UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard/Archive 27

Block needed for Vandal

An IP, 80.1.223.32, vandalised a few pages. I posted a warning and one edit was made afterwards, then nothing. This follows protocol but I believe the nature of the vandalism deserves an immediate ban. The Silencer speaks    00:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

:Oversighting might be appropriate as well, if anybody's feeling adventurous.  &ndash; Robin Hood    00:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

::Delete-and-restore works too. :) Thanks, AKB!  &ndash; Robin Hood    01:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Unusual Request

One of our users has a bit of an unusual request: he wants to be banned. A couple of us have tried to explore the issue, but he seems determined that he should be banned, and has now floated the suggestion of deliberately "swear[ing] a bunch" in order to make it happen. Wikipedia generally refuses these requests, but it's left to the discretion of the Administrators. Our own Blocking Policy pretty much does the same by listing "unanticipated situations" as a possible reason to jump directly to a block or ban. I'm therefore making sure that our Admins have seen the request but apart from that, I'm not suggesting any specific action.  &ndash; Robin Hood    04:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

: I think we should just leave it. Obviously if he starts disrupting the site in order to achieve his ban, it would be a separate issue. —Legoless 18:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Check User Permissions

No, this isn't actually a request for a check, but I just noticed that no Administrators since Krusty have been given Check User permissions. Did we change our policy on that while I wasn't looking, or did it just get missed with the abnormalities of the new ones being temporary then full Admins during the Skyrim transition?  &ndash; Robin Hood    05:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
:There was a bit on it somewhere (in the many discussions) where a couple of people (Elliot sticks out to me as one of them, can't think of the others) - that seemed to think to just keep it with the old(er) Admins for some reason, no one was too fussed either way so they didn't get them. Worth a look into though! --       17:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Spam Prevention

One of the newer ways to circumvent spam is to make a page with the link in it. Is there some way to prevent this. The Silencer speaks    15:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

:Do you mean something like this:  ? If not, do you have an example?  &ndash; Robin Hood    17:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

::Some examples are: 
::  
:: 
:: 
::A quick scan down the deletion log shows more of these. A possible solution may be to block page names with http in the name, if that is possible. The Silencer speaks    17:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

:::We can prevent those that have specific patterns (like hearing loss), but I'm not 100% sure if it's possible to, for example, completely block text-only links for non-autoconfirmed users only. I believe it's possible to add a Captcha to it, or block it entirely, but Nephele or Daveh would have to confirm. I'll also ask in the MediaWiki chatroom and see if anyone there can shed some light on it.  &ndash; Robin Hood    18:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

:::From what I've been able to gather, ConfirmEdit should be able to do this in its own right, but if we need additional protection, two additional suggestions were given in the mediawiki IRC: AbuseFilter or E-mail confirmed non-Captcha. I'll leave it to Neph or Dave to figure out what's best here (bad CFS day, so I'm a little out of it right now).  &ndash; Robin Hood    18:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Cannot access UESP Wiki pages that don't have 'www' in the URL with the Opera and Chrome browsers

With Opera and Chrome, going to a UESP Wiki page that doesn't have 'www' in the URL doesn't work. It says 
'Could not locate remote server' for Opera and 'Google Chrome could not find uesp.net' for Chrome. Firefox seem to redirect the URL to its form with 'www' just fine. 

An issue here is: links from other websites that don't have 'www' in the URL will lead to Opera and Chrome users thinking that UESP.net's servers are down. (Even downforeveryoneorjustme.com thinks so:  )

I'm using Opera 12.00 build 1467 and Chrome 18.0.1025.168 m. 

Sample URLs (should not work with Opera and Chrome - although these URLs worked previously):  

  

  


For testing, the same URLs with 'www':  

  



Galacticninja 02:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

:Yeah, I had this same problem on my iPhone, and now it's not working on Safari (on Mac). Firefox is the only browser that's working for me. I'll email Daveh about this. •      03:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
::I had the same problem with my bookmarks on IE about two weeks ago. I had to add www to my addresses. The 2 links without www still don't work for me. --Xyzzy 04:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
:::I tried the links on Maxthon and it won't work either. (Eddie The Head 06:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC))
::::FWIW, I'm using Firefox (3.6.8), and those links don't work for me either.  Not sure if the browser even matters, though possibly a newer version of FF might work. --TheRealLurlock   11:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::The links without 'www' works fine with Firefox 13.--Galacticninja 05:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

