UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard/Archive 24

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.

Request for Adminship

Our Request for Adminship (RfA) process is based on Wikipedia's policy. An editor, when nominated, accepts and answers questions, which can be asked by any registered editor. Votes and comments can also be left by any registered editor. Daveh makes the call, based upon the community's consensus, after about a week.

Consensus: Support

Moved to User:Alpha Kenny Buddy/RfA, User:Legoless/RfA, and User:Dwarfmp/RfA. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 18:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Account Name Change Request

If there's no reason against it, I'd like to change my account name to "Jim". I just want to make it easier for my many admirers to refer to me by an easy name. If it's ok/better to just change the label in my signature, that's fine, too. JimR or JR also fine. Anything unimaginative, really. --Jreynolds2^{Talk E-mail} 06:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the account Jim has already been registered. JimR and JR are both available, though. – Robin Hood↝talk 06:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Thanks. JR then. But I may also consider Robbin Hood. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. --Jreynolds2^{Talk E-mail} 08:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

JR it is. Consider it done. I'll leave the redirect behind, so you don't have to change all talk page posts. --Krusty 09:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. In the meantime, I mistakenly created an account with the name "Jr". Can you, or someone, delete it for me, tell me how to delete it, or point me to instructions on how to do so? --180.207.115.196 09:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, sorry. I can't delete accounts - but you can create a redirect (a so-called 'doppelganger account' like this from that user to your new JR page. Otherwise, there's not really a problem with the account creation, just let it sit unused. --Krusty 09:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. --Jreynolds2^{Talk E-mail} 09:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

IP 99.137.211.49

Ban him! Look at contributions if you want any proof. He's already been warned and has continued to abuse his editing privileges. ?• JA^Talk 23:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I was specifically looking at this edit. I think it's evident what they added. ?• JA^Talk 23:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

95.149.53.48 also--Br3admax 23:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that one's a vandal, merely a ... juvenile user. I left him another pseudo-warning. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 23:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Apparently AKB disagreed. ;) Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 23:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

They've both been blocked for a week. A note about the second one: I didn't see a single appropriate edit, so I had no qualm with blocking him. Also, a link to there contributions is all that is generally necessary for anonymous users, we can figure out what action is appropriate with just that. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 23:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Change in Databases

Just FYI that I've switched to using db2 for most of the wiki reads. Last time this happened there were a few issues with pages saving/loading. If you see anything similar or other abnormal issues let me know. Thanks. -- Daveh 00:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It's probably nothing, but I noticed one small oddity just a few minutes after you posted this: after this edit, I had to purge the page to get it to display the updated formatting. – Robin Hood↝talk 01:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I noticed something similar with this page - the "prod" tag didn't show up, the image had disappeared but the licensing was still visible, and the name the image had been moved to didn't seem to exist. Purging the cache fixed the problem. Kitkat ^{•Talk•Contrib•E-mail} 01:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent changes, patrol log and User contributions don't seem to update anymore. My latest edit to UESPWiki:New_Page_Requests#Skyrim:Perk doesn't show in the page history or in my contributions, but the page content was changed. Similar case with User:Alfwyn/Sandbox. -Alfwyn 23:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a database query that reoccurs every evening around this time from the MetaTemplate code that breaks the slave replication on db2. Obviously not a good thing and I'm looking into it. -- Daveh 23:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI, the purge-after-edit issue continues. It seems to be rare, but it's still happening on occasion. I take that back. All of a sudden, it's happening on every edit for me. – Robin Hood↝talk 06:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC), Edit: 06:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

There was another replication error this morning which caused the issue and is now back to normal, until the next replication error anyways. Basically it comes down to trying a fix and waiting a few days to see if it breaks again. I thought the last fix would have worked (copying the table manually from db1 to db2) but since it didn't I'll keep looking. -- Daveh 14:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this something that can be fixed remotely? If so, can I suggest giving me and Krusty the necessary server access and instructions to fix it? I say the two of us because so far, the replication issues have been occurring late at night (Eastern time) and I'm usually online till about 4-6 am, by which time it's morning for Krusty and he's online as well. Assuming you and Neph can both fix it, adding Krusty and I would pretty much give us 24-hour coverage to fix the problem until you guys can figure out a permanent solution. – Robin Hood↝talk 22:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Br3admax/Archieve1

