave's attention and hopefully he can figure out what the problem is.  &ndash;       19:13, 31 March 2014 (GMT)
:Three more have been spotted and fixed by me over the last two days (, , and ). I've been checking the page histories, and none of these pages have been edited since these started appearing, so hopefully these are just leftovers. Interestingly, they only seem to be found in the Skyrim namespace. --AN&#124;L (talk) 15:37, 1 April 2014 (GMT)
::I actually just found one on a Morrowind page. I'm not sure if it would still be a remnant from who knows when, but it was there.        03:48, 2 April 2014 (GMT)
:The  page seems to have the same problem. It was working earlier, then suddenly went all gray-boxy. It happened first when I clicked on a link for a specific item,  Musicman247   17:33, 8 April 2014 (GMT)
::Okay, I've found another possible source of the problem, so let's see how it goes. Again, there could be cases of leftovers, but if there's clearly a new case where this is happening (e.g., it was fine after I posted this and then became problematic afterwards) let me know.  &ndash;       19:31, 8 April 2014 (GMT)
:It's spread to the Main Page now. -- Musicman247   01:18, 10 April 2014 (GMT)
::Ok, the thumbnails work when I'm logged in, but they don't work when I'm not. -- Musicman247   01:19, 10 April 2014 (GMT)
:::I purged the page. Didn't see anything logged in and it looked alright when I logged out. Is it fixed now?--AN&#124;L (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2014 (GMT)
::::All bets are off when you're logged out. Data there can be several days old.  &ndash;       05:48, 10 April 2014 (GMT)
:::::Still happening on random pages e.g. ,  (no Helm of Winterhold thumbnail). Running Chrome here, but (hopefully) not a problem at the user end.--Lmstearn (talk) 00:56, 12 April 2014 (GMT)
::::::Did someone fix it? The above pages are working now. Logged out/in at the time of the previous message- surely that's not anything to do with it.--Lmstearn (talk) 05:13, 12 April 2014 (GMT)
  Someone else mentioned seeing them randomly get fixed, so this may be something intermittent. Whatever it is, it's perplexing both Dave and I. If nothing else, the update to MediaWiki 1.22 will probably resolve, or at least shed more light on, the issue because they've reworked some of the code that's involved with this issue.  &ndash;       05:57, 12 April 2014 (GMT)
:Maybe something to do with caching, I have yet to actually see one of these as broken, whether thats because they get fixed before I get online I don't know.      10:59, 12 April 2014 (GMT)
::This on (File:SurveyResult_Advertising.png) has never displayed for me or legoless since it was uploaded. It may be related.      21:26, 13 April 2014 (GMT)
:::So, I spent probably close to an hour trying various things, then I asked in the MediaWiki Dev chatroom and someone solved it for me in a couple of minutes. It's not the wiki that's doing that, it's your ad blocker. Mine's doing it in Chrome as well, but when I use Firefox, everything shows up fine.  &ndash;       01:47, 14 April 2014 (GMT)
::::As simple as that? So any file with 'Advertising' gets blocked by adblockers?      01:52, 14 April 2014 (GMT)
:::::At least some of them, yeah. I don't know if they're all that simplistic. Moving the file fixed the issue for me. Anyone else having any problems?  &ndash;       02:01, 14 April 2014 (GMT)
Whatever is causing this, each instance is fixed easily by purging the cache for that page. I spent a couple hours last night purging a few hundred pages with the error (they were easy to find because the error has been around a while and was cached on Google and therefore searchable). The majority were in Skyrim pages. with a lesser amount in Oblivion and Morrowind. And a few in Lore and Online, and about two each in Arena and Daggerfall. Not that the distribution means anything. The error message looks like something was done wrong with an update or install to the thumbnailing software; something was in a different folder than it was before, but it looked for the old one. But I could be completely wrong about that. Far as know, it shouldn't be a continuous problem. We're not seeing it show up with new thumbnails, we were simply noticing it on ones that were already broken. I'm pretty sure I got every single one that was left, but if there's anymore, a simple purge should do it. I hope that helps. –-Mjr162006 (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2014 (GMT)
:Wow, thanks for doing all that, Mjr! It never even occurred to me to comb through our site for them on Google. I think a couple of people reported what appeared to be new instances, but now that you've purged them all, let's see if they continue to pop up or not. Doing another search on Google in a week or so should be a good indicator of whether there's anything new.  &ndash;       14:59, 17 April 2014 (GMT)
::New instance on Oblivion Houses Redesign Project. Thumbnails were fine, then I refreshed the page and they disappeared. Related? Will purge the page, but thought I'd mention it. --Beezer1029 (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2014 (GMT)
:::Thanks. That would appear to confirm that it's still happening. Were you on a regular server or a mobile one at the time?  &ndash;       17:11, 17 April 2014 (GMT)
::::Regular server. A few of the OB houses were affected as well as I was going through them. --Beezer1029 (talk) 17:34, 17 April 2014 (GMT)
:::::Darned if I can reproduce it. This may be something we just have to live with until we upgrade to 1.22, which has a total rewrite of the relevant section of the code.  &ndash;       19:46, 17 April 2014 (GMT)
::::::Is there some way to purge the entire system. Sokoro reported that images on SR:Specialty Gear were not creating, but despite both being on Firefox, both restarting our browsers and both bypassing cache to refresh, I could not get the images to disappear while he could not get them to appear. With pages being fixed and then unfixed it appears to me that someone who has the pages cached is breaking thumbnails unintentionally with their bad cache.      15:05, 19 April 2014 (GMT)
 If you were both looking at them at the same time, then that very strongly suggests the cache, as you say. I've asked Dave to restart memcached, since I don't have permission to do so, myself. If that ends up not working, then yes, we can force the wiki to regenerate all thumbnails, though I'd imagine that'll put a bit of a load on our servers for a while.  &ndash;       15:41, 19 April 2014 (GMT)
:Something that I noticed when creating all the ESO place pages - If I was on one of the list pages with all the Place Links on it, and I created or edited one of the individual place pages, if I remembered to Purge the page before going back to the list page, it was fine.  But if I omitted that step, the list page had broken links for everything that needed #loading, and nothing would fix it short of going back to the page, Purging it, and then also Purging the list page.  So it's possible EditorA edited an article page, and then EditorB looked at the list page before EditorA had a chance to Purge the article, but then EditorA did eventually Purge the article and went back to the list.  So for EditorA, there appears to be no problem, but EditorB, since he never Purged and visited the list page while it was in an un-purged state, now has a cached version of the page with broken links.  I think this might explain a lot of the inconsistency. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2014 (GMT)
::Dave just restarted memcached, so let's see what that does. As for the #load issue, while that could cause its own problems, I don't see a way for that to cause the ulimit4.sh error.  &ndash;       18:41, 19 April 2014 (GMT)
:::I think we have our first solid lead on this. Moinante noticed that he got sent to   when clicking on a file link instead of staying on   as expected. I don't know for sure why that would happen, and I've written to Dave about it, but quite clearly, if anything forces the page to re-generate thumbnails while on skins2, it causes the now-infamous ulimit4.sh error we've been seeing to appear on www. So, if you happen to notice yourself getting sent to skins2 unexpectedly, please fix the URL to www and if things don't look right, please purge the page.  &ndash;       23:33, 19 April 2014 (GMT)
::::I'm not sure if this will help, but in perhaps the last 30% or so of the pages on the Google Search when I was fixing as many as I could find the other night, there were quite a few results that were in the skins2 domain. Not sure what that meant, I tried purging it, and nothing happened. I then did what you just suggested and changed it to www instead and purged that page and it worked. Somehow Google's crawlers are getting sent to the skin2 domain with some pages that had this issue. I'm not sure why, or if it's even relevant or helpful, but I figured I'd just mention it just in case.--Mjr162006 (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2014 (GMT)
:::::As a workaround, Dave has installed ImageMagick on the server that hosts skins2.uesp.net (meaning that any thumbnails needed can actually be created now, even if you get sent to skins2). In theory, that should at least prevent any further errors, though as always, refreshing old ones may still be necessary. It doesn't really tell us why the problem is happening in the first place, but Dave's looking into that.  &ndash;       18:22, 20 April 2014 (GMT)
  Well, good news and bad news. The good news is that the old error seems to be gone. The bad news is, there's a new one. Same thing as before with images not displaying, except this time it says ''Error creating thumbnail: convert: unable to open image `/home/uesp/www/w/images/e/e7/OB-npc-S'mirra.jpg': No such file or directory. convert: missing an image filename `/tmp/transform_2102562-1.jpg'.'' (I copied this from one page, but I've found five with the same error). My browser just shows the normal UESP address. It's really weird, Lore: Alchemy A just had it, and some of the images had errors but others didn't. --AN&#124;L (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2014 (GMT)
:That's probably a minor configuration error. I've alerted Dave so he can have a look at it.  &ndash;       00:50, 22 April 2014 (GMT)

