Semi Protection

UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard/Archive 19

The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995
Jump to: navigation, search
This is an archive of past UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page, except for maintenance such as updating links.

New Articles

Please could an admin create the following (that I'm not going to link in case the answer is "no" in order not to create wanted links):

  • Skyrim:Development Team
  • Skyrim:Concept Art
  • One that I don't have a title for but would be something like "Pre-Release Content" for in-game pictures and video.

I believe I have enough content for all three (the last two are pretty easy!). If you'd prefer I sandbox first and let you move, please let me know.

At the moment, I'd vote against unprotecting the whole namespace. The guesswork already taking place on pages like Oblivion:Esbern would suggest that a page containing "He may of been in knight of teh nine" would appear fairly quickly. rpeh •T•C•E• 23:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Your wish is my command. Two minutes... --Krusty 23:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
In the same spirit as the above, I left a message on the Skyrim talk page requesting for a new article, only to realize it would be more appropriate here. May an admin please create something like Skyrim:Dragon or Skyrim:Dragons? I'd hate to see this sandbox go to waste. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 18:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
That's a rather good page, but it's exactly what I was afraid of and why I suggested the page blacklist in the first place. We're eventually going to have a Skyrim:Dragon page and it'll have all the necessary stats and details on it when we have them. I'd guess about 90% of the sandbox content wouldn't be relevant to the final game because it's information that will be superseded. Furthermore, all the references to interviews and articles won't be wanted. I'd also hate to see that sandbox go to waste, but my preference would be for it to go on Skyrim:Skyrim as a new section rather than having it as a new article. rpeh •T•C•E• 18:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I understand the purpose of the blacklisting of Skyrim articles, but of course that doesn't seem to be enough. For example Skyrim related articles are constantly being edited to include info from Skyrim, or pages for Skyrim are created in other space, such as the earlier made page for the Dovakiin in Lore space. It is obvious these pages are wanted if we want to make them or not. The reason I worked on this was an attempt to help avoid these issues. I understand that eventually the page would be almost entirely rewritten as the information may be untrue in the final release or as the information is superseded by the actual game, which would make the references useless. This article was an attempt to at least create one new article for Skyrim that would of been written appropriately, with as little speculation and as much genuine information as possible. I can't really thank of a way to include any of the information on this sandbox on the Skyrim main page without it looking unseemly, maybe a sentence or two, but besides that it will be a wasted effort on my part. I understand your logic though, and I guess I will go back to ignoring Skyrim for now. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 00:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
If GK or Krusty wants to create the article then I won't object, but I don't personally think it's the right decision to create articles that we know are going to be completely re-written when the game is released. rpeh •T•C•E• 10:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I think the article is good, but still lacking; let's face it, at this point most of the Skyrim coverage is hype and is subject to change over and over during the final stages of development. Look at Horses - they haven't even made up their minds about that feature yet! While I like the article, I suggest to keep it around for a month, just to see if we can get closer to the truth. Do not delete it, please. :) --Krusty 11:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

(←) It has been roughly a month now and I've heard pretty much no major news about dragons. The three most likely reasons for this are:

  • I've somehow missed any major news about dragons
  • There isn't really much else to say about dragons.
  • Bethesda is keeping there mouth shut about dragons to avoid spoilers.

Unless it is possibility one, there isn't anything else to do to this page until game release. So is it safe to launch it? I don't think we are likely to ever get any closer too understanding dragons until we have the game in our hand, but if you still believe that the page shouldn't be launched because of the lack of information then I'll understand; admittedly I'll be a bit disappointed but I will understand your reasoning entirely. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 03:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I have been wondering why the page hasn't been launched. Personally I think that posibility one is nearly impossible. Plus, the article you've created is very thorough and accurate from the gathered knowledge on Dragons. I have no issues with the article being launched.--Kalis AgeaYes? Contrib E-mail 03:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
My opinions are on record. I don't want people to think that I'm making a vote though; I've stated my views and will await a consensus or at least, a clear view. I'm not going to create it myself until some more people have had their say, but as I said above, I'm happy for another admin to do so. rpeh •T•C•E• 07:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
A fair enough point rpeh, I can understand the hesitation here as this decision seems to come down to if we are going to be willing to allow pre-release content pages in Skyrim space. Regardless, I stand by my belief that having several well written content pages created by experienced editors can only help avoid some of the trouble we have been having with Skyrim pre-release content appearing on pages that have the remotest connection to Skyrim. Yes, I understand that the page will need to be entirely re-written later on, but it is better than having nothing I believe. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 08:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Nudge* Am I correct to assume that this topic being ignored means that no one else wants to consider us having additional Skyrim articles? Any more opinions on this or are we going to wait until Skyrim is released to begin developing Skyrim Space more? --AKB Talk Cont Mail 05:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced this is a great idea, but I've created the page. The sandbox you've created is very well done and since Dragons are causing probably the biggest stir out of any new feature in TESV, it's just about worth breaking the normal rule. rpeh •T•C•E• 16:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I understand your reservations with this, indeed I felt like I was starting to lean in the camp thinking this was a bad idea. And I most certainly won't try to create another Skyrim article in the aftermath of all of the trouble it caused :-). While I'm being problematic though do you think you can create the talk page? I'd imagine it might see some use between now and the release of Skyrim. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 16:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Multiple IP Confusion

Several IP anons have been posting around claiming that they have been warned or blocked. See User talk:Wolok gro-Barok and User talk:Rpeh. The Anons have blank talk pages with no curious edits to be seen. --DKong27 Talk Cont 23:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