In a failed attempt to archive, I made [[User talk:Br3admax/Archieve1|this]]. Please delete this; I have no use for it.--Br3admax 03:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Done, but you could of just marked it for deletion. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 03:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

To be specific, if it's an uncontroversial deletion (i.e., you created it yourself or it's spam), just add {{Speedydeletion}} to the top of the page, and an Admin will take care of it. If it's not, then you can use {{Proposeddeletion}}. See Deletion Policy for more details on what falls into each area. – Robin Hood↝talk 04:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Request for an Immediate Block

Whereas "Personal attacks are grounds for an immediate block" and whereas the post here http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki_talk:Skyrim_Map_Design&diff=prev&oldid=886821 by rpeh glaringly includes such, I request an immediate block on his account and administrative contemplation of further action to enforce Etiquette and any additional relevant policies in the interest of the community, balanced with any concern for the rights and welfare of rpeh as may be appropriate.

Portions of the content of the post instant to this request, if not the post as a whole, were clearly calculated and designed to be personally injurious. I will focus on the attack on Robin Hood, since it is the most obviously mean-spirited and severe. While I think that the implication that Daveh has caused a mortal loss to the wiki because rpeh was de-administered can be seen, with extremely generous eyes, as ranging from simple immaturity to some kind of delusion, if it is not what it appears to be at its plainest: a spiteful, direct insult to Daveh's intelligence, the quotation of Robin Hood's remark (a friendly remark made in conducting wiki business) in an obviously caustically sarcastic and mocking context and the name-calling are absolutely intolerable to me. I'm new enough to the community to lack knowledge of much of the history here, but I've seen quite enough before this, and even if I arrived yesterday, I would be just as sickened and disgusted by this conduct as I am at this juncture. This is a hateful message, and I hope to be spared as much of such vileness as possible on the wiki here. I am injured and hurt as a result of reading this, and I am asking for help. I literally feel physically sickened as well as emotionally upset, and I do not at all consider myself as possessing a fragile constitution.