::I have to say the amount of people commenting on this happening is starting to become too much. Is there anything more can be done to resolve this quicker?      20:20, 25 April 2014 (GMT)

:::I don't have access to skins2, so it's up to Dave.   Dave's obviously made some configuration change since Anil's post, since skins2 is no longer available from the web at all. I suspect the current error is just a minor setup issue. I'll poke him again.  &ndash;       20:41, 25 April 2014 (GMT)
::::Any news on this? It's affecting the main page now. --Roger (talk) 08:12, 7 May 2014 (GMT)
:::::Was it the same error of "...unable to open image..."? Just want to make sure I'm not telling Dave the wrong thing. :)  &ndash;       16:54, 7 May 2014 (GMT)
::::::Personally, I see it happening right now on a license template for an ESO NPC image (Error creating thumbnail: convert etc etc). I did a blank save and it fixed itself. --Jimeee (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2014 (GMT)

:The entire page of Dragonborn Places is an error. I did not purge it so you could see it. Here's the error message - Error creating thumbnail: convert: unable to open image `/home/uesp/www/w/images/7/72/SR-mapicon-Temple_of_Miraak.png': No such file or directory.convert: unable to open file `/home/uesp/www/w/images/7/72/SR-mapicon-Temple_of_Miraak.png'. convert: missing an image filename `/tmp/transform_6edfa3-1.png'.--Beezer1029 (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2014 (GMT)

::Either someone else purged it or different people are seeing different things, because it looks fine for me when I'm logged in. Logged out, though, I see an older version that's the same as what you saw. I've written to Dave about it.

::Just heard back from Dave and while I'm pretty sure I know the answer to this, I just want to confirm. People that are seeing this: you are logged in when you see the error, right?  &ndash;       18:21, 7 May 2014 (GMT)
:::Yes- logged in. So maybe its just me...--Beezer1029 (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2014 (GMT)
::::Can't be just you because I saw it when I logged out. We just wanted to establish if it was happening only to logged out users, so thanks for the confirmation. Dave and I are still baffled as to the overall cause of the issue, but he should at least be able to temporarily prevent it from happening while we figure out what's going on. It may still occur on newly uploaded images, though.  &ndash;       18:59, 7 May 2014 (GMT)
:::::@RH: Yep, it was the "unable to open image" error. I can also confirm that it shows up regardless of whether you're logged in or not. --Roger (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2014 (GMT)

Block needed

For this IP due to spambot-like nonsense posts please.        10:28, 1 April 2014 (GMT)

:Just to follow up here as well, Dave got this a few hours ago.  &ndash;       13:22, 1 April 2014 (GMT)

::Not sure if this needs a new section, but needs a block. Also, I suggest including "Tramadol" in the spam filter, seems to be in each of this user's edits.        20:36, 4 April 2014 (GMT)
:::I gave it six hours while we wait on an admin to attend to it, because that IP was rather prolific and did several edits in a row. -      &hearts;    20:45, 4 April 2014 (GMT)
::::TRL got it, thanks Damon!        20:47, 4 April 2014 (GMT)
:::::I just added Tramadol to the filter as well.  &ndash;       21:13, 4 April 2014 (GMT)

ESO Data from uespLog

I've been trying very hard not to play ESO all day and work on getting the data parser and viewer for all the data being collected by the uespLog addon. The first version working is now up at:

::[ ESO Log Viewer

Note that only books have been parsed at the moment and the interface is just enough to get it working. I've been focusing on getting all the general design/programming done and adding more types will hopefully be added soon relatively quickly. I'll make it look pretty later.

A question for those more familiar with CSList and adding wiki content: What output format(s) would you like this tool to have? I have CSList can output things in a wiki format (I think...I'll have to take a closer look at it). I assume part of the purpose for the tool is to easily mass import data from the log viewer into the wiki and having it output in a wiki format I assume would be desirable. Example work flows of how people use CSList and how they would like to use the ESO log viewer would be helpful along with anything else you can think of. -- Daveh   01:55, 9 April 2014 (GMT)

:For the bot, I'd rather work with raw data and take care of the wiki formatting myself so that it's easily changed if we need to. So I'm fine with any common format, with CSV probably being the easiest. If it needs to support structured data later on, JSON or XML are also good, with JSON being my preference.  &ndash;       14:11, 9 April 2014 (GMT)

96.49.236.201 - a longer block, perhaps?

May I toss out the suggestion that a month doesn't seem adequate in my opinion, judging from this user's recent behaviour? He came into IRC earlier asking how he can get around his wiki block, then he became hostile when Nocte (at my suggestion) booted him from the IRC for attempting to evade his block. Then, when I botched banning him in IRC, he simply returned and began a lovely string of aggression and name-calling. So, I see conspiracy to evade his wiki ban, evasion of his IRC ban, and etiquette violations for his insults and threats in IRC, not to mention the trouble he caused the last few days leading up to his wiki ban.  This one is definitely a troublemaker. -      &hearts;    06:11, 9 April 2014 (GMT)
:Also, can we put a semi-protect on their talk page? A quick look at the history shows a rapid stream of lewd comments in response to my block.        06:16, 9 April 2014 (GMT)
::I extended the block to one year for harassing users over IRC, but I left the ability for them to edit their talk page (in case they do wish to appeal). They haven't abused the privilege to edit their own talk page enough to warrant blocking them from it, but if things do get out of hand on their talk page, I'll change that. •        06:57, 9 April 2014 (GMT)
:::Given that the user just removed warnings and blocks from their talk page, I propose that all editing rights for the user be revoked.        07:28, 9 April 2014 (GMT)
::::Yeah, I'd consider that abusing their privilege. I've temporarily changed it so they can't edit their talk page. •        07:52, 9 April 2014 (GMT)
:::::Thanks a bunch! Also HI JAK :D        08:19, 9 April 2014 (GMT)

Google plus really annoying

That google plus thing right below the search bar? It sucks.

It always loads slower than the rest of the sidebar, which moves around on the page as a result. Often, this means that instead of clicking the forum button, for example, I end up clicking "Contact Us". Instead of "Recent Changes", I click "Featured Articles". It's been grinding my gears for a while, and really makes it difficult to navigate the site the way I like to. Is there any way of getting around this (or, better yet, actually fixing the issue)?      19:24, 9 April 2014 (GMT)

:When it was first implemented, I asked Jak Atackka how to remove it, and he told me that if you add   to your common.css page, it will hide the G+ button for you. -      &hearts;    19:50, 9 April 2014 (GMT)

::You've just made my wiki experience about 50% more enjoyable, thank you.      20:03, 9 April 2014 (GMT)

 That annoyed me to0, so I added   to my css. Fixing the height stops the bar from jumping around - should we implement something like this globally? --Alfwyn (talk) 09:28, 10 April 2014 (GMT)

:Fixing the height? Go for it. •        09:51, 10 April 2014 (GMT)

ESO and ON randomly converting to Online

Not sure what's caused this, whether it was intentional or otherwise, but when using the search bar to search for things with ESO in their title (eg, , ) the search is returning "online" instead (eg, UESP:online Guild, Template:online Alliances) and therefore not directing to the searched-for page. Similarly, some icons in the Place Link template on pages are searching for the file online-mapicon-whatever.png instead of ON-mapicon-whatever.png. The file call on the original page however is definitely correct. Thanks, Enodoc (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2014 (GMT)

:Sorry, I was busy with another project today, followed by a migraine, so I'm only seeing this now. I suspect this is related to a search change Dave made a couple of weeks ago. If he doesn't get to it before then, I'll have a look at it tomorrow. Can you point out a couple of Place Links that have the problem? I tried randomly looking at a few and wasn't able to find any that were doing this. Thanks!  &ndash;       05:43, 10 April 2014 (GMT)

::Yeah I would say that search change is the cause of this. I can't actually find any Place Links with that problem any more, so maybe that part has sorted itself out. --Enodoc (talk) 08:45, 10 April 2014 (GMT)