There are two possibilities that I can see here.
The first is that we're being trolled. There's always been a problem with people getting an IP that was previously assigned to someone else and wondering why they're getting messages intended for the other person, but this doesn't seem to be that: people are getting messages for totally unrelated IP addresses, which is just plain weird. I wouldn't suggest this as a serious option except the latest spate of "problems" all occurred after I issued this warning to 96.4.127.21 and another to 96.4.127.20 (almost certainly the same person given the IPs are almost identical). On the latter talk page, we first had 94.113.47.248 remove the warning, then 2.97.100.149 add a message and lastly, 203.97.155.77 add another message.
I've just run 96.4.127.20 through WhatIsMyIpAddress.com and it confirms that it's a proxy server as is 96.4.127.21. 94.113.47.248 translates to the Czech Republic, 2.97.100.149 to England and 203.97.155.77 to New Zealand. This means it's entirely possible that the last three addresses all got the message because they were using the same proxy. It would be odd that three different people from all around the world used the same proxy to view the same site within such a small time period, and it's quite possible that those addresses are proxies too.
The second possibility is that somehow, caching is involved. Is it possible that if one IP user was viewing a page when the New Messages banner appeared that the next IP user to view the same page would get the banner because that version was in the cache? I couldn't make this happen with a couple of quick tests, but it might explain what's happening.
We'll have to wait and see for a bit. Given that a confirmed proxy is involved, I'm not inclined to take this too seriously at the moment. rpeh •T•C•E• 07:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I presumed that they were using a proxy website, maybe to bypass office blocking, and the proxy website re-routed them through other IPs to bypass said blocking. I'm inclined to doubt any troll would put in that much effort. However, I could be entirely wrong. Just my two cents. :) Apollo Quinn 09:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Can we just start deleting these messages on site? They are getting quite annoying, and aren't doing anything but taking up space as the IPs don't seem to stick around after they leave a message about "their" warning. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 02:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
It might be worth having a standard message to use, or reviewing the block messages we use. rpeh •T•C•E• 09:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Right, this is obviously a problem that is still on going, and may in fact be older than we first thought. This message on my talk page is just one example of this problem, which shows that it dates back to at least last month. I've even seen it reported on the forums. Is there any other possibilities that might be causing this problem? I don't think we are being trolled, and I would have trouble believing all of these cases are caused by proxies (Not that I checked to confirm this belief). It seems obvious that we must at least edit our warning and block messages to have a line like:
"If you are not the responsible party for this vandalism, and you do not share a connection with this user or IP, please ignore this message."
No matter what something has to be done as this problem doesn't show any signs of stopping itself. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 21:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I can give a little first-hand experience myself: When I was first viewing UESPWiki, a while a go to say the least, every few times I brought up the mainpage from my favorites menu, I would see a warning about vandalism/nonsense, dispite not editing pages at that point. This problem only seemed to go away after I created an account, and logged in. I only edited once I had my account, not before, which is why I was confused about the nonsense warnings, particularly because they seemed to have a random IP each time. I strongly suggest that admins, patrollers, or other frequent users try clearing their browser memory caches, then logging out and browsing the main page/recent changes page anonymously (but not edit) to see if this problem can be reproduced. If innocent IPs can come accross these notices, I think we can say safely that IP identification/warning system needs to be re-examined.
Another Idea: sometimes gateways/routers/switches/hubs can be set up to automatically assign IP addresses, for convenient network connecting. This means that users with a router can have different IPs on different days without realizing it, or intending it. Many people have routers, especially if they have multiple consoles/computers. This problem can increase exponentially if apartment buildings, for instance, are sharing a daisy-chained router or server array. I hope, someway, this helps. - Neural Tempest 00:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
(Neural Tempest Speaking) Just as a demonstration, last time I was online, my IP seemed to show 64.231.249.93, and I did not fiddle with any settings. Now check my signature, (64.231.248.235 16:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)) not quite the same, is it? This was all automatic, with no interference from me. (Now, time to sign with my normal sig:) - Neural Tempest 16:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
(Neural Tempest Speaking Again) Ha! Absolute proof of IP changes! After 2 hours, I check back, and my IP address (64.231.251.39 19:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)) has changed without any manipulation by me, which shows just how easily people could get unintended messages. Assuming that there are limited numbers for IP possibilities, eventually, with dynamic IPs, one person could get a message for their IP, when a different person previously edited with the same one. I think we need to examine the IP identification system, to see if it's really a good means of notification.
My Idea: since users can create an account free of cost, and anyone can create an account, perhaps edits should only be allowed for logged-in users. It would be a pain to implement, but with dynamic IPs, misidentification will become increasingly prevalent. Dynamic IPs also mean that blocked IPs might be of little use. Please try blocking this IP (64.231.251.39 19:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)), to see if I can work around it. Assuming that if I log on, my main ID (Neural Tempest) should have no problem, blocking the IP I signed with (64.231.251.39 19:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)) should be a good experiment. I will try posting again later, to see if my IP changes, at which point we can assume that blocking anonymous IPs is really a stop-gap measure. If only logged-in users can edit, blocking could be more effective, assuming they don't create sock-puppets. - Neural Tempest 19:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to verify that it was truly I who posted these last two, because without my confirmation, this would be hard to check. I used 64.231.248.235 and 64.231.251.39, but these are my only posts made without my true Log-in. (I posted this message for anti-impersonation purposes) - Neural Tempest 19:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Coming up to the release of Skyrim, I think blocking IPs from editing might be necessary. If it also solves this problem (although in a very brute-force way), then all the better. Legoless 19:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