If rpeh needs some kind of help or support, I sincerely hope he gets it. If a consideration of all the relevant circumstances reasonably concludes that he may be able to remain active on the wiki without causing substantial harm, I am all for giving him the benefit of the doubt—once appropriate deliberations have been made and immediate protective action taken. However, if I am part of a community here, I am willing to do my best to adhere to its standards, and with respect to this kind of reprehensible conduct, I feel trespassed upon and I plead for help in being able to remain here, and spared from further exposure to it or its kind. --JR^{Talk E-mail} 18:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I certainly can't see any attack upon RobinHood, and I can't see the post having been altered since. Whilst he is understandably a bit pee-ed off with being de-adminned for I am sure he view as a non-problem. I can't see any really personal attack on daveh either, alright rpeh's post was made in spite but I can't see it attacks anyone like your said he has. --kiz ^talk_email 18:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Spite: "1. Malicious ill will prompting an urge to hurt or humiliate" [1]. That's exactly what I see in the post. I do not mean to twist your use of that word to discredit your opinion, I just want to assert that while you may reasonably see the behavior as acceptable, I deserve the space to share that to me it is not. I appreciate that you do not see an attack, Kiz, or that you find it understandable to the extent that you don't view anything in the post as constituting a breach of the letter or spirit of the policy document I referenced. If you thought that an accusation that lacks merit was made against me, I'd want you offering your perspective on my behalf as well. My post was a request, not a demand. I would not want the authority to actually make the decision myself, nor would I want that authority given to any single person in my position within this community. I have a reaction to the post which I stated honestly. I don't pretend that it is the only reasonable response someone may have, and I specifically wrote that I may lack an understanding of related history that may inform a thoughtful decision on the matter. Any, or most any, hurtful behavior can be seen as understandable, but groups can still appropriately struggle with deciding what's acceptable and how to most prudently react to a conflict. Should every comment or action by anyone on the wiki that hurts or offends someone be met with restrictions on their privileges? Of course not. I read the post several times. I read the policy several times. I see a personal attack inside the paragraph. I found it upsetting because I feel that it clearly violates the standards set forth in the wiki's policies and guidelines. I take those standards as representing a promise to me, as someone who has joined the community under the terms of those policies and guidelines. A mechanism is propounded for asking for help with "serious concerns", and I believe I have generally followed that to the best of my ability. The Blocking Policy page suggests issuing a warning before making a request here, but to the best of my knowledge, repeated warnings have already been given to rpeh for violating community policies and standards, and the action that I took seems reasonable to me under the circumstances. --JR^{Talk E-mail} 05:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? If you can’t stomach messages like that you should obviously not spend any time on the internet. In fact, I find your message and reaction to be so exaggerated, it borders on a personal attack on rpeh. Immediate block? Not a chance! I’m pretty sure Daveh knows how to handle this – if he, unlike me, can see any insults towards his persona. --Krusty 18:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I take your initial question as rhetorical. I think that my message is clear and that you comprehend what I am talking about, but you find it off-base (apparently to put it mildly). With respect to your advice on staying off the internet: By logical extension, then, if I saw someone violating a community standard on a public street (be such a hypothetical failing to follow a law requiring people to clean up their dogs' poop, or a massacre of a group of babies), I should respond by remaining indoors. The fact that I feel hurt by the behavior to which I pointed does not mean that I cannot survive it. I doubt that you are seriously suggesting, as an administrator, that I don't belong here because I have a complaint that you don't agree with or cannot respect. I hope not, really. I can see how you'd describe my reaction as "exaggerated," given that some of the words I used might be used to characterize a crime on the order of the Holocaust or a terrorist attack. I might have found better words to use than "vile" for example. Yet I affirm that I am hurt (not destroyed) by his behavior. And my take on it is that it falls widely on the foul side of any line demarcating a "personal attack" from an expression of opinion that might happen to offend a sensitive person. On the idea that my complaint may border on a personal attack on rpeh, the difference is that I do not bear any malice toward him: any hurt or offense that may have reasonably been experienced by him, by you, or by any other reasonable person, would be a secondary effect of my motivation in writing what I did: I wish to be protected from such behavior, and I am asking for help with that. On the other hand, I'd challenge anyone to honestly try to read rpeh's post to me without sounding like a childish bully deliberately trying to hurt Robin Hood by mocking his words. Again, really, by logical extension, any complaint issued against a member of the community could conceivably be deemed an attack, and in theory, I could apparently then assert that you have now attacked me, above. That sort of problem, I believe, is why there is a forum like this for input from diverse perspectives, and why a fair amount of effort has been made to adopt policies that provide for decision-making processes with the aim of giving rationality and those elusive and fungible concepts of "fairness", "objectiveness", etc. at least some semblance of an opportunity to operate. Of course, this is a human enterprise, and so necessarily flawed. We all have to live with that, I think. Perhaps my strongest response to your message, Krusty, after just a bit of disappointment that you appear unwilling to even entertain the possibility that my complaint deserves to be taken seriously even if disagreed with, is respect for your taking a clear position on the matter as an administrator and as a person. It is not the one that I wanted, but I will not question its earnestness. I really do respect it, and I am in no position to question your integrity in communicating it. Yes, there are any number of perspectives that can be taken on this issue. I am only presenting mine. I did not write out of a motivation to "help" anyone "handle this." No one has asked for my help. You will not see anywhere in my complaint an effort to represent Daveh, whom I've never even communicated with, nor Robin Hood, whom I've gotten to know a bit, but feel no specific need, desire, nor inclination to take care of or defend. I wrote that I am offended by what I see as a gross violation of policy. The fact is, if such policies exist only for show or in the abstract, then I'm pretty strongly disappointed. (Again, it now appears that I must add that by this I do not mean that my life has been destroyed.) If there's a decision that such a violation did not occur, or that it does not warrant further action or discussion, for reasons like those already given by several people in this section, then I will have learned that my response may be peculiar or justifiably seen as "exaggerated", or that my request may be considered disproportionate, ill-founded or even as intentionally malicious. If the last of these is widely experienced, then I will be saddened, feel misunderstood, and try to learn how to express myself differently in the future. --JR^{Talk E-mail} 06:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm also going to highlight the following line: If rpeh needs some kind of help or support, I sincerely hope he gets it.