:::The search thing was just a quick fix with the obvious issues. Perhaps limiting it to just replacing the first word if its "eso" or only explicit namespaces with the colon (ESO:). Although if we're going to be switching to ESO as the main namespace this is a temporary fix anyways. -- Daveh   10:21, 10 April 2014 (GMT)

::::Okay, I've got a fix up on content3 (I can't confine it to the development server, since dev doesn't have MWSearch installed). Can someone poke at it and see if there are any major issues with it? The way I've set it up, if you try to go to a page like "Template:Factions in ESO" by typing it into the search bar on the left-menu, you'll automatically get redirected to "". If you do the same from the actual search page, the "ESO" part will get auto-converted to "(ESO OR Online)", which will search for either term. The new term will be displayed in the search bar, but the link will still display as expected. If there's a way to get MediaWiki/MWSearch to just consider the terms equivalent without modifying the search itself, I can't find it, so my solution is definitely still a bit of a kludge, but I think it'll get us where we want to go.  &ndash;       18:27, 10 April 2014 (GMT)

:::::Yeah, I would say that works. At least, I think it does what I wanted   :P   Enodoc (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2014 (GMT)

::::::Okay, this is now implemented across all our servers (after bringing down mobile momentarily...apologies for the brief interruption of service for anyone affected).  &ndash;       21:39, 10 April 2014 (GMT)

Image licensing

We may need to adjust the wording on our image licenses.  Currently, the only license that properly describes images taken from Elder Scrolls Online is the zenimage license.  The uespimage license only includes Bethesda in its wording, and ESO is NOT created by Bethesda, but by its parent company, Zenimax.  We either need a new license that applies to screenshots taken from ESO, or we need to reword the "uespimage" to include Zenimax images as well.  I'm hesitant to make changes to existing licenses, as it could be construed as invalidating the thousands of images already using that license.  I'm no lawyer, but I feel that the current choice of licenses does not provide a means of doing this properly, so we need to put something together that handles this situation.  (And yes, I'm aware that "uespimage" has a parameter for specifying the company, but you can't choose this from the dropdown list, so it's next to useless, as the majority of editors won't know about it, and even if they do, it requires an additional edit after uploading for every file.) — TheRealLurlock (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2014 (GMT)

:It also defaults to Zenimax if the image starts with File:ON, so there should be very few cases where it an extra edit is needed. An extra option on the dropdown list would be an option, as its done with other templates and simply adds the parameter '|zenimax' to the end of the template.      11:58, 21 April 2014 (GMT)

:: An extra dropdown would be nice. —Legoless (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2014 (GMT)

:::What about just using and/or wording to cover both common cases?  &ndash;       16:10, 21 April 2014 (GMT)

::::We could just use the company that owns the series and all the studios and publishers (including the old and now defunct ones (such as Vir2L), ZeniMax Media.      16:16, 21 April 2014 (GMT)

:::::We could also change it to games produced by Bethesda Softworks (which also covers them all, I believe). Jeancey (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2014 (GMT)

::::::Stormhold, Shadowkey, and Oblivion Mobile, are not published by Bethesda Softworks, and Trademarks were filed under ZeniMax Media for both Skyrim and ESO.      16:28, 21 April 2014 (GMT)

:::::::Due to the fact that uespimage automatically switches to Zenimax Online when the filename starts with ON (as Silencer said), I do not see any need for anything to be changed, unless we want to add switches for Stormhold, Shadowkey and ObMob to it as well. --Enodoc (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2014 (GMT)

Hide Summaries

Can someone hide the summaries and revisions by this user to deny them what they seek.      17:45, 23 April 2014 (GMT)

:Done.  &ndash;       20:15, 23 April 2014 (GMT)

block request

137.175.96.221 repeats creating new nonsens pages. --The Nerevarine (talk) 06:34, 26 April 2014 (GMT)

:  Jeancey (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2014 (GMT)

:::Thanks. I recognised you also deleted the pages created by that IP. There is one left:   --The Nerevarine (talk) 13:04, 26 April 2014 (GMT)

ESOMod

The new ESO Mod namespace still needs a checkbox in the Advanced search options. Maybe under the 'Online' header? —Legoless (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2014 (GMT)

:I think I got it but it's not showing the change just yet.      21:38, 16 May 2014 (GMT)

::Done now.  &ndash;       22:38, 16 May 2014 (GMT)

Block needed for a "very nice site!" bot

 ThuumofReason (talk) 12:21, 20 May 2014 (GMT)

:Done!  &ndash;       13:28, 20 May 2014 (GMT)

::And on a related note, can the targeted page () get some protection for now (4 IPs and 3 different types of bot).      18:37, 20 May 2014 (GMT)

:::Also done. I was going to change our Abuse Filter as well, but I see you've already done that. I'll have another look at our abuse logs, though, and see if there are IPs that need blocked as well.  &ndash;       21:30, 20 May 2014 (GMT)

Name Change?

Hey admins, I found a new username I like better than my own. Per Wikipedia's namechange policy, I'd like to request my username be changed to  . The username is not on our current user list. To be fully upfront and honest, I'm doing this pretty much because I feel like a new username. If that's grounds for denying my request, I can respect that. But I'd definitely appreciate consideration! :D        12:01, 21 May 2014 (GMT)

:In line with the fact that you're changing your name just because you want to, I'll do it just because I've never done a user rename before. ;) Or, from the more serious, adminny perspective: there's nothing in policy that says anything about it that I can find, though if someone starts asking to change their name every week, I'm pretty sure we'll develop one in a hurry!  &ndash;       14:53, 21 May 2014 (GMT)

::No complaints, though I agree users should find a name and stick to it. The policy guidelines already cover this though, but it is always at the admins discretion.      17:54, 21 May 2014 (GMT)

ESO Craglorn Images

I've uploaded the complete set of ESO images from yesterday's big Craglorn patch:

:* EsoArt.zip (85 MB) -- All artwork/icons from eso.mnf and game.mnf
:* EsoLang.zip (45 MB) -- All three language files in CSV format (uses ` (tilde) as the field seperator).
:* EsoLoadScreens.zip (55 MB) -- Loading screens
:* EsoMaps.zip (61 MB) -- Combined maps (558 maps that could be exported automatically)
:* EsoTreasureMaps.zip 174 MB() -- Treasure maps (full sized)

Like last time each ZIP contains a ...diff.txt file detailing what has changed from the set of last uploaded files shortly after ESO launch. The updated map tiles are on the ESO Dev Map and the Craglorn map database entries will be added shortly. If everything appears to look/work ok it will be pushed to the live map as soon as possible. 
-- Daveh   13:11, 23 May 2014 (GMT)

:Change of plan...am updating the map tiles on the live ESO site as I can't add the new map database entries without the map tiles being present. If anyone notices any issues with the map tiles let me know. -- Daveh   13:30, 23 May 2014 (GMT)

Protection of Dragonborn_talk:Easter_Eggs/Archive_2

Please and thank you. --AN&#124;L (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2014 (GMT)

:Bot's on it.  &ndash;       16:38, 27 May 2014 (GMT)

Block needed for spammer

 ThuumofReason (talk) 12:42, 28 May 2014 (GMT)

:Done.  &ndash;       14:50, 28 May 2014 (GMT)

ESO Temporary Admins

Elder Scrolls Online continues to dominate the recent changes so the caveat on when to review the status isn't quite met. However, Alfwyn and Jak have not been around enough or made any sort of edits that suggest they have any use for the administrative rights (in Jak's case he hasn't made an edit the entire time he has been an admin). It's now over two months since ESO came out and as with the other temporary changes this is a good time for a review. I'll be notifying these two about the review on their talk pages, while Jeancey (who has made a considerable contribution to the Online namespace) has been notified in the IRC, though he has shown he can use and does use the rights wisely, and shouldn't (in my opinion) have the rights removed yet as TESO is nowhere near documented enough.      02:17, 11 June 2014 (GMT)

:I would also be in favour of leaving Jeancey's rights for the time being, since my recovery looks to be about on schedule for end of June before I feel fully functional again. He's certainly been doing appropriate administrative duties (when the rest of us have left him something to do, anyway  ) since his temporary adminship started. Alternatively, he could just run for admin, though as I recall the terms of our original agreement, that would mean he'd have to step down from those duties until the admin nomination was complete.  &ndash;       04:02, 11 June 2014 (GMT)