{od} Since you two agree, I'll take it to the CP - Anonymous editing is definitely a site-wide discussion.--Ghurhak gro-Demril or TAOYes? 20:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocking IPs from editing is almost certainly not going to happen. The main reason is that it doesn't stop vandals, because they can just create an account and edit from that instead. The fact that they have to create an account gives people an extra chance for silliness, as they can create one using whatever insults or obscenities they like and we have no (easy) way of hiding it in the logs. This has actually happened at least once before.
Thank you to Neural Tempest for the research on dynamic IP addresses, but it's already well-understood. My own IP typically changes several times a day. If bouts of vandalism came from a group of IPs like the one you describe, it would be spotted and a range block might be used. For instance, see this note from 2009, and this one from 2007, which was (I think) the first time a range block was used on UESP. Admins have the CheckUser tool, which while far from perfect, makes it fairly easy to see when IPs are in a similar range. rpeh •T•C•E• 07:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Are there any rejections to the much simpler, "Alter our warning/block messages" suggestion? I see no reason to block IPs from editing because of problems with them getting others warnings. But my previous suggestion is an easy enough thing to implement. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 16:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
We're certainly going to have to do that, but I'm trying to write up a wider-ranging suggestion for modifying our block policy and hope to present the whole thing as one topic rather than doing it piecemeal. rpeh •T•C•E• 17:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I think that it could be beneficial to put a link in Warnings to User Contributions, with a note that if there is nothing there, to ignore the warning. --DKong27 Talk Cont 17:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I know I am not an admin, but might I suggest something? How about making it so that you can still block IP editing, but making it so that you have to have at least been on the wiki for a day or two, and responded to the welcome message, and participated in one conversation on another user's talk page that was not vandalism or spam.--Iamgoofball 17:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
That's a bit specific, if you ask me. I think you're getting at autoconfirmed users, but without the rights to edit then that would be impossible to achieve. And not everyone responds to their welcome message (quite the contrary, actually). Nor would many new users randomly comment on someone's talk page (unless they mistake it for a forum, as is often the case). And it still doesn't get around the problem of offensive usernames that rpeh brought up. Legoless 17:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

(←) We are not blocking all IPs. More importantly we aren't also blocking all new users, how would you had felt if we blocked you from editing for a few days after responding to a welcome message? Not only would your suggestion destroy our ability to recruit new editors, but it is pointless. Many people aren't here to just talk with other editors, they want to contribute to the wiki, and they aren't guaranteed to even know how to find active conversations. In fact your suggestion would see us only recruiting editors who would be better off using the forums, leading to many undesirable editors clogging up discussions and recent changes with pointless forum like nonsense (After all, how would they know what is appropriate idea if they aren't given an opportunity to learn how to properly edit?). Your suggestion not only blocks IPs, but also effectively blocks all new editors. We really don't have that much of a vandalism problem that we need to block everyone not already here, why is that so hard to understand? This is in no way a solution to our current problems. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 18:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I've started things rolling here. Feel free to continue commenting here, but any concrete suggestions should now go on that thread instead, since we're discussing changes to the policy. rpeh •T•C•E• 18:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

(←) Okay, I finally saw this problem for myself and I'm now convinced that it's down to caching. I purged the page concerned (the main page) and the problem went away. Since the problem was on the main page, it might explain why we were getting so many of these. rpeh •T•C•E• 18:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

416 Requested Range Not Satisfiable

I'm getting a 416 error when trying to go to Morrowind talk:Anora. I dunno where else to post this, but it might be effecting other parts of the site. Legoless 20:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

What are you browsing with? Normal webbrowser software does not specify a "range". --Brf 20:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Chrome, on Windows Vista. I believe the error is server side though. Legoless 20:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes. It is a server-side error, but a webbrowser should not be specifying a "range" unless you are doing a secure download of somthing. --Brf 20:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't even know what that is. :/ Legoless 20:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I just tried Chrome on XP, without that getting that error, but there are some slow ads. This 416 error occurs when your browser is requesting a file/page/object of some specific size, but the server is saying the object is not that size. On regular webpages your browser should not be requesting any specific object size. That should only occur when you are doing a download of some sort where the server is telling your webbrowser the object is a particular size, and then when your webbrowser tries to download it, it has changed size. --Brf 20:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Your browser usually requests a range if a previous download attempt was interrupted part way through, but I've never seen it happen on a wiki page. This page has more info. The error is generated by the server, but the error is probably in the browser for making an incorrect request in the first place. rpeh •T•C•E• 09:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Spambot

Probable spambot: 174.139.211.50 --Brf 23:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks. rpeh •T•C•E• 07:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

(←) Nonsense bot: 95.64.12.16 --Brf 13:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Just curious, is it normal policy to say its a nonsense bot just because it was a different language? Personally I would have waited till another edit like that. Again, just curious.--Catmaniac66 13:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Not really. That one wasn't a classic nonsense bot, but it almost certainly was a bot. The nonsense bots were rather different. rpeh •T•C•E• 17:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes. That one was a bot. It posted twice in some Cyrillic language. I did not check this particular message, but they are usually generics like: This article was OK, but the author could have written it better, which makes it obvious it was a bot. --Brf 12:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Gotcha, I only saw one of those in the contributions page, but I see your point now.--Catmaniac66 14:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Skyrim System Changes + The Future for the Wiki

It has been stated that Skyrim will not be relying on numbers as much as any ES game beforehand and will mostly be gameplay influenced. What changes should be made, if any, to the UESP wiki to accustom to these changes? ThePog 12:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

We won't know until we have more details. rpeh •T•C•E• 12:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean, but a discussion took place here on how we will prepare for the game, I see no reason why we couldn't resurrect it as there is obviously going to be more opinions on the subject. This is also in my opinion the most appropriate place for this discussion for now. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 22:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Spam account

Automobile08, created a user page solely for spamming a link to something for auto-mobiles, I blanked the page and added a speedy template but the account still needs to be blocked. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 02:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Got it; thanks. --GKtalk2me 04:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

IP to watch for

The anon 142.32.208.226 was warned roughly two minutes after its second edit (The warning can be seen here). It may not be necessary to block it right away after only two vandal edits, however the time between the warnings suggest that the anon is ignoring its warning, so it would be wise to keep an eye on it. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 16:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