What is this trying to imply? Are you suggest something very subtly about rpehs health? Because, that would be one way to read it. Attacking someone in your report of a personal attack seems a very odd way to get your point across. --kiz ^talk_email 18:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I was not trying to imply anything sinister or ill-willed; though I see how you could question my intent. Allow me to answer it: I am observing that rpeh has made--apparently now, virtually only in my own mind--a mean-spirited and malicious attack on another person. If you can possibly allow for the possibility that I genuinely see it as one, then perhaps you'll grant that such things often come from, or are related to, the experience of some kind of hurt or suffering, whether that be a bad day, a hangover, or, what, a descent into psychosis? I did not intend to speculate about or imply anything about that entire area. If--if!--it is the case that he's having a difficult time somehow, and some of his defenders here say things like he's "quite understandably spiteful", or similar (what could THAT sort of thing implicate if we let our imaginations run wild?) then I genuinely wish him the best and I explicitly wanted to state that. I did not start off here with any agenda against rpeh. He has given me advice and been helpful to me, right from some of my first edits and questions. At the same time, I have seen some of the comments he has made in the last month or two that made me feel uncomfortable. What's "the truth" about rpeh and all the events around the whole situation? I have no idea, and I have refrained from speculating about it. You will not find one word of opinion or comment about the entire ordeal by me, either on this website or anywhere else. That is why I limited my request and its rationale to the single comment that I pointed to. I never attempted to tie it to any previous behavior except to say that I understand that there is a history which others who are more acquainted with may use to make a better judgment than me. To me, "the best", in a situation that might be difficult, includes receiving help and support through a trying time. I'm not personally motivated to reach out to rpeh, because I don't know him, but I hope that his friends and whoever cares about him does if he wants or needs that (which he MAY or MAY not, thus, I suppose, the "subtle implications" and "oddness" being [implicitly?] now cast upon me). Well, I am seeing some of that support here, and I'm happy to see it. I'm sad that my motives seem to be misunderstood, but that's my problem now, and something for me to reflect on. In addition, he's obviously been through something on this wiki that I think I can fairly reasonably say might have been quite difficult, just based on my quite limited exposure to some of the recent dramatic "public" events surrounding him. My statement means that my intent in requesting the block is not to hurt rpeh, believe me or don't believe me, it is to enforce what I see as a violation of policy, and as I have said, to try to protect myself and the community from violations of what seem to be presented as its highest ideals. Recognizing that my complaint could absolutely be perceived as a malicious attack on rpeh, I wanted to say that my problem is solely with the behavior, not a devaluation of the person. And that if my message itself was experienced as hurtful by him, that I was sorry for that and hoped that he received any help and support that he may need. The "if he needs" part was quite intentional, because what I have seen in some of his comments in the heat of the recent drama that he is always doing just great. In fact we can see below that he finds this issue at hand now to be "amusing" and "particularly amusing," etc. So I did not directly want to say "sorry" to him. Nor did I want to explicitly wish "help or support" or anything positive toward him, because I thought it could be received as condescending. Just like I, and I think most of us, generally don't want to hear "I'm sorry for you" or "I hope you get help/support" unless we are hurting or asking for support. Does that make sense? Finally, we are at that same juncture again: If my behavior of accusing someone of engaging in a personal attack is ... a personal attack, then is it also possible to see your message as, in turn, a personal attack on me for ... personally attacking someone by ... accusing him of making a personal attack? Then, is it possible to actually follow any of the policies or guidelines restricting behavior on this wiki without simultaneously violating them? Could you not be seen yourself as using "implication" here to "suggest" something negative about me? Is your description of my behavior as seeming "odd" a cryptic hint that I may be psychotic, made all the more heinous because you "hint at it" so carefully or "very subtly"? I am not being literally "serious" here, but ... let's suppose I am beginning to recognize that I may not have expressed my thoughts and feelings in the most useful way by now.... (which I am thinking about) ... can you see how your own response to mine could be interpreted in any number of ways? I don't mind that you asked "what I meant," but somehow I wonder if you can acknowledge that I simply meant what I said, with no motivation beyond what I've stated?