::Please remove my rights. I've been too busy with real-life (hellish semester and now a full-time job) to play ESO, let alone edit the wiki (though I have been watching it). At this point I'm unsure whether I'll return to the wiki any time this year. I didn't really want the rights to begin with, so I have no reason to keep them now. As for the other temp admins, I agree that Alfwyn isn't active enough to keep his rights (unless he makes a strong case to keep them, we'll see). Jeancey has done a good job keeping up his activity and has used his admin rights on occasion. Combined with his overall good judgment and application of said rights, I think he should keep them. At least one good admin should come out of this exercise :P. •        05:02, 11 June 2014 (GMT)
:::Agreed. We need someone like Jeancey to keep those rights, even if it's only for a short time (although he could keep them longer...). Alfwyn is a great editor, but I think his low activity means he'd be better suited for regular patroller duties. ThuumofReason (talk) 12:13, 11 June 2014 (GMT)

::::With all the work he's been doing, it would almost be detrimental to take away his admin rights right now. As for Alfwyn, I don't see how it would be a bad thing to let him keep his rights. If he happens to come back, then he can do stuff, and if he doesn't everything would be just as before.        14:16, 11 June 2014 (GMT)

:::::I concur with everyone else on Jeancey, he's been doing the bulk of the ESO work and has done it well. The other two should lose their rights, no reason for them to have admin rights they aren't going to use imo. --AN&#124;L (talk) 14:40, 11 June 2014 (GMT)

 I agree with Anil that Jeancey should keep his rights, given all the work he is doing. Even after we have documented everything for ESO, I personally wouldn't be opposed to Jeancey becoming a permanent administrator. I haven't really seen Alfwyn on the recent changes, which tells me that he is inactive and has no need for the rights. I think if he wants them later, he should make a case for them like most have to do. ~     15:43, 11 June 2014 (GMT)

Request for Semi-Protection of Online Easter Eggs page

Per the usual practice, can we get some semiprotection on the ESO eggs page?      00:34, 26 June 2014 (GMT)

:For the record, only 2 anons have edited the page, and they only made small tweaks. I'm not really against semiprotection, but there doesn't seem to be a need for it at the moment.      02:11, 26 June 2014 (GMT)

::I'd agree with Minor Edits. It's not a problem that can't be handled at the moment. --Jimeee (talk) 10:52, 26 June 2014 (GMT)
:::True, it's not an immediate issue, but it can only help. An ounce of prevention and all that.      14:35, 26 June 2014 (GMT)

::::Thank you for your diligence with Easter Eggs as always, Thuum. I understand your concern, and while it will surely need protection eventually, I would prefer to wait until there is a more clear need for this protection. --AKB   14:37, 26 June 2014 (GMT)

File Protection Request

:File:Mainpage-logo.jpg has once again been edited incorrectly. There shouldn't be any sort of loophole to editing the main page so this needs semi-protection.      15:16, 28 June 2014 (GMT)
:I've given it a mostly admin only-protection, due to it being an important file. But if anyone disagrees... ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2014 (GMT)

:: I've bumped it up to full protection, since it's site policy to "[maintain] the integrity of the site logo". —Legoless (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2014 (GMT)
:::Oh, sorry, I should've known. Thanks ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2014 (GMT)

Jilan-dar

The page  has a bad history with many diffs not related to the page, can an admin delete these please.      19:15, 3 July 2014 (GMT)

:Done.  &ndash;       19:43, 3 July 2014 (GMT)
::You can hide edits, have you tried that? You wouldn't have to delete and restore then ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2014 (GMT)
:::Hiding edits still shows the entry in the history, though. I figured delete and restore was cleaner.  &ndash;       19:50, 3 July 2014 (GMT)

Block Needed 2

 --Rook (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2014 (GMT)

:Done. Thanks for letting us know!  &ndash;       18:24, 10 July 2014 (GMT)

Blockers

A user contacted me recently to request blocker privileges, but even though the Blockuser page says nothing about it, I felt that I had to deny them based on the fact that they weren't a patroller. While it wasn't the original intent of the blockers group, for probably the last two years or so, the de facto rule has been that it's given only to senior patrollers. Does anybody have any objections if I update the Blockuser page to say that?

(History lesson, as closely as I remember it: the original intent of the group was that during slow periods, when there was only one admin and he/she was logging off, that admin would temporarily grant the Blockers right to a patroller or other long-term user just until another admin showed up, at which point the right would be removed again. Over time, admins found it too much of a hassle to constantly add and remove the right, and started leaving it in place for a couple of senior patrollers. (This may have been a specific suggestion by someone or it may just have happened naturally over time, I don't recall.) That, in turn, led to the perception that it was for patrollers only, which in turn became the de facto reality it is now.)  &ndash;       02:37, 16 July 2014 (GMT)

:Sounds like a good idea. If a user hasn't been trusted with patroller powers yet, they probably shouldn't be given blocker privileges since those powers require greater responsibility. They should first demonstrate their trustworthiness as a patroller before being given a power that is typically reserved to only administrators. Forfeit (talk) 03:43, 16 July 2014 (GMT)

::A verbal recommendation that they be trusted users is certainly not a bad thing, and while there aren't many active these days on my radar, over the years I've seen numerous people who could be trusted, and aren't proper Recent Changes Patrollers out of disinterest or other rights arrangements.

::That said, there is nothing wrong with putting up a recommendation that they be trusted in some way. Since the is a responding admin discretion call, I don't feel like it has to be a hard and fast rule, personally as if it were a voted in position, if that makes sense. However, if multiple people were wanting the position and we were in a position where there weren't a handful of admins and the small handful of us who are active (or in my case, not editing but still watching the RC and IRCing), I would say give it first to someone who has a position on the site over a regular no-rights user, if my thought makes sense. -      &hearts;    04:25, 16 July 2014 (GMT)

::: I think it's best to leave it to admin discretion. Like Damon said, some senior editors are disinterested in patrollership. As a compromise, what about a requirement to be either a patroller or autopatrolled? That would ensure a certain level of community trust without such a specific requirement. —Legoless (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2014 (GMT)
::::That's a good point to start from. I do agree that there has to be a prerequisite of being either patrolled or autopatrolled to establish trustworthiness, but we also have to consider that being a blocker is a lot bigger responsibility than patrolling and has much less room for error. A bad edit mistakenly marked as patrolled isn't a huge deal, but a block given out unfairly can lead to some pretty nasty and heated arguments, even if it's only temporary and is undone quickly. To that end, it might not be a bad idea to have some other requirements. We don't want to give blocker rights to just anyone, even among users trusted as patrollers.      15:08, 16 July 2014 (GMT)

The Silencer's Personal Attacks

Because The Silencer issued several personal attacks against Biffa in this conversation, I was forced to give him a warning. The attacks clearly violated the etiquette policy; due to actions like that, I believe that Silencer is not fit for the rights he currently has. This is not the first time he has either risked, or has alienated other users, and I worry that it will not be the last. ~     01:02, 17 July 2014 (GMT)
:I don't know that I agree with an outright removal of his rights just yet; for now, a warning should be sufficient. For what it's worth though, the warning was spot-on. In fact, I was on the verge of giving him one myself. It's probably a bit soon for a request like this, but I agree that the sorts of comments that Silencer made are inexcusable for someone who's been a patroller as long as he has.      01:10, 17 July 2014 (GMT)

::My problem is that on the Patroller page is mentions that you cannot apply after recieving a warning for one month. I took that to mean if any patroller gets a warning their rights will be removed. If not, then I misunderstood it. ~     01:15, 17 July 2014 (GMT)

::I would also like to point out that I am a firm believer in the etiquette policy and I find that the removal of rights is better than being blocked like the policy says. ~     01:38, 17 July 2014 (GMT)

:::I did not attack Biffa at all, definitely nothing that comes under or near the listed ones on wikipedia, I questioned his testing methods, which as he claims are accurate but have been proven inaccurate and unreliable many times over I have every right to call him out on. I have previously tried to engage him on the matter only to be ignored and mocked. so I told him to stop clinging to the claim. Breaking etiquette is not grounds for a warning on its own, especially when the people giving it refuse to acknowledge the background to the situation. Biffa accused me of having a vendetta against him, and says I've "gone out of your way to make thing unpleasant for me on this site." (both thoroughly inaccurate). The only thing that I said was his 'continued bull-headedness'. So how come I get the warning? Is it for asking him to stop spreading a falsehood, for trying to show him how his claims were wrong. Should I have to care about the emotional well-being of fairly anonymous people on the other side of the world. Am I not allowed to defend myself when people things I didn't even say? I've only ever had issues with two other editors on the site, and you'd be extremely hard-pressed to find anyone that thinks we'd be better off with those two editors continuing the path they trod (one of whom's entire contributions were eventually found to be wrong and deliberately so). So if you're going to warn me, warn me for something I did, not something you have interpreted through a complete misreading of the situation. This is a formal request for an administrator to review the warning and remove it or keep it.      01:40, 17 July 2014 (GMT)