In light of recent events it has been revealed that this is an IP shared with user Canc4, considering his/her behavior here can we please protect this talk page until we have this resolved? Either way this likely will need more attention from an admin to sort out considering the fact that Canc4 has reported this problem to three different editors (See this conversation on my talk page, this section on rpeh's talk page and the one on Dkong's talk page)) and then insulted the anon vandal with this message Candc4 left on the anon's talk page --AKB Talk Cont Mail 17:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I've blocked the IP for one day; since that's what the warning says, that's what we do. It shouldn't affect Canc4's ability to log in and edit. --GKtalk2me 17:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
In light of this and this edit I think we can increase the block length, this time without talk privileges. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 17:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Block increased to one week and talk page editing rights removed. --GKtalk2me 18:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! --AKB Talk Cont Mail 18:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Spam user

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/User:Car_Insurance_Quotes_-_How_To_Select_Car_Insurance Self explainitory.

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Casino_Bonus_-_How_To_Grab_Those_Casino_Bonuses

See any similarities? This might become a problem... - Neural Tempest 07:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Its not going to become a problem, no one actually clicks those links... for future reference, what is standard procedure? Blank their pages or what?--Catmaniac66 07:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Blank and add {{speed|Spam}} to the page so an admin will delete it. Onto the topic of the recent number of spam bots... Would it be possible to disable external linking for new users for a while? It seems the site is under attack by determined spammers, and Re-Captcha isn't stopping them. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 07:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Also, it's good to post a note here on the Admin's board, that way they are guaranteed to see the complaint. Honestly, this seems pretty minor for an "attack", but when it comes to Re-Captcha, it's tough to say if it's computers getting through, or just people creating spam accounts. As long as there's at least one admin with an eye on recent edits, temporarily blocking external links would be more trouble than it prevents. It's best just to play whack-a-mole with the spampages that pop up, and have admins lock them down.
For future reference, which discussion heading on this Noticeboard should be used? There are a few "spam" related threads, and it makes more sense just to have one. - Neural Tempest 07:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
You're right, this isn't that serious right now. Though it should be an option to keep in mind if the spam gets worse. If there is going to be a lot more spam like this we should make a thread on the AN Vandal Board and link back to these conversations as reference. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 07:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Just make it a habit to notify me on my talkpage and I will take action asap. I just woke up and need my coffee, so - any trouble right now? --Krusty 07:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

(←) Yep, this is the latest ones talk page. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 07:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit: also the page the spam bot made --AKB Talk Cont Mail 07:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

All done! --Krusty 08:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
All right, thanks! If another one in these bots styles pops up I'll create an all encompassing topic (Something called like "Spam Watch" or "The 2011 Spam Wars") to deal with these on the vandal board so these similar reports don't crowd up this page. Until then though let's hope whoever is behind this gets the message that there efforts are futile. Of course there is a slim chance these incidents are disconnected, but I am playing the odds here as all of these bots have made similarly named pages, with similar text styles (As far as I remember at least). --AKB Talk Cont Mail 08:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Great! Everything is back to normal. Just one question, which admin is best to notify at which time? Krusty said he just woke up, so perhaps an admin a few timezones away might be best at around 07:00 UTC. A designated "spam" thread, (or even page) might be useful at that point. If we expect more spam in the future, a permanent thread/page with the possibility of a future archive would be reasonable. If I come across the next spammer first, I'll just strike up a new discussion right here. - Neural Tempest 08:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
You usually don't have to bother. One of us will spot that kind of spam the moment we refresh recent changes. If it's something that needs urgent admin intervention, posting here is probably best - or even use the site's email feature to contact us directly. rpeh •T•C•E• 08:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

A Return of a Troublesome Anon

69.19.14.41 has so far been warned twice for nonsense warnings (See talk page) which was fine I guess as the IP stopped editing and went silent for over a year. However this IP has returned to its old ways with this personal attack. Though I see a possibility that this is a different vandal using the same IP, either way this IP obviously deserves to have its editing privileges revoked. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 23:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

As much as I want to test my new blocking powers, I cannot reasonably block after 1 edit after a 14 month hiatus. I posted a last warning, making note of his edit history. --DKong27 Talk Cont 00:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I disagree, too quote UESPWiki:Etiquette; "Personal attacks are grounds for an immediate block."". Taking into consideration this IP's edit history (Repeated vandalism, no useful edits at all) and this I think it is fair game for a block. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 00:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Also, the IP already has had a last warning as seen here, it is obviously not planning to contribute in any useful way, and it has had its chance. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 00:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned, over a year means that the last warning is not valid unless there is a continuation of the previous MO. As far as we know it is a different person who never even saw the warnings. --DKong27 Talk Cont 00:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
That IP has quite a history at Wikipedia too. I think DKong27 is right - a year is long enough to justify another warning rather than an immediate block. And even though personal attacks are never justified, let's face it - that Jacob Black Twilight easter egg thing really is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen on the site! rpeh •T•C•E• 06:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Spammer

63.223.84.146 spammed a link for a site that apparently sells foot wear by Christian Louboutin here (Or more likely a fraudulent version of the admittedly nice shoes, this is apparently a problem Mr. Louboutin according to the Wikipedia article I linked). Though appropriate foot wear is an important part of properly sneaking, I don't see how high heels will help. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 02:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

All done. --Krusty 02:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Activation e-mail

Hi, I recently made an account on this this site, and for the forums too - I am on here very regularly so it seemed silly not to :o) I registered both with the same name ( Sidewynda ) and email address. As yet I havent received the activation email allowing me to post etc. I have clicked on the link to re-send the email, but none have yet come through. My spam filter is set to off, just n case that was interfering, and I thought leaving a note here may help to clear up any problems i may have missed. Thanks for your time in advance, Sidewynda — Unsigned comment by 94.7.223.58 (talk) at 17:31 on 15 May 2011