I cannot guess how you will respond to what I have written, but I'd be curious how you would reply if I wrote that I find your comment "amusing" and "particularly amusing"? Where is this "wave" of anti-rpeh sentiment that I'm allegedly riding? I'm not stupid (well, ok, who says that they are?) but if the key objective in my life right now was to attack rpeh, well, I would have tried to engineer a much more sophisticated plan. --JR^{Talk E-mail} 07:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

To accuse someone of sycophancy and incompetence are most certainly personal attacks, and I'm surprised that either of you could have missed, or worse, dismissed that. That said, however, a review of the logs will show that I patrolled that edit myself and chose to do nothing about it precisely to avoid the kind of drama it would bring up. Barring any repeat performances, let's just move on. – Robin Hood↝talk 21:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I've always been known to usually be on rpeh's side in such affairs. And, be it for better or worse, I've chosen to do so again. First, JR, you yourself made a personal attack on rpeh, however subtle (i.e. "If rpeh needs some kind of help, I sincerely hope he gets it"). However, I do acknowledge that you may not have meant it to come across that way. To be honest, the real thing that makes me not like this request for a block is just exactly what Krusty said; if you're going to use the internet, get used to venomous posts (though rpeh's was only slightly so, in my opinion). By your standard, you could be blocked immediately as well for the aforementioned comment, JR. I really don't see anything to suggest that an AN post was required in any way, never mind an actual block. It's these types of things that led to the recent events and rpeh's de-adminning, as far as I'm concerned.--Kalis Agea^{Yes? Contrib E-mail} 23:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 01:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

This whole debate is quite amusing. I find it particularly amusing that a post (and thank you for linking that in there RH - you're such a helpful fellow!) in which I criticised Daveh for being subject to "sycophancy" and "lack of talent" is being used by RH70 as a personal attack on himself. Did you recognise yourself as possessing those two attributes, RH? That's the only way in which it could be construed as a "personal attack". Of course, that's entirely your view. Just as I imagine you expected this post to mean that admins "friendly to [me]" wasn't a personal attack against several other admins.

As for the claim about competence: I've got a TESV map up and running. It works well, and I've played around with things like gamma correction and contrast so that it doesn't look too bad. Tell me, RobinHood70, how does your map look? rpeh •T•C•E• 00:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

(←) While I don't believe the sarcasm is helpful, I think it would be best to just let this go for now. I really don't think anything beneficial will come of it, and it will more than likely be detrimental to any progress made on the wiki. elliot (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