:Update -- This should be fixed now (just a missing entry in the DNS). It seems that browsers help hide this issue by some form of site name caching or adding "www" in some cases but not in others. If it still happens to someone just let me know. -- Daveh 00:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Skyrim Resist Magic

The  page has been targeted for spam three times in two weeks. This is probably enough for some protection for a while. One of the spammers made an account, but it was the only contribution, meaning an "autoconfirmed users only" protection would work. The Silencer speaks    07:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Skyrim eggs page

Can we renew the semi-protection? Maybe indefinitely this time? It seems like every time it expires it just gives way to people neglecting the talk page for their questionable suggestions. ThuumofReason 01:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
:I'd support indefinite semi-protection. If an anon really thinks he/she has found a noteworthy egg not mentioned on the page already and wants to add it, creating an account should be an insignificant hurdle. And if a person really doesn't want to make an account, the talk page (which they're supposed to refer to first anyways) is still an option. I don't think there's any significant downside here, and the benefits are obvious.      •   02:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
::Having long ago pruned Oblivion's page and cleaned it up, I'd definitely support this.  &ndash; Robin Hood    03:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisting spam terms?

We have been getting quite a bit of spam lately, and from what I can tell, about this in particular, so I was curious if an admin could blacklist the phrase "Louis Vuitton"? Well, maybe not Luis, since it's a legit word, but so far as I can tell, Vuitton is in no way used in any games, and it seems to be the most commonly used of spam terms that I can find. Can an administrator prevent edits from being made with "Vuitton" in it? I am sure there are many others that can be blocked as well, but so far none come to mind. I figured that if we bar words like that on site, words that have no value for anything but spam, so that edits of those words can't go through, then we can (hopefully) eliminate the spambots ability to create spam. If it is a worthwhile venture, I can save the names of spam sites and compile a list for banning, starting of course with Vuitton.   ( • )  03:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

:I did consider adding "Vuitton" to the blacklist, but it probably wouldn't do much since a) half of them are spelling it wrong, probably intentionally (I've sen a lot of "Vitton", "Vutton", "Vuiton", etc.), and b) the blacklist only prevents phrases that appear in a URL, and most of the links posted do not.  Unless we can get a plug-in to block posts with blacklisted words in the TEXT of a post and not just the URL links, the blacklist is nearly useless in these cases.  I still think we should consider e-mail confirmation of all new accounts.  It's a small hoop to jump through, but common enough that people should be used to it.  What I'm surprised by is that they're able to post links at all with new accounts.  I thought that was blocked somehow, but maybe that rule doesn't apply to User pages (which may explain why nearly all of the spam has been posted on the spammers' own User/Talk pages).  --TheRealLurlock   02:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

::What about an edit filter? I don't know how to set one up, but the examples on the wiki page show the prevention of edits using trigger words. Also useful is a notice on an edit page if it detects a user blanking a page or removing lots of content, warning them that it could be a bad idea without blocking the action, so that could help the wiki as well.

::Having seen such a filter work on a wikia site, I think it'll be effective. 

::Additionally, I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to limit linking to autoconfirmed users; this would prevent a lot of external links that are posted on the first or second edit.         02:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

:::Unfortunately, only Nephele and Daveh have the ability to add any kind of plug-ins, so we're stuck unless they decide to do it.  Clearly something needs to be done though.  Today was ridiculous, and I'm afraid it's going to keep getting worse at this rate... --TheRealLurlock   03:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Profanity on user talk page

If an editor places profanity on their own talk page, should it be reverted? I can't find any definitive policy on this. I know profanity is normally grounds for a revert, but I also know we often make exceptions for talk pages. --Xyzzy 03:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

:Mild profanity is more or less allowed regardless of where it is, as long as it's not swearing just to get attention. If it's over the top, I'd say revert or edit it out, depending on whether the rest of the message has a point to it or not.  &ndash; Robin Hood    04:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

::Yeah, I'd say it's fairly over the top. I'll go ahead and revert it. --Xyzzy 04:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Lore:Dwemer Spam

I've semi-protected  for a week due to repeated nonsense edits with spam in the edit summaries. I've also deleted the relevant edits to remove the spam, so admins will need to look at the deleted revisions to see them. —Legoless 14:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Dawnguard

I'll be doing the same thing I did with Skyrim and purchasing the Dawnguard DLC/expansion for all site admins and active/senior editors (thanks for RobinHood for reminding me).  If you aren't sure if you qualify just ask anyways and I'll see I'll decide if there is enough funds to give you a copy. 