::::I agree with dom on this one. If one of the qualifications to become a patroller is to not have any warnings otherwise you need to wait a month. Why then should someone who is a patroller not have it stripped for getting a warning? I think it's only fair to punish patrollers just as much as non-patrollers Lorenut (talk) 01:45, 17 July 2014 (GMT)

:::::Since I seem to be the only admin around at the moment, or at least who's responding to this situation, I'd like to suggest we give Silencer a little time to collect his thoughts. In addition to the options presented above, an interaction ban is also a possibility, though that can be difficult to manage with two prolific editors. Barring any further etiquette violations, I'd like to suggest that we not do anything precipitous. I'll send a message to the other active admins to discuss appropriate follow-up actions.  &ndash;       01:50, 17 July 2014 (GMT)

  "continued bull-headedness that refuses to countenance that you are fallible" "''I really don't care about your feelings" "There will always be another editor to take the mantle of filling in pages." "Congratulations everyone on taking the stance that the tone of the message means far more than the message itself." Those are your words from that conversation. From the Wikipedia article you cited: "These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done''." (Emphasis taken from Wikipedia). Your edits, while being well-intentioned, ended up being condescending, rude, and potentially hurtful to Biffa. As our Etiquette policy says, "Personal attacks are grounds for an immediate block.". Furthermore, "Who's right and who's wrong is less important than treating others with respect. "But he/she was wrong!" is not an excuse for treating someone poorly." You showed a clear lack of respect for Biffa with those comments. If you believe he wronged you, I implore you to follow RobinHood's advice and talk to him or another administrator about it. ~     01:55, 17 July 2014 (GMT)

:   I've reviewed the discussion on Biffa's talk page, and I agree with the warning. This isn't the first time The Silencer has been abrasive towards other editors, but I believe this was a step too far. Despite the point trying to be made, or who has the right of it, or the experience/rights of the editors involved, common etiquette should be of paramount importance and an overly passive-aggressive attitude should not be tolerated. —Legoless (talk) 01:56, 17 July 2014 (GMT)

::Two of those comments were not aimed at Biffa, and the warning was for attacking Biffa. Please please find me something that says I have to care about an editors feelings. He brought his feelings up in the conversation, so they were there to be pushed away from it. How does 'There will always be another editor' constitute an attack? You quote me but you do not explain how these are attacks. I am accused of having a vendetta with no shred of proof to back it up. That is an attack under 'Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence.' Being given a warning by someone who doesn't know the situation, or care enough to ask me to explain any of my claims is utterly outrageous. I do not accept this warning on the basis put forward as it lacks evidence, thought, or carefully applied policies. It is a kneejerk action to a situation that did not call for it, where I did not break any rules where a warning is an immediate reaction, where fault is being applied fairly. Everything I am accused of can be said of Biffa in equal measure and I am appalled that people would blindly misread my words to apply meanings that are not there.      02:16, 17 July 2014 (GMT)
:::Are we really going to do this? Because I'm not going to do this. According to your userpage, you're 5 years older than I am. That's old enough that I shouldn't have to explain to you why it's important to be nice to people. So I'm not going to.      02:28, 17 July 2014 (GMT)

::::  The way I view "There will always be another editor" is you were saying that he is unneeded on this wiki. You don't have to care about anyone's feelings. You just have to be kind enough to them that it doesn't seem like an attack. I am uninvolved in that discussion, so when I saw it I immediately thought of it as you putting him down. The warning was not a quick reaction from me. I thought very carefully about it and reviewed what was said. Even when I was about to post the warning I hesitated and made sure that it was a valid one. I do apologize if you feel offended at me giving you a warning. ~     02:33, 17 July 2014 (GMT)

:::::The Silencer, the point here is that regardless of the quality of Biffa's edits or testing, what happened here is that someone was making good-faith edits to the wiki and you responded with unnecessary confrontation that quickly devolved into rudeness.  The way we interact with each other matters.  People don't stick around in hostile environments, and when we need every good editor we can get for as long as we can get them.  If we aren't mindful of the emotional well-being of fairly anonymous people on the other side of the world, we don't work together, and if we don't work together, we aren't the best anymore.

:::::Sure, we do warn people that their work will be edited mercilessly, but that doesn't mean we get to be so blatantly rude when we talk to each other about edits.  Sometimes you have to say something that someone won't want to hear, and that comes with the territory; however, how your initial message could be read as anything but hurtful is really beyond me...and it just gets worse from there.  I'm also a bit surprised that you didn't let someone else approach the conversation if you've raised your concerns and had conflicts in the past.

:::::Now, since it's late for many of us, I'm going to recommend everyone take a break from this.  We can refocus our energy on how to handle this once people have had a chance to cool down.          02:54, 17 July 2014 (GMT)

   I'm inclined to agree as well with the evidence put forward that The Silencer was a little too forward and aggressive towards Biffa. If I was the one responding, I wouldn't have given a warning and would have talked the situation down and eases tensions without such drastic action and discussion of things like rights removals and warnings, it was none the less completely justified. Silencer certainly needs to be politely reminded that he needs to watch what he says, but I think that a more cautious and calm approach to this discussion is needed going forward, because things are certainly tense, even in this rights discussion. -      &hearts;    03:14, 17 July 2014 (GMT)

: Yes we are, because this is about being given a warning partly for saying I don't care about someone's feelings and being told I should. I tried to talk and all I got was hostility and accusations. How about people read Biffa's replies to any of my messages on the wiki, where all I get is sarcasm, ignorance, and hate, and try to understand that bull-headed is a very tame reaction to what is spouted in my direction. All I'm getting here is that I shouldn't have bothered trying to find a solution or confront someone on a blatant untruth, that it's better to be nice and wrong, than blunt and right. The truth isn't allowed now? There will always be another editor, just as there'll be other patrollers and admins. You applied a reason to something you didn't understand, didn't consult me on it's meaning, and gave me a warning, that is not a good train of thought. Your uninvolvement is exactly the problem, were you aware of why my opening post was worded like a reply, did you take the time to follow the story back longer than the last few hours? You have taken my words out of context, applied wholly different meanings, not taken any time to find out why a 'senior' (as in someone who's been around so long) editor would act in such a way, and taken an arbitrary and blunt approach to resolving a situation that arose. The same can be said for Thuum intersecting an argument and helping to divert it away from its intent with a couple of paragraphs on my behaviour that would have been more appropriate on my talk page (not to mention the continued applied reasons to words I didn't even say). While not exactly unbiased in this situation, there is still nothing that approaches breaking the personal attacks policy, unless it now includes discussing an editors methods and reasoning when they can be proven wrong. [ec eshe reply] Sure, when taken out of context and read on it's own it seems rude, but anyone who was considering giving a warning should look to see why someone would act like that, and they would see it was a response to a claim he made while undoing an edit of mine, thus taken in context it loses its rudeness, or how else does one say 'what you do isn't what you claim'. Seeing as the warning is going to stay, I don't have much interest in what else happens here, especially if people refuse to allow context its rightful place. Biffa's reactions have cause this, no-one else is interested in getting involved, no-one patrols his major edits or tries to correct him, else they face an immediate interrogation on their reasoning for it. I was given neither the time or place to explain or prove my accusations, I was instead told to shut up stop questioning people who are wrong 'for the good of the wiki'.      03:19, 17 July 2014 (GMT)