You need to ask the people on the forums about that. Have you checked your spam bin?--Iamgoofball 16:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Vandal

He did trim down my page a bit, at least. http://www.uesp.net/wiki/User_talk:156.34.25.170. Has an obsession with an appendage.--Catmaniac66 01:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hes going to keep doing it. I gotta leave it up at some point because I have to go get food. Anyone else feel free to undo for me, Im not terribly worried about it.--Catmaniac66 01:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
He's since moved on to me and S'drassa, as well. I think he needs a block, if any Admins or Blockers are available.--Ghurhak gro-Demril or TAOYes? 02:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured out a long time ago no one was here :-D. Can we add more users to Blockusers please?--Catmaniac66 02:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I would second that notion. I wouldn't mind the powers but I often seem to be pushing for a block when the admins disagree with my observation of whether a block is necessary or not. Still, a few more blockers would definitely lower the time it takes to block vandals. I'd imagine that we would see more blockusers if there was a registration process, like with becoming a patroller. So unless there is any objections or a previous decision that I am unaware of I'd recommend we set up a registration system for becoming a blocker. Besides the current "Either ask or have an admin bestow the powers upon you" system which has only so far produced four blockers. The logic behind this thought is that it would be easier to qualify to become a blocker than a full admin, meaning that we would more often than not we would have someone who can ban troublemakers online. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 02:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I've asked if there's a way to nominate them - see the RC--Ghurhak gro-Demril or TAOYes? 02:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Edit: Forgot to mention, I already suggested boosting the blocker ranks here. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 02:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

(←) I added it to the "Blockuser" talk page before seeing your link as well--Catmaniac66 02:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Can we consider taking away 156.34.25.170 talk page editing privileges please? --AKB Talk Cont Mail 00:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Done. --Krusty 03:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate name

http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User:FIRECROTCH&action=edit&redlink=1

Enjoy.--Catmaniac66 01:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

When you make a thread like this, you give the user the attention he/she needs. If you just ignore it, the user will go away. Keep that in mind the next time. --Krusty 04:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Thought it was procedure to block inappropriate names, so they cant decide to get even more attention by editting? Ill remember that though.--Catmaniac66 04:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion:Items

Not entirely sure it's just a problem from my end, but I cannot load this page with either Firefox or IE. 220.255.1.145 08:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I've purged the page. It should work now. rpeh •T•C•E• 11:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Spammer, also a Request

User:Mortgage310, another spammer.

On to the question, I wish to request Blockuser powers. I believe that though I have on more than one occasion recommended a block when not necessary I think that I under stand the Blocking Policy well enough to make a correct decision on these matters for when an admin is unavailable (While also keeping in mind previous Administrator decisions on when a block is necessary or not). A recent discussion at UESPWiki talk:Blockuser shows that several users wish for there to be more block users, though I did say that I didn't want the extra power, I also wished for there to be more blockers. Since no one seems to be willing to ask for these extra responsibilities, I think that I might as well ask so that I can better help out the site. Whether it is to be as a new blocker or as an example on why administrators may deny this request so those that may request these powers later will better know what the sysops consider to be the unspoken qualifications. I truly just wish to help out the site in an area that several consider to not be properly used (In the sense that there are not that many blockusers as of now). No matter what I will respect the administrators decision on this matter as either of the most likely responses (Yay or nay) will meet my wishes for this request. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 03:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I support the above. Id ask for it and accept it, but I also understand that I dont edit enough to be trusted, even if I know I wouldnt abuse the powers.--Catmaniac66 04:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Done for AKB. Catmaniac, I'd have no problem giving you temporary rights if there was going to be no admin around, but I think permanent rights are only likely to be given to someone who is already a patroller. rpeh •T•C•E• 11:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
That wasn't the exactly the result I predicted, but I thank you for the extra privilege. It is a bit intimidating to see an option for blocking someone next to every one's user name in recent changes, but I'll get used to it in time I guess. I'm sure my new power will be needed eventually, so for now I'll fiddle around with the block options (Without any user selected so I don't accidentally ban anyone of course) to get a feel for how it works. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 18:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Haha rpeh, I completely understand that. AKB should be able to do a good job.--Catmaniac66 18:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Vandal Account

Asbury12 has continued to add nonsense and false information the UESPWiki, despite being warned to stop. A block is needed, I think.--Kalis Agea 04:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