JR: You are the only one that sees such a venomous attack that it deserves an immediate block. By your interpretation, as Kalis Agea pointed out, you should be banned for suggesting that rpeh needs help. Was his post in good form? Not really. Does it deserve a block? Of course not. If we blocked everybody for ever posting a comment that offended anyone, there would be no users. I get that you're still riding the anti-rpeh wave, but this is ridiculous. ?• JA^Talk 05:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe not my place to say, but at the end of the day, this is the internet. Is it even affecting your life personally? Cause if it is, you gotta remember, this isn't real life is it? This is the internet. It can't affect your life so much that you'll just rage when someone says something mean to you. People seem not to know the difference between real life and internet. Any person can see that this has gotten out of hand, it is getting stupid to do this. I really don't know WHY people are so against rpeh for stuff like that. It is ridiculous. JackTurbo95 10:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, this is a severe over-reaction at best. To quote you, JR; "This is a hateful message, and I hope to be spared as much of such vileness as possible on the wiki here. I am injured and hurt as a result of reading this, and I am asking for help. I literally feel physically sickened as well as emotionally upset, and I do not at all consider myself as possessing a fragile constitution." Well, maybe slightly OTT, but the same could be said about your rather spiteful post, which contained at least one personal attack on Rpeh - as it has already been pointed out, by your own logic you yourself should be blocked too. In fact, we should all be blocked for telling you you're being far too sensitive - a clear personal attack, by your standards. Now, this is where common sense comes into play - should we block anyone who says anything that somebody, somewhere, may find offensive? Of course not - we'd have no editors left. Kicking Rpeh while he's down isn't exactly what could be considered "friendly", nor am I convinced that you had his best interests when you made this post. So if you want to block Rpeh, you may as well block me too - this post has been far more strongly worded than the comment which originally raised your ire. But I don't quite understand what you're trying to accomplish here - do we really need more drama on the site? It's not beneficial to the wiki at all. Kitkat ^{•Talk•Contrib•E-mail} 11:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Kitkat. There is nothing to be gained from blocking rpeh. His comment was a bit offensive but it wasn't so malicious or hate-filled that it deserves a block. At the very most it would deserve a warning. rpeh was probably just annoyed at the whole de-admin thing. Besides, the comment was aimed at Daveh so if he had found it that bad he would have blocked rpeh himself which he didn't. I think you just over reacted a bit too much which everybody does at some point but just let it go for now. RIM 17:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

(←) :Given the main themes in the reactions here, I have taken a step back and tried to re-evaluate my behavior. I have concluded that there is something going on that is bigger and more important than the question of whether I was "right" to do what I did, or defending my intentions: disruption and upset has erupted as a result. I am sorry for that. I want to say that I did not intend it and I apologize for inserting myself into what I think is a wider situation that I do not really understand. I do want to repeat that I did not write out of an intention to hurt or upset anyone, at all, in any way. Some will doubt that because of the strong language I used in my initial post here. I have read it a few times, and I do see that it is unnecessarily provocative. I have asked myself why, and the best I can come up with is that I used strong language in a misguided attempt manage a fear that no one would listen to me or care about what I had to say. I did not mean to hurt anyone or further disrupt the community from its need to move through a period of upheaval and try to come together in pursuit of its basic shared goal. Maybe Elliot's comment above most trenchantly lays bare the essence of the matter. I withdraw the request, and I promise to do my best to behave more carefully in the future. --JR^{Talk E-mail} 17:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit Notice

Since it seems to be confusing a lot of users, can I suggest that we temporarily add a banner somewhere prominent—like a global Edit Notice or maybe at the top of the Community Portal and/or Recent Changes—to indicate that there are intermittent problems and that displayed pages may not update properly even though the edits are being saved. – Robin Hood↝talk 20:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I second this. Last time this happened I was surprised how little notification there was, which would be very disconcerting to any users not aware of this. ?• JA^Talk 23:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

A Question on Temporary Admins Becoming Permanent Admins

I just closed Legoless's nomination in his favor as it has been a week (I would appreciate if someone would do the same for me). My question is, what happens now? Since he's already an admin, we can't really give him admin rights again. The only thing that really needs to be done is that he should probably be added to Check user (like all other permanent admins), and maybe Oversight. It's just a niggling little detail, but it is one that needs to be filled in. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 21:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Judging from the history of past adminship votes which were successful, you make sure Daveh is notified of the vote on his talk page and leave it to him to either approve of and implement the RfA, or else veto the action (which, as far as I know, has never happened). Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 22:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

But this isn't the average RFA, as I said, Legoless is already an admin. Besides him retaining his rights after the date arrives, it's not clear what we should do. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 22:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Promotion is always at "the discretion of Daveh", so I think Daveh's approval is still needed, as no one has sought, and Daveh never gave, approval for permanent adminship to the temps, and it still seems necessary for him to pass judgment on that question. Pacta sunt servanda demands that we not treat the temps as automatically deserving of or entitled to permanent adminship, as that wasn't the arrangement Daveh agreed to. As a practical matter, judging by your first comment, the temps apparently never had all the rights and standing of permanent, ordinary admins, so Daveh's permission/participation may be needed to grant those that have not already been issued. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 22:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