::Despite what Biffa and others may have done, issuing personal attacks wasn't the correct response. In my opinion, since you have a problem with what Biffa has said to/about you, you should contact an administrator and explain how you feel. Even in context, your remarks are rude. Rude is always rude, regardless of what caused the actions. Sometimes, rudeness is understandable and can be overlooked. In this case, I tried to defuse the situation by suggesting you both step back and take a breather. After that failed, I waited to see what else would be said and eventually came to the conclusion that a warning is needed because of etiquette policy violations. In hindsight, the reason I put on the warning was not the exact one that should have been used (The one that was placed was too specific), in my opinion. ~     03:45, 17 July 2014 (GMT)
:::Can I just say that, looking at the conversation Dom referenced above, Biffa slings some mud too? I will not disagree that Silencer's tone could be perceived as abrasive, but to be honest so can Biffa's. Silencer is a patroller, and patrollers are held to high standards true, but I think we need to recognise that both parties were at fault here. I have mixed feelings regarding the validity of the warning issued to Silencer, but I am vehemently opposed to even proposing that his rights be revoked. It is important to recognise that we are all human, here. None of us are perfect, and any one of us can get too passionate about a discussion. I do agree with eshe, though - a break from this would be a good idea. -- RNM&#124;T 07:28, 17 July 2014 (GMT)
::::I think most of us are in agreement at this point that some regrettable things were said in that discussion, and that a warning is the only thing that needs to come out of this. There's not much point in continuing to rehash the same things that have already been said and explained, so I suggest that we all just take whatever lessons need to be taken from this and move on so we can get back to editing without distractions.      11:56, 17 July 2014 (GMT)
:::::It seems clear that no-one is familiar with the policy I have supposedly broken, which actively discourages slinging warnings about in dealing with it. I completely and utterly refute the accusation I have personally attacked Biffa, you have taken my words out of context, applied your own meanings to them (not my meanings), applied them to a policy that it doesn't break, and incorrectly applied said policy. Are people happy to blindly avoid the truth of my statement?      17:48, 17 July 2014 (GMT)
Edit Break 1
 No one is ignoring the truth of your statement(s). Can you show me where the policy discourages "slinging warnings"? The words you said were construed as personal attacks, by myself and several other "senior" (Be around longer) editors. If you intention was not to attack him, why did you not (From what I could tell, and I could be wrong here, my apologies if I am) take a break from the discussion once it started to become heated? Personal attacks, hostility, and aggressive behavior cannot be tolerated on the wiki. It just causes a negative atmosphere that makes people less likely to want to contribute. I was hoping that as a senior editor, you would notice your behavior and apologize or correct it, or something. I would also like to point out that I find your edit summaries to be negative and unneeded. ~     18:41, 17 July 2014 (GMT)

:I think at this point it's safe to say that your words were rude, The Silencer. Regardless of how you meant them, everyone who's commented on this believes they were rude, which is a pretty good indicator that they indeed were. I'll give you a bit of advice, because I have the same problem at time: Think about what you've written before you save it. If it seems like someone might take offense, hit cancel. If you feel your comments are truly needed, ask someone else privately to review it first. Voila, we avoid all of this.       18:54, 17 July 2014 (GMT)

::Your comment shows the truth of how little you know about the policy here (our only policy on attacks is that you can be blocked so we defer to wikipedia). I don't know what that intelligence that comment on 'taking a break' has when you cite my opening post as being a personal attack. I'll ignore your comment on my edit summaries as it doesn't help at all, and I find your manipulation of my words to suit your needs a far more offensive crime than my irreverent yet accurate summaries. Until someone responds intelligently to my requests to review the situation I hold you all in contempt.      18:59, 17 July 2014 (GMT)

:::Yes, Biffa said things he shouldn't have. But that's not relevant - two lefts don't make a right, and two wrongs don't either.
:::Your comments were (in my opinion and most others', judging from the above) extremely derogatory, if not downright disrespectful or rude. And I can't speak for anyone else, but I've felt the same about comments you've made elsewhere in the past. Whether it's against policy or not, it's not a good atmosphere to have on a wiki - especially when it's made by someone in a position of authority. As you say on your own userpage, the most important pillar of any wiki is that "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them.".
:::To me, personally, your initial comment on Biffa's talk page reads like this: "You're stupid for thinking your testing is up to scratch." Maybe your message was different, but that's the message I (and again I think most others') got from it, which is the important part: perception. Intent needs to be considered, but perception is more important.       19:10, 17 July 2014 (GMT)
 How about this, then? There have been multiple users, myself included, who have attempted to put an end to this and ask everyone to move on. At this point, we're only giving you a warning. Let's not continue the discussion and risk necessitating further action. I'm going to politely request for a second time that we all just let this die down before it gets worse. In the interest of ending this, I think that everyone should refrain from commenting unless they have some vitally important revelations.      19:12, 17 July 2014 (GMT)

::::How about someone actually reviews the situation and doesn't filibuster and outright lie in order to keep this warning on my page that is neither merited or correct. I'd rather end up banned than accept a warning based on lies and manipulation, so how about you go away and let an administrator respond without having to diffuse your inflammatory remarks insisting that I lie down and take it. Everyone here has fallen for the meanings put forward by other users insisting that this is what I mean, how about you all stop putting words in my mouth and actually use your own eyes.      19:18, 17 July 2014 (GMT)
:::::You know, I'm trying to give you a break here. I'm trying to help defuse tension so that YOU can keep your rights. But if your response is to throw that in my face and tell me that I need to go away and let the admins tell you what they've already told you again, then maybe you SHOULD lose your rights. Throughout all of this, you could have walked away at any point. You could have shown some humility, you could have apologized. Instead, you've told several other patrollers (and 3 admins) that we're wrong and that we don't know what we're talking about. Your comments in this discussion and your disrespect for the consensus of the community are already approaching another etiquette violation, if they haven't crossed that line already. I'm done commenting on this, and I'm done defending you. If you would really rather be banned than keep your rights, I have no objections.      19:26, 17 July 2014 (GMT)
:::::: Okay, this needs to stop. I think everybody has spoken, and Silencer has defended himself more than plenty. Rest assured that all administrators are dealing with this at the moment (on e-mail), so please calm down and take a break from this discussion. --Krusty (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2014 (GMT)
:::::::You call that defending me? Every statement you've made slanders me, encourages me to accept the lies being told against me and allow this travesty to stand. Wouldn't you love to find me in breach of etiquette and warn me (which isn't an appropriate response per the policy) while I try to defend myself from the lies, just remember that as you are an involved editor you shouldn't be giving the warning yourself, I'll even allow you to take my words and make entire sentences up to support your position seeing as everyone else agrees that that is now acceptable. Do you know whats worse than being right? Being silenced because of it.      19:36, 17 July 2014 (GMT)

 I fail to see what truth your statements hold. Your initial post suggests that Biffa's testing methods are "fatally flawed", which is certainly not true. If his methods were that inaccurate, it would have been noticed and addressed by now. I'm not suggesting that his methods are perfect and that your advice of having him share his methods would not help out, but to suggest that the majority of the information he contributes is flawed is far from true. You then go on to point out some vague errors with the Goldenglow Estate page rather than pointing out specific items or actually fixing these supposed errors on the page itself that you so clearly were able to identify by just quickly glancing at the page. If he makes so many errors, why not just correct them yourself to make your point? If you actually give him solid evidence that his methods are flawed, he would most likely be more willing to share his methods with you. Your intentions in trying to help an editor improve the quality of his work are certainly good, but just blindly stating that their work is flawed without actual evidence to support your claim is far from a good way to go about this and such statements really don't have much truth. 

You then go on and suggest that Biffa should go and look at the patrol log to see how many of his large content edits have not been patrolled. This, you suggest, shows that the patrollers are not happy with the quality of the page yet. You've been around here longer than me, so I don't think I have to tell you that the large majority of page revamps stay unpatrolled for a long amount of time. Some of these edits don't even get patrolled. To the best of my recollection, most of my Oblivion and Skyrim NPC edits and OPRP edits before I became autopatrolled often went unpatrolled and some probably were never patrolled. This is largely due to the fact that some patrollers do not have the time/are not knowledgeable enough about the type of page or the associated project to patrol said edits, not because the revamp contains a number of major flaws. The project of the associated page type serves as the patroller of the content of these types of edits, allowing errors of the initial revamp to be corrected such as a patroller would do. So your "test" that you suggest to Biffa to allow him to see the "fatally flawed" nature of his edits is quite a flawed one and such a statement really holds no truth. 