As always, there are never any blockers/admins on at this time. Same thing happened a few days ago. AKB ended up being online and he was given block user, I figure he will be here in an hour or 2. Just keep reverting, I know the feeling.--Catmaniac66 04:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) : Sorry, but no. It seems the warning worked and you have to give vandals (for lack of a better word) more than one minute to respond to the warning. I always give them three minutes to read it, then, if the nonsense continues, I'll make the block. --Krusty 04:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah, my bad. I'll keep that in mind next time. Now, I'm off; I need some sleep! At least the edits are reveted. See you guys tomorrow.--Kalis Agea 04:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I wasnt going off edit histories when I suggested blocking I just wasnt disagreeing. And I didnt mean to sound crabby about no one being on, I see that it probably came off that way.--Catmaniac66 05:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I want to remind all of you that this is not a blocking game; it is not about blocking each and every user who seems to enjoy making nonsensical edits. I do not find it funny to block people, nor does anyone else administrating this site – so please, people, control the bloodlust. If AKB (or anyone else for that matter) blocked this user because of this thread, right now, I’d be in the process of unblocking and making apologies. Not funny either. That is why we don’t hand out Blockuser rights to everybody. Still, thanks for monitoring the Recent Changes so closely -and for reverting all the edits. --Krusty 05:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I wasn't here to handle this last night, I had to go to bed early so I'd be awake for some personal work later today. I know that I am usually the guy to watch recent changes until our European users wakes up, but I can't be expected to always be on, I do have an actual life. Don't expect me on that much today is what I'm saying. But I think it feels worth noting that I completely agree with Krusty's judgement here, a block should only be instituted when there is no other way to stop a vandal and should only be used as a last resort. Generally speaking if a vandal stops after one or two edits after being warned it means they they saw the warning and gave up. This means that no action is really necessary as the vandal stopped at part one of the Blocking Policy, if the vandal comes back under the same name the history is there and a block may need to be instituted if the vandal continued to vandalize the site. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 11:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
No need to apologise. I've been on less often of late so it's just as much my fault. The fact is that, as Nephele pointed out when the Blockers group was set up, we're never going to be able to prevent nonsense edits no matter how many people we have with block rights.
Krusty and AKB are, of course, right about blocking users - after a warning you should actually expect another edit, since the user was probably already editing a page and won't get the "You have messages" banner until the edit is complete. The other side of the coin is that it's sometimes a good idea to issue a 15-minute block before a warning, if there are a lot of bad edits coming quickly, or if they're particularly nasty ones. All policies are strong guidelines rather than absolute rules, and while an explanation should always be given if someone has to ignore them, ignoring them is always an option. rpeh •T•C•E• 12:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

(←) Usually I do ignore vandals; I actually meant to post this and the warning between two of his edits, but... ah well it's a long (boring) story. To put it bluntly, I got distracted (ADHD powers!) and the rest is history. And to Krusty: I know it isn't a game, which is why I don't think I'll ever want to be a Blockuser (not for a while); I'm simply not familiar enough with the Blocking Policy -- which I read through a few minutes ago. I said that we need more Blockusers, not that I should be one. Heck, I'm still trying to get used to basic syntax; and I don't really need another task on top of UP work and Lore redesign, even if the Blockuser position would be temporary for me! In any event, I suppose that we learn something new every day.--Kalis Agea 14:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The return of 142.32.208.226

142.32.208.226 I just blocked 142.32.208.226. Repeat offender, please make this block last a little longer than I can make it. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 16:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Update to those that care... Krusty gave the vandal a six month block, with no talk page editing rights. Let's hope this vandal gets the message and gives up. Though I think it is safe to assume that any vandals targeting Candc4 any time soon will almost certainly be this vandal bypassing it's block, so I'll make sure to keep an eye out for that. Also, this may be the last time I ever say "Peace in our time!" (The edit summary for my previous edit before I noticed the vandal). --AKB Talk Cont Mail 17:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot to update this notification; a bit busy these days. Ironically, I have been watching the RC almost all day long (i'm working on my computer) and the second I leave to get some food, a vandal arrives. Ah well. I was seconds away from making the block last "forever" and will have absolutely no problem if other Admin's decide to make it so. --Krusty 18:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Spam Bot

User:Carinqoutes08‎; obvious spam bot is obvious. --Kalis Agea 03:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Blocked the spammer for now, an admin should make the block a bit more permanent though. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 04:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Hopefully 3 hours will do; then again, spam bots usually stay to minor, easily undone spam. Anyway -- before I go off on a tangent -- thanks for taking care of that.--Kalis Agea 04:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
All done. --Krusty 05:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Alright thanks, Krusty.--Kalis Agea 05:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Jmartinez323

This user has been quite problematic. Multiple times he has insulted other users (Here, here, or here as an example of some of his behavior. Note that the edit to his talk page was done logged out but it is obviously him judging from what he wrote. I am also probably missing a few insults from this discussion. Also judging from the IP edit to his talk page he has previously made attacks on the No Bounty conversation logged out.) or has just generally been disruptive by removing replies or removing talk page topics repeatably even after being asked to stop doing that, this wasted other editors time considering that these had to be corrected constantly.

I considered giving this guy a cool down block to deal with this behavior, and I will if he continues this, but since I am now personally involved with this that sort of behavior would be inappropriate. Instead I simply wish for the admins to keep an eye on him as he has been getting progressively more disruptive. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 17:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

If he's making personal attacks to other editors repeatedly, that's an instant block. See Etiquette. Since I'm hesitant to use my blocking powers for the first time, I won't take any action, but I'll leave it up to an admin to decide on adding a longer block. Legoless 17:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I know that it is grounds for an instant block, the only reason I hesitated was that these attacks were often against me, making me not the least impartial party. I also see it as being possible that he really is just completely unaware of our etiquette policies and could be corrected without a block. Either way, I don't feel like dealing with this situation anymore as any action taken by me could be seen as me being emotionally compromised and me misusing my powers. If he attacks anyone else again before an admin comes to sort this out I'll of course block him, regardless I am tasked with taking care of vandals, and another attack will make the lingering doubts for this being a good faith misunderstanding go away, but until then I won't take further action against him. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 18:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
No worries, I'm on it. --Krusty 18:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I thank that this might have a positive outcome now, without any further action. This has been a great lesson on avoiding blocking other editors, no matter how close it comes to bad faith. Let's hope that Jmartinez323 is willing to go past this. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 18:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Update: I just blocked 71.122.114.95 for repeated personal attacks. I assumed that this was Jmartinez323's IP but this could somehow still be an unrelated troll. Can you please check this user to see if this was his IP? This situation is getting pretty infuriating. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 19:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Edit: Krusty already took care of it, both the IP and Jmartinez323 got a week long block. I wish that this could of turned out better, but at least we tried. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 19:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah well, it was worth a shot. Everything's been taken care of now. --Krusty 19:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