As a Bureaucrat, Nephele also has the right to promote Administrators and change most or all of the other rights, so I suspect either she or Dave will do this once they see the post. To the rest of your questions, I think it's really just a matter of changing the various pages to note that he's no longer a temporary Admin, but a permanent one (and you might as well do yourself as well while you're at it). Krusty will also have to change the IRC rights. – Robin Hood↝talk 23:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm already an operator on IRC, so no changes need to be made there. --Legoless 23:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Any new admins don't need oversight. They were specifically withheld when the rights were introduced. It's best if we kept it at three (and if we did add someone, it would be Nephele). elliot (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

(←) They were not so much as withheld as just given to the active administrators at the time, really. Though that is another question I only really touched base on: Who gets Oversight, and why? There isn't a clear standard right now as it has been more or less ignored since it was introduced. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 00:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I made my objections when it first came up, and I was the one who recommended the current people. The oversight can only be undone by going into the server and restoring it. These are rights you don't need, and I have my concern about this push... elliot (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I also started discussion regarding the policy, and no one commented on it. elliot (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no personal interests in requiring the rights, quite frankly, I don't want them, and I never stated that I did (besides briefly during a previous incident). Plus, I can just do the classic delete/restore if a situation that required such a right ever came up while those who have it were away. I believe Krusty did comment that they're one of the least used powers as of now. I don't really think we need more, I just want some kind of explanation as to who should get them. The current answer seems to be 'whoever the community wants to have them', which would basically be Nephele. I'm fine with that as an answer, I just want a clear answer. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 01:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I certainly didn't intend to push it in any way, I think the fewer the better. It was just intended as something for Dave to consider. I think Neph should be added as the senior-most Administrator (as previously discussed), but that should be more than enough people. As AKB points out, Delete & Restore should be adequate, if even that much is necessary, for most situations. – Robin Hood↝talk 02:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

But if only one user has that right, wouldn't they be able to do harm without anyone else knowing it? Of course in this case, I'm not saying Nephele can't be trusted, but it's a matter of safety. I don't have a preference for who else would be getting the rights (I didn't mean I or anyone specific should be getting the rights), but giving them to the admins and patrollers seems like a good proposal to me ~ Dwarfmp 02:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: Wait, I think I misinterpreted the info and this function hides versions of pages and not just edit history, well then disregard what I said ~ Dwarfmp 02:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

No, you're absolutely right, Dwarfmp. It most certainly could be abused. But we already have two Admins plus Daveh who have Oversight rights, and Nephele will presumably be added, so I think that should be enough to ensure that it's not abused. I'm not sure if Krusty and GK can actually tell if Oversight has been used, but Nephele and Dave both can (even if we removed them as Oversighters), and can even restore oversighted revisions, since they have database access. In point of fact, they can already make revisions without anybody being the wiser...we just trust them not to do that. – Robin Hood↝talk 03:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Make sure you read over the extension page. I am fairly certain the log is held at Special:Oversight, so other oversighters can see what is going on. Also, my aforementioned discussion brought up the possibility of the $wgGroupPermissions['viewer']['oversight'] = true; permission, which could be given to all administrators, so they could see the logs as well. elliot (talk) 03:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

(←) I had looked at it (of course!), but there's nothing on the page that says that specifically. Oversight 2 mentions it, but that's not what we have. Short of downloading the code, I couldn't be sure. – Robin Hood↝talk 05:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I know it exists because it doesn't say You have requested an invalid special page on there. :P elliot (talk) 07:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Haha, yes, it was easy enough to check that after the fact, it just wasn't obvious without looking at more than what's on the Oversight page itself. Anyway, this is getting off-topic. Thanks for confirming that other Oversighters can, in fact, see what's been Oversighted. Also, as to the idea of giving all Admins the right to see that data, from the looks of the code at Oversight 2, it probably allows a diff, which would defeat the purpose of oversighting, since it would then be almost identical to a delete & restore. – Robin Hood↝talk 07:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Large Scale Proposed Deletion