So you may suggest that everyone here is ignoring the truth of your statements, but the fact is that your statements really don't hold much truth. While your suggestion that Biffa share his testing methods so that the flaws in them can be found in them may be a good suggestion, you fail to provide any evidence that his testing methods contain flaws. Rather than just telling him that all the hard work he has put into his pages is flawed, provide evidence of his mistakes in a less hostile manner and he may be willing to recognize his mistakes and share his methods with you so that he can become more accurate. Forfeit (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2014 (GMT)

:  I think that's quite enough from everyone.  Everyone's input is appreciated, but nothing productive is coming from this right now.  Now is the time to step away, before things escalate any more absurdly than they already have.  There do not need to be blocks going out here, but if people are determined to keep fighting over this, we can certainly change that.          19:43, 17 July 2014 (GMT)

Edit Break 2
::Has there been a decision yet?      17:54, 5 August 2014 (GMT)

:::My e-mail to you a couple of weeks ago was intended as the final discussion of the matter. There will be no blocks issued and no rights removed. The warning will stand, however, as a reminder that courtesy and patience are expected from all our editors, but most especially those who represent the wiki as staff.  &ndash;       19:45, 5 August 2014 (GMT)

::::Your email was worded as how the discussion was heading not an end, also it does not serve as a suitable response to this issue and I request that either it is copied here or something more appropriate is typed out.      19:53, 5 August 2014 (GMT)

:::::There was little other discussion of note after my e-mail, and I tried to cover everything that needed to be covered. If you have concerns about Biffa's editing, then we can discuss that as a separate issue, either by e-mail or publicly. Considering that the last time you discussed this publicly, it resulted in a warning, I'd suggest the former.

:::::The original request was to have your rights removed as a result of the warning. My response covered the validity of the warning and whether or not your rights should be removed as a result. What more do you feel is needed here?  &ndash;       20:07, 5 August 2014 (GMT)

::::::The email treats the issue with a degree of familiarity that is inappropriate in such cases. What I got out of it was that the admins planned to leave the warning, on the grounds that it looked like I crossed the line elsewhere, not for the reasons for which it was given, which is so wrong it hurts. It appears I wasn't found guilty of breaching a policy that demanded a warning, but it was left because I choose to vigorously defend myself against people and admins that were not taking the time to actually look at the whole thing and just following the party line. I wasn't given a chance to explain myself, or asked to, and I have been found guilty in closed session, by people afraid to air their opinions in public and respond intelligently to my requests. Many people appear to have an agenda against me, simply for being able to find flaws in their thinking or proposals, with my words being twisted and given alternate meanings time and again (an action acknowledged by one user who did so). Having a warning left in place when I have been found not guilty of the offence, nevermind that the policy itself was incorrectly applied and a warning was inappropriate even if I had broken it, calls into question the suitability of everyone involved to continue as an administrator and have any authority in what they do.      20:39, 5 August 2014 (GMT)

::::::: You were warned for a lack of etiquette in the discussion with Biffa, not for defending yourself. Multiple admins have contacted you privately to listen to your side of the story. This discussion is about your suitability to possess the rights given to you, so I don't feel you're in a position to call into question the authority of the admins who are dealing with this. —Legoless (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2014 (GMT)

  No, the warning remains in place because you earned it with your actions during your interaction with Biffa.  You made your case more than once; while everyone involved in this discussion agrees that you acted inappropriately, as you can see above, there really wasn't much support for the proposal to remove your rights.  We chose not to block you because the warning seemed sufficient (in other words, the standard three-step process seems suitable here).  This isn't a jury, Silencer, and there's no closed session.  Not a single user in the conversation above agrees with your claim that you did nothing wrong, and that's why you still have a warning on your page.

The issue here (the reason why you were given the warning, why the warning is staying, and why this topic exists at all on this board) is that several users have had an issue with the way you treat others in this community.  You, like all of us, are just trying to contribute to and improve the site.  I understand that, and no one is accusing you of purposely trying to disrupt the site.  However, like all of us, you're also bound by certain rules.  This means we treat each other with respect, even when we don't feel like it.  It means we take the extra effort to make sure we're communicating effectively, and that we take a second to try and see things from the other person's perspective.  Communication isn't perfect and misunderstandings happen, but you've had issues with this repeatedly in the past, and the discussion here is a result of other users' frustration with the fact that you show no desire to try and correct the problem.

As I said, however, consensus was to leave the warning and your rights in place and to not move forward with a block.  You're free to continue contributing like everyone else, as long as you follow the same standards that everyone else is expected to follow.          21:09, 5 August 2014 (GMT)

:Only one admin contacted me, and that was Robin with his 'end of discussion' email, so don't lie about multiple admins contacting me. To keep a warning in place on the basis of a policy that discourages warnings and lays out a procedure to open discussions and seek an explanation before taking that action is wrong. No, it's not a jury, its an execution. Rudeness is not a crime, nor is it against policy, or a personal attack. No-one has ever approached me about being too aggressive or disrespectful to them, so to say otherwise is wrong. Many editors seem to feel that me ripping apart their proposals shouldn't be allowed, but perhaps they should make sure their proposals are properly thought out before making them, and they can still reply to my posts. Just because I've ripped it apart doesn't mean you can't repair it. This is quite relevant because I can point to a few recent discussions where multiple supporters of the warning have had their ideas shot down by me, making them biased in any decision. Maybe its because I have shown a better understanding of policies and wiki know-how that people wish to find a flaw in my character and punish me for it, or perhaps you really are deluded enough to think you can break policy because I should be held to a higher level of accountability than anyone else (because even that breaks the wiki-code where everyone is held to the same level of accountability).      21:40, 5 August 2014 (GMT)

::It actually is against policy, which is exactly why you got the warning in the first place.  Trust me, if there were some kind of conspiracy against you, we would not waste our time with warnings, discussions, or attempts to reach out to you about your attitude.  I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish here, but it doesn't seem to be working.          21:49, 5 August 2014 (GMT)

:::No it is not, which shows that basically everyone involved doesn't know the policy they are using against me. What I want is someone to have the guts to say exactly what they think, and give a reason that isn't based on bias, misinformation, or outright lies. Why should I accept an injustice to save your peace of mind? No-one 'reached out' to me, attempted to understand what I was saying rather than use someone else's invented meanings of my words, or even attempted to understand the policy the warning was based on.      21:55, 5 August 2014 (GMT)

:::: covers everything applicable here.          21:59, 5 August 2014 (GMT)

   In the time it took to write this, I see there's been lots of discussion. I haven't caught up with that yet and am posting this as-written to Silencer's reply to me.

I responded with less formality than is required because I was responding to you both as a friend and an admin, and I was trying to defuse the situation, not ramp it up by rehashing what others had already said. What I said there may have been a bit more friendly, but no less relevant for it. You crossed the line both in your original post and in your replies to it. As it says right in the Wikipedia list you linked to, "Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." So far, those have not been provided that I'm aware of. The only link I see in this discussion is Biffa reverting your cleanup tag. Said tag was remarkably unhelpful, as you don't indicate at all what inaccuracies were found. If you couldn't summarize it in the tag, then you could have pointed to a talk page discussion and outlined the problems there.

As to your original post on Biffa's talk page, every sentence contained what could be considered a personal attack. Phrases like "fatally flawed and not up to scratch" and "stop thinking your testing even approaches acceptable levels" are personal attacks, whether you intended them as such or not. "Each and every one of your pages has had to be altered" is demonstrably false. Those all violate the "serious accusations require serious evidence" clause. Several posts after the original, you provided two links as evidence. Were there issue there? Yes, certainly, but don't tell me that you accusing Biffa of "defiling" a page was a friendly, courteous post.

You say you weren't given a chance to explain yourself. This entire topic is the place to explain yourself. You've responded to various posts with a passive-aggressive tone and flippant edit summaries rather than chosing to explain yourself. If you feel you haven't fully explained yourself yet, or that we've all missed something somewhere, now is the time to bring it up.

Contrary to your accusations of following the party line, I think just about everyone who has responded here has looked at the recent history. If you have additional evidence to provide from before then, please do so, as we're not going to all go through hundreds or thousands of edits to figure out which ones you're referring to. The evidence from just before the time of the warning showed some near-edit-warring and some exchanges that could have gone better on both sides. Both of those take two people, and we're not unaware of that. This post isn't about Biffa, though.