[mailto:dave@uesp.net E-mail me] the following information if you'd like a copy of Dawnguard:
:* Wiki username
:* Platform (XBox, PC, PS3)
:* Delivery Method (Amazon gift certificate, Steam(PC only, include Steam username), or suggest one)
:* E-mail address

Obviously you'll have to wait for it to be released on your desired platform. If you've already bought it for XBox I can arrange to get you something of equivalent value. -- Daveh 00:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

: A reminder for people to send their request for the expansion...don't be shy! I've only had two people request it so far and I'd really like to give away at least 10 copies. -- Daveh 22:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

:: I think part of the reason is because few editors consider themselves "active" (including myself). •        01:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Can we get a block?

For ? Even though he hasn't made any contributions as of this post, I feel the username speaks for itself. ThuumofReason 10:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
: Thanks, for the heads up. These days, we are practically invaded by spambots and 90% of the new user accounts looks suspicious – there’s no real reason to block them in advance, though, regardless of how ridiculous the name is. --Krusty 11:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
::I almost want to keep that username mentioned somewhere as a shrine to spambots... ThuumofReason 11:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Editing issue

Either yesterday or today I started seeing an issue when editing a page, and it's more pronounced on large pages but also exists on small pages. When scrolling up or down, sometimes the text on the left side of the box is misaligned with the text on the right side (example here). After a few seconds (longer if on a larger page), it fixes itself, but scrolling some more may make it happen again. It's not a horrible thing, but it does delay my editing and make it difficult to see where I am on the page.         17:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
:That looks like a browser-specific issue, or even a computer-specific one. I've had similar things happen on my really old and slow computer, although it generally corrects itself. Even then, I've only encountered the issue when I have ten or so windows open. I could be wrong, though - this could be a sitewide issue. •        18:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
::If it's only happening here, I would venture a guess that it's related to the  . What browser and version are you using?  &ndash; Robin Hood    18:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
:::Google Chrome, most recent version (21.0.1180.60). I suppose it is the browser, since IE works. Doesn't matter if I'm logged in or not. It may be related to that update as well, as I have no issues with editing wikia or Wikipedia pages.         19:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
::::I've also been able to replicate this a few times now, though it occurs very rarely for me. Just moving my mouse over the edit box (or off and back on if it was already there) seemed to fix it.  &ndash; Robin Hood    21:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Block Appeal

While the current block is only for three hours, Pupdude is appealing, or at least that's what's implied. I'm not really sure what's appropriate, so I'm flagging this for a second opinion by an Admin.  &ndash; Robin Hood    00:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
:I'm not an admin, but I think the 3-hour block is certainly justified in this case. If it was a week-long block, then I could understand appealing it, but in this case I don't believe that an appeal is either necessary or even makes sense. •        01:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

::While they weren't productive, and it was a pain to clean up, now that we know he wasn't editing with malicious intent, I think the three hour block and the warning/block notices would suffice as a good lesson and reminder to him, and we can leave it at that for now, but that's just my opinion.   ( • )  01:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

:::As this user has given no reason to unblock him immediately, and it's only three hours, I see no reason to unblock him now. --AKB   01:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate ad?

I have a bit of a problem with the banner advertisement that screams "CLICK HERE FOR ROMAN ORGY". I thought this was supposed to be an all-ages friendly site. Can anything be done about this? --Xyzzy    21:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

:Yes, please follow the instruction provided on this page. We don't want these kinds of ads, it's just that they have a tendency of slipping through. --AKB   21:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
::Ok, thanks. --Xyzzy    22:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Update --  This ad is from "Call of Roma" who have decided to "bypass" the Google Adsense filters we've put into place to prevent exactly this sort of ad from appearing here. I know that there's a good portion of ES fans and UESP viewers who are in their teens or younger and have disabled all the "questionable" ad content. I've reported the ad to Google and blocked the website URL but if you see it, or a similar ad, just let me know. -- Daveh 00:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
:::It just appeared again, on the top banner ad before I logged in. --Xyzzy    16:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

::::I just saw it.--Skyrimplayer 14:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


Update 2 --- I've tried blocking more of the URLs that apparently Roma uses and I cannot find any occurrence of the "orgy" ad in my ad previews. That said, if you do see it again let me know, preferably with the actual ad link so I can track down its source. I've also blocked two more general ad categories (sexual reproduction and dating) due to a few complaints. They make up a very small portion of our displayed ads and there is no real reason to keep having them displayed. -- Daveh 15:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