(←) Not quite it seems. Jmartinez323 came back for another swing as 71.180.238.47. Also, there has been at least some more suspicious activity from the anons today, with this topic on my talk page. If you look though I refused to say it, there are a few more similarities between that anon and Jmartinez323, in the sense that this one doesn't sign or use proper indentation. It could easily be an attempt by Jmartinez to rejoin the site, bypassing his block. I don't mean to sound paranoid, and I know I do. Notably, this anon didn't seem to make the constant spelling mistakes that the topic of this discussion did so it could be possible that this is entirely unrelated, which is what I assumed. It is just that that I'd recommend a tighter watch of new users and anonymous users for now, as it seems clear to me that Jmartinez323 doesn't want to quit no matter how many times. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 22:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Please make a habit of checking your e-mail during situations like this. --Krusty 22:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Oblivion4lyfe (Talk | contribs) is the same person as Jmartinez, which he admitted here and also trying to provoke us again. ~ Dwarfmp 02:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I suspect Krazula is the same guy, just because his account appeared soon after that guy came out of the closet. Which I totally called, by the way. But I could be wrong here, just a suspicion. Minor Edits 02:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I think the hacking of Sony inspired this guy, he keeps changing his IP. Best to listen to Minor Edits' advice and not feed the troll. Let's just assume all of the ip's AREN'T the same guy, so nonsense can be deleted freely ~ Dwarfmp 03:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Sock puppetry is grounds for an indefinite block on all his extra accounts. Legoless 10:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this vandalism?

Link. --Rigas Papadopoulos • Talk • Deeds • 16:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a bunch of nonsense to me. --Brf 17:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
It's just experimentation, although I'll probably be deleting the broken images and templates at some point. rpeh •T•C•E• 17:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
What is with all those <math> tags? --Brf 17:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Like rpeh said, it's just experimentation. I don't think he knows that you have to have a certain program (I can't remember the name) for the math formulas to work correctly.--Kalis AgeaYes? Contrib E-mail 17:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The stuff in those <math> tags are not formulas though. They are just simple words.--Brf 17:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
He probably doesn't understand the function of the tags; who knows? Ugh, people... ;) --Kalis AgeaYes? Contrib E-mail 17:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Technically, I don't think it's even possible to "vandalize" your own userpage, unless it contains specifically offensive material. An editor's own userpage is theirs to mess up. All we can do is offer editing assistance via their talk page. Throbz has only made that single addition to the wiki however, so I would wait until we see further activity. Still, I'm going to try and figure out what they were going for, I can't pass up puzzles. - Neural Tempest 22:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
It looks like it was copied off another site (possibly a wiki) with similar markup to the UESP, but which isn't compatible. It seems to have something to do with the Fallout series. Legoless 22:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

(←) Just a note on my earlier response, the software require for mathematical formulas to work here on UESP is called "LaTeX". I'll find a link and provide it shortly.--Kalis AgeaYes? Contrib E-mail 22:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I got banned from the forum

That same troll that targeted me here targeted me on the forum. I didn't do anything. — Unsigned comment by Candc4 (talk • contribs) at 21:15 on 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll ask why/if you are banned from the forums. Either way there isn't much we can do as the forum and wiki teams are two different groups of people, if they had an actual reason to ban you we can't have you unbanned. If the mods sent you any messages about why you are banned it would help if you provided a copy of them, or at least tell us what it said if you don't wish to ruin the confidentiality of a private message. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 21:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I get this when I try to log in. Yet I did nothing.
Information
You have been permanently banned from this board.
Please contact the Board Administrator for more information.
A ban has been issued on your IP address.
forums.uesp.net Board indexAll times are UTC — Unsigned comment by Candc4 (talk • contribs) at 21:26 on 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, the troll must of gotten your IP banned, one second, I've brought it to the mods attentions. None of them are online right now so please be patient. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 21:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Alright, for some reason, i think my fellow forumies think that Candc4 is a troll who was IP switching with an illegal program and making spam accounts.--Iamgoofball 01:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

New Notice Suggestion: UESP is not a Forum

Not sure if this is the best place for this but... One of the most common mistakes by new users is posting forum like questions, replies, and topics. It can be quite annoying but quite honestly as far as I'm concerned nearly all of the forum-like posts are what I'd describe as "good faith nonsense". It doesn't really make sense to give these people a warning and none of the other notices seem to really cover this. Usually, I create a custom notice on the fly, but I think a standing Forum notice will save us some trouble down the road. Here are a few of the reasons I've thought of to create this new notice:

  • Forum-like posts can easily be mistaken for pure vandalism, with this notice it may be possible to avoid this kind of problem and saving some hurt feelings down the road.
  • Forum-like posts never really deserve a warning, if a user becomes so disruptive with forum-like edits to deserve a warning than it is likely to be pure nonsense at that point. As I said, forum-like posts seem to always be in good faith, this notice would help cement this belief whenever someone goes through the messages.
  • It would be convenient, this is one of the most common minor issues on the wiki, it would definitely help to have this kind of thing ready on the fly to give to users
  • It might give our forums some extra attention. I've spent enough time on the forums to know that one of the most common forum complaints is the lack of activity, see this thread for examples of this point.
  • It will help weed out undesirable editors. Let's face it, some users would simply be better off using the forums than the wiki. If we had this standard notice it will help inform these users of the forums, hopefully leading them to a community better fit for them than the wiki.