In short, you're a patroller—as a staff member, you're expected to maintain a level head and professional demeanour as much as possible. We all fail at that sometimes—I'm certainly guilty of it, myself—but we need to try. Krusty put the idea forward that the two of you are butting heads because you're both working on Place pages in somewhat different ways. I certainly agree with that. If you have difficulty working with Biffa to develop guidelines and appropriate testing methodologies, then work with someone else. I suggested working with Krusty in my e-mail, since he's the most experienced with projects, but I'm certainly willing to act as a go-between, and I'm sure many others are as well. One way or another, though, this friction needs to end.  &ndash;       22:04, 5 August 2014 (GMT)

: Yes, it says personal attacks are grounds for a block, not a warning. There are no other options given, so the policy was incorrectly applied. In light of choosing not to block you must defer to wikipedia's policies on dealing with personal attacks.      22:08, 5 August 2014 (GMT)

:: To quote Wikipedia's page, "Lesser personal attacks often result in a warning". Unless you are arguing for a block instead per our own policy page, I don't see the issue here. —Legoless (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2014 (GMT)

:::I'm not really interested in finding a solution with Biffa anymore, just as no-one here was interested in hearing my side before passing judgement. Your comments on the tag are pointless and show bias, as many such tags contain unspecific concerns with the page they are on. Are you trying to quote me with "defiling", because I never used that word, which once again proves how people are happy to twist my words, and even make up words in this case, to support their claims. Not one substantial post here hasn't contained some untruth or twist of words attributed to me, so why should I deign those posts with a reply that might suggest there was any truth in their words. To claim my initial post contains nothing but personal attacks shows that no-one actually looked at the edit summaries. By all means Legoless, lets skip the entire section on dealing with personal attacks and quote the summation at the end of the article, I too can quote meaningless phrases out of context to support my arguments. "Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack." My claim was that Biffa's testing wasn't of sufficient standard to make the claim, which means that to provide justification you must believe that Biffa's testing is of sufficient standard to go unchallenged. And yes, I would rather a block than a warning, at least then you can claim to be a decent administrator because you won't be deliberately breaking a policy to enforce punishment on me for being able to answer questions better than yourself.      22:30, 5 August 2014 (GMT)

::::Just to respond to the claim of quoting things not said,  . As Silencer has now been blocked for a week, I think this discussion is done with.  &ndash;       23:09, 5 August 2014 (GMT)

 

Block Needed 3



Created their user page and talk page for advertising.        01:54, 19 July 2014 (GMT)

:I'm on it.  &ndash;       01:57, 19 July 2014 (GMT)

User Nominations

It's been two weeks since Quill-Tail was nominated to be autopatrolled, and we've got 3 in favor with none against. Could an admin please close the vote? Thanks!      12:36, 23 July 2014 (GMT)

:Done! Also, I'm hijacking this topic a bit, so I've changed the title. Hope you don't mind.

:While we're on the topic of nominations, Dominus Arbitrationis has had a patroller nomination open for a week and so far, there's only been a single vote. I'd like to solicit more input before closing it.  &ndash;       17:48, 23 July 2014 (GMT)
::That was my thought as well.      17:55, 23 July 2014 (GMT)
:::Although if we are going to keep it open for more input, I'd prefer it if someone else actually provided some. It's been two weeks now, and I'm the only vote. If nobody else thinks the nomination is important enough to provide an opinion, the vote should be closed.      12:49, 30 July 2014 (GMT)

Block needed (4)

      12:43, 23 July 2014 (GMT)
:Zapped!  Thanks for the heads-up!          12:45, 23 July 2014 (GMT)
::We might want to think about adjusting the spam filter somehow because this is the 2nd time in less than 12 hours that some spambot is talking about 'getting your ex back' with some 'spellcaster' or something. It may be a little tricky considering that magic and stuff is actually in TES, but something to think about.        13:17, 23 July 2014 (GMT)
:::Looking at this one and the one above, I don't see a lot of similarities. It may just have been a coincidence. I'll keep an eye out, though, and if we start getting more "caster" based contributions, I'll see what I can come up with.  &ndash;       17:50, 23 July 2014 (GMT)
::::Just to be clear, the Block Needed section above is unrelated to what I'm talking about haha, Jeancey happened to be in the IRC when it happened so he took care of it last night.        03:35, 24 July 2014 (GMT)
:::::Ah, yes, I see what you mean now. Eshe actually took care of yet another one last night just before Jeancey did. Since the words "spell caster" weren't an ideal match, I went for "my name is" followed by "spell cast" anywhere in the changes. That pattern appeared in all four. I'm hoping that by combining the two, new users won't run into any problems. "My name is" would be common enough on a user page, but hopefully not followed by "spell cast" until they're autoconfirmed. That particular pattern currently doesn't appear anywhere on the wiki.  &ndash;       05:45, 24 July 2014 (GMT)

Fair Use/Dealing on Images Taken From ES Sites

These should fall under United States copyright because while UESP is in Canada, the company the images are taken from (And thus the images themselves) are in the United States. When it comes to image copyright (For images we take off their sites), we need to use their fair use/dealing clause instead of the one our servers fall under. Changing this would not affect any screenshots, only images that we take directly from a Zenimax site.  ~     16:38, 2 August 2014 (GMT)

:The wiki does not come under US jurisdiction and cannot therefore use a US license because it has no validity in Canadian law, it must use a license that is valid in the country it is under the jurisdiction of. To make sense of this you must look where the website would be taken to court over any issues, and that would be Canada, thus the site needs to have established usage under Canadian law in order to protect itself against such eventualitys. While trying to decipher the meanings, definitions, and applicability of copyright law, the only thing that held any relevance was that images should also have a copy of the license that the image holds. As far as I am aware Bethesda and ZeniMax do not specifically license their images, relying on the copyright law alone to preserve their rights.      17:24, 2 August 2014 (GMT)

::I was under the impression that because the images and the company that owns the copyright to them is in the US, we would have to use US laws for dealing with it. I got this impression from an email (From Dave) that stated: " Look in more detail Esimage would/should be US law as it deals specifically with images taken directly from an ES site (not screenshots as I mentioned in my last email) and those are all Zenimax owned content in the US.". Of course, I could have been misinterpreting that, in which case, thank you for correcting me and pointing out my error, even indirectly. ~     17:47, 2 August 2014 (GMT)

:::The wiki comes under Canadian jurisdiction because that's where the images are being used. To quote Wikipedia, "Copyrights are said to be territorial, which means that they do not extend beyond the territory of a specific state unless that state is a party to an international agreement." We in Canada have signed such an agreement, but it's the rules of that agreement (which are incorporated into Canadian copyright law) that apply to us, not the original copyright law of the US. See: How does copyright work internationally?  &ndash;       18:21, 2 August 2014 (GMT)

Patroller Nomination

It's been about 3 weeks since Dominus Arbitrationis put forth a nomination for patrollership, and in that time, there have been only 2 votes (both of which were oppose, and with a two-week interval between them). Seeing as how nobody else is weighing in, can we please get an administrator to close the vote?      13:05, 5 August 2014 (GMT)
:Done. Not an easy one to call consensus on, but I suppose that goes with the territory. :)  &ndash;       14:26, 5 August 2014 (GMT)
::Yeah. I would have liked to get more input, but if nobody else cared enough to vote about it, we weren't doing Dom any favors by dragging it out.      14:28, 5 August 2014 (GMT)

De-Patrollership

I request removal of my patrolling rights, I do not want to be associated as a staff member of a site with Administrators who willing abuse their position.      22:33, 5 August 2014 (GMT)

:While this has generally been done without question previously, tensions are high right now, and I'd like to suggest waiting a few days to see if you feel the same. You have been a good patroller, and I'd rather not lose you as one over what should have been a relatively minor incident.  &ndash;       22:42, 5 August 2014 (GMT)

::This isn't a minor issue, and I'm not changing my mind. You can't deny me my right to voluntarily be demoted.      22:46, 5 August 2014 (GMT)

:::   I didn't see a problem with immediate removal, although I believe a grace period is in order if The Silencer changes his mind in the coming days. @The Silencer, you still have blocker rights, and you'll need to ask Daveh to remove your abuseeditor rights. —Legoless (talk) 22:50, 5 August 2014 (GMT)
::::This might not be my place to comment, but given his actions in all this, I don't think he deserves a grace period. From the start, we've been saying he should keep his rights, and it's pretty clear by reading his edit summaries and his replies that he's actively trying to be banned. I really don't get his desire to try and claim the immoral victory, but it's his choice. We can't just pretend it didn't happen and give his rights back. That wouldn't be respecting his wishes, and it would be giving him undue preferential treatment.      22:55, 5 August 2014 (GMT)

:::::  Agreed. I don't have a problem with immediate removal either, I was just hoping that he'd be willing to give it a few days.  &ndash;       22:56, 5 August 2014 (GMT)

::::::It's already done, in any case.  Additionally, if The Silencer wishes to appeal his current block, he'll need to follow the steps outlined at .  I'm not available for the rest of the evening, so I'll have to leave it to someone else to assist with that if needed (and thanks in advance).          22:59, 5 August 2014 (GMT)