:I don't know if this is a coincidence,but it seems to be showing up even more.--Skyrimplayer 13:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

:Oh yeah.Since this is discussing innappropriate adds.I just saw a Wartune ad that mentioned orgies.I just thought I'd bring it up.--Skyrimplayer 23:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Update 3 --  I think I've finally found and blocked the culprit. It ended up being something called "EpicX". Whether they changed the name at some point or not I don't know but previously I was just looking for "Call of Roma" related ads. If you see it, or a similar ad, again just let me know. -- Daveh 11:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

:Its back again under the same name.--Skyrimplayer 21:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki Upgrade -- Take Two

I'll be attempting to upgrade the wiki to v1.19 once again early tomorrow morning. While I don't exactly know the cause of the issue that occurred during the last upgrade attempt I've made some changes and load testing seems to reveal that it works fine. Putting it to a live site is another matter and if the same thing happens I'll be quicker in reverting to v1.14 again. The Wiki will be in read-only mode for at least one hour during the upgrade. -- Daveh 01:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

: Just a warning to editors to be weary of making large edits directly after the upgrade if the site isn't acting correctly. A small number of minor edits were lost during the previous update attempt. —Legoless 01:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


Update --  We ran into the same problem as last time so I've reverted to v1.14 and re-enabled writes. I'll look into it more and try again next weekend. -- Daveh 14:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

:As of now, Recent Changes seems to not be accessible (at least for me). Could the failed update somehow be responsible? --AKB   14:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

::It happened to me too.I'm able to acess the site now,but I lost acess to the site for a while.--Skyrimplayer 14:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

:::Something in v1.19 is messing up the database which caused it to lock up with too many queries. I've just restarted it so everything should be back to normal unless there are tables that need to be repaired. Let me know of any other issues. The more I mess around in the internals of MediaWiki the scarier things look. At the moment it is looking like we'll have to do a piecewise upgrade to each MediaWiki version release which makes five times as much work to do. -- Daveh 15:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

::::I'm definitely still having issues. Every other time I try to load a page I get the weird version with "UESP has a problem" at the top of it, or I get a page that says "UESPWiki has a problem Sorry! This site is experiencing technical difficulties. Try waiting a few minutes and reloading. (Can't contact the database server: Unknown error (10.2.212.15))". I'm doing the old "replace the www in the url with content1" trick that I did the last time we have issues to see the site right now, for the record. --AKB   15:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

:::::There may be a few pages with a "bad" cached version of it that will have to be purged. I've purged the main page and haven't found any others. If many pages are affected I can force a refresh of the file/Squid caches but would prefer not to unless required. -- Daveh 15:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  Also having major issues, I'm getting both problem messages AKB mentioned, as well as not being able to log in at all. Also, I'm not sure if this will work or not, since clicking the edit link still gives me this message: "WARNING: The database has been locked for maintenance, so you will not be able to save your edits right now. You may wish to cut-n-paste the text into a text file and save it for later. The administrator who locked it offered this explanation: UESPWiki is currently locked while the Wiki software is being upgraded." Oh, and the regular version of the site won't get me anything at all (not even these error messages), but using content3 and content1 gets me that far. -ABCface
:Okay, apparently that worked and now I can log in... I'm still having issues using the regular 'www' but 'content1' seems to be working better. I'll update with any further issues, I guess.      15:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
::The regular site is working fine for me. The RC is accessible, I can edit, etc.         15:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
:::I seem to be fine here as well.  &ndash; Robin Hood    16:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

::::Oh, and Dave, I know 1.16 changed a lot of things. It may be sufficient to go to 1.19 via 1.16 without doing every last one in between. Something to try, anyway. Of course, if it fails, you'll have ended up doing extra work rather than having saved yourself the work.  &ndash; Robin Hood    16:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
::::: I cleared my browser's cache and got back on the regular site, had an issue trying to log in once, then tried again and that worked. Came here after logging in and tried to edit, but got the same "UESPWiki has a problem" at the top of the page again, unable to edit. I'm editing now using 'content1' again, and having no issues with content1 anywhere on the site.      16:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  Well, coming back four hours later, everything seems to be working as normal, so I'm not sure what the issue was. Hope we can get the upgrades sorted out soon, though.      20:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Account rename request
Howdy, just posting an official notice here that I would formally like my account name changed from 'D521' to 'Whispend' whenever is easiest.  Thanks much!          01:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

: Done. —Legoless 01:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)