So any thoughts on this? Does anyone else think that this notice is a good idea? --AKB Talk Cont Mail 10:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Make it part of the welcome message? Datacaust 18:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, Datacaust, that would just clutter the message. I'd rather it be used like other warnings (which is what AKB meant, I think). I believe that such a warning would make forum post warnings a lot easier to give (e.g. instead of tweaking the normal Warning message for each and ever user who posts forum-like content). Plus, it's just overall useful!--Kalis AgeaYes? Contrib E-mail 18:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
We already have a forum-invitation on our welcome message, so that is not a problem. Also, it should definitely NOT be a warning at all, but, as AKB suggested, a friendly notice we can put here and use when necessary. --Krusty 18:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
It should be a text message rather than an infobox message, but... is it really needed? Seems like overkill to me. It's not like we get all that many cases where it'd be useful. rpeh •T•C•E• 19:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I’m not sure. Forum-like posts and questions seems to come in waves; it could be useful, if not for anything else, then maybe to make the Wiki appear a bit more friendly towards the forum-like users – instead of the eternal Edit Summary we all know. Then again, people often “get it” from the Summary, so I tend to agree that it is unnecessary. But let's hear some more opinions. --Krusty 19:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
if its needed I'll make one--Candc4 19:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is entirely necessary, as we do mention it in the welcome message. I suggest we remember to add "UESP is not a forum" or something to that effect in our edit summaries when reverting, just to make it clear. --SerCenKing Talk 19:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Well if you wist to argue uses as a measure of merit than I'd have to say that the Plus Sign Vandal Ban Message or the Attribution notice could go as I've yet to see them used in my time at the wiki; forum-like posts on the other hand, are somewhat regular events from what I've seen (Nearly every other edit to Skyrim talk:Skyrim comes to mind). It is also worth noting that users who make forum like posts are somewhat persistent, I've rarely see them even notice that there edits are reverted, and when they do they just seem to be confused by the reverter's logic; a notice is often used here to drive home the point; therefore by having a standard notice for this would help us out. I still see this serving enough of a purpose to be worthy of a standard one, and it could help avoid hurt feelings and the like enough that it would be useful having it. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 19:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

(←) Was using the one on my page as reference it must be old; doesn't have it. SerCenKing that is a good idea. If it's not already in effect.. Datacaust 20:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Just remove it and let the user know that there is a forum available to discuss such topics. There's no need to go all haywire on them for something so small. Elliot (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
That is literally my entire point Elliot... --AKB Talk Cont Mail 02:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
The Plus Sign Vandal one can probably go now, as it hasn't been used for years. See this and this for examples of why it was used. The Attribution one... I don't think I've ever used it. Look, if anybody wants to create the template, go for it. It's not that big a deal. rpeh •T•C•E• 05:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
The thought just occurred to me: we can change the MediaWiki:Talkpagetext message to be more prominent, and even to include a link to the forums. It might be easy to miss at the moment but we could always make the background a different colour. Is this something people would like to consider? rpeh •T•C•E• 07:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's a very sensible idea. My general thought is we can handle this without necessarily having to wrap up a whole new notice. --SerCenKing Talk 14:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I've posted a possible design (v. simple) on the talk page for that MW page: MediaWiki talk:Talkpagetext. We can discuss designs there to avoid cluttering this page, while continuing discussion here if there are concerns about doing it at all. rpeh •T•C•E• 14:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

(←) I went ahead and made the notice flow better. It still kind of reads like a teenager driving s stick-shift for the first time though... But I agree with the usage of the MediaWiki process to inform. It may not be entirely useful, but it will garner some attention. Elliot (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

For the record, you edited the welcome message, not any of the notices (That edit was done nearly two months ago as well, it had little to do with this discussion). The new notice is still being drafted in one of my sandboxes, which you are free to edit if you feel that you can improve it. I also agree with the proposed edit to MediaWiki:Talkpagetext. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 01:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Books on the Sidebar

You may have noticed that I added the Books link to the sidebar earlier. I could have sworn this had been agreed somewhere as something that should be done when all the redlinks were fleshed out, but now I can't find the discussion. Is everybody okay with this or should I take it off again? rpeh •T•C•E• 14:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

No problems here. I hate when stuff is documented extensively on the wiki, yet doesn't get a place on the sidebar! Let's show off huh! ;) --SerCenKing Talk 14:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Looks good to me - I think this is the original discussion. --Krusty 14:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

173.34.44.49

173.34.44.49 may need some help on learning how this wiki works--Candc4 16:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

We usually do not concern ourselves with an Anon that does a single edit. By the time you address them, their IP might have changed. Also, it is pretty common for visitors to try to change sics. --Brf 16:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Also, you probably should have mentioned the sic in your edit comment when you reverted. --Brf 16:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It was just a sic edit, they happen all the time. I don't see a need for more of a follow up since the IP stopped editing after a single edit, but since you insist I'll give this guy a notice explaining why his edit was reverted in case the IP comes back. It might of helped if you gave us a more thorough review of the issue since there was no need to rush this report, or as Brf said you could of left an edit summary so we knew why you were reporting this/why you reverted that edit. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 16:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The Peculiar Case of 99.126.198.197

Can an admin please review this user's contributions for me please? It seems to be a more permanent IP so this user seems to be sticking around, but this user definitely needs some guidance on how to edit that I can't think of an honest way to provide. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 17:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I Just wonder if its the same guy.--Candc4 17:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Excellent question Candc4, but here and here this IP states his Xbox Live account name, clearly indicating that this is the same person. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 17:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
So what happens now a 7 day block?--Candc4 17:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how a block is necessary or justified under the Blocking Policy, but this IP clearly needs a more thorough look over than I can provide. If nothing else we should keep an eye out for this IP in the future. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 17:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Been looking through the contributions, and find nothing serious. We have 5 identical edits to a talk page, a correction of a date and an invite to ask him on Xbox Live? Unless I'm missing something, maybe you should test that Forum-edit message of yours, AKB? ;) --Krusty 17:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough advice Krusty. I didn't think that any of these were anything but good faith, but some action was certainly necessary (I just couldn't decide what action was necessary). Just another good example why we need a new notice for these kind of situations I suppose! --AKB Talk Cont Mail 18:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


Prev: Archive 18 Up: Administrator Noticeboard Next: Archive 20
Retrieved from "https://en.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive_19&oldid=3097383"