After moving and adjusting the archives to be consistent, we are left with a lot of redirects. So, to save on time and edits, I am going to propose all pages found here for deletion, effective today. Objections (if any) should be made here. And just for record keeping, they are all listed below:

List of pages

Archive/AN (Un)Wanted Pages

Archive/AN .svg Images Not Working

Archive/AN AOL IP Addresses

Archive/AN A Bot's Life

Archive/AN A Mail for UESP.net from Germany

Archive/AN Advertising Update

Archive/AN Allowable Spam

Archive/AN An Affiliate Deal

Archive/AN Anon Vandal

Archive/AN Anonymous Editing During Initial Conversion

Archive/AN Anonymous Users

Archive/AN Another Idea of how to Deal with Vandalism

Archive/AN Archive Protection

Archive/AN Archives

Archive/AN Barnstars

Archive/AN Block Request - User:Elliot

Archive/AN Blockers

Archive/AN Blockers, Take 2

Archive/AN Blocking Rogue IPs at the Server

Archive/AN Captcha Whitelist

Archive/AN Code Updates

Archive/AN ConfirmAccount

Archive/AN Cookie Problem

Archive/AN Copying Our Images

Archive/AN Copyright Page

Archive/AN DNS Issues

Archive/AN Dagoth Ur, Mad God

Archive/AN Database Corruption

Archive/AN De-adminship for inactive admins

Archive/AN Dropping the Ball on Vandalism

Archive/AN Edit Notices

Archive/AN External Image URL Handling

Archive/AN FIELD OTHER bot

Archive/AN Failed protection of Lore:Skyrim?

Archive/AN File Hosting Feedback

Archive/AN Forum Moderators

Archive/AN Gameplay Videos for Redguard

Archive/AN HTML File Cache

Archive/AN Image Layout

Archive/AN Images

Archive/AN Install Guide for Redguard

Archive/AN Language issues

Archive/AN License Tags

Archive/AN Load Balancing

Archive/AN Mature Content

Archive/AN More Server Tweaks

Archive/AN More Site Suggestions

Archive/AN More Skyrim-Related Policy Changes

Archive/AN Morrowind Books Duplicated in Tamriel

Archive/AN Music

Archive/AN Namespace Links

Archive/AN Namespaces in Search

Archive/AN Navigation Bar

Archive/AN New Address for the Imperial Library

Archive/AN New Bot

Archive/AN New Range Block

Archive/AN New Servers

Archive/AN New User Group

Archive/AN News

Archive/AN News Item

Archive/AN Obvious Vandal

Archive/AN Once You're Blocked

Archive/AN Other Requests for Administrators

Archive/AN Out-of-game and unofficial resources

Archive/AN Page Protection

Archive/AN Pages Missing

Archive/AN Parser Functions

Archive/AN Patrollers and External Links

Archive/AN Please help

Archive/AN Possible Image Fixes

Archive/AN Possible Solutions for Spam Attacks

Archive/AN Potential Multi Account Vandal

Archive/AN Privacy Policy

Archive/AN Proposed Policy: Abuse of Anonymous Editing

Archive/AN Proposed Policy: Administrator Re-elections

Archive/AN Proposed Policy: Prohibiting Interactions

Archive/AN Protected Pages

Archive/AN Protected Pages Indicators

Archive/AN Protecting Archives

Archive/AN Protecting Templates

Archive/AN Protection on Oblivion:Speechcraft

Archive/AN Proxy Vandalism

Archive/AN Random Page Link

Archive/AN Ready for Shivering Isles

Archive/AN Recent Changes Changes

Archive/AN Registered Spammers

Archive/AN Renameuser

Archive/AN Request for Server Access

Archive/AN Requests for Adminship

Archive/AN Revamping Templates

Archive/AN Scaling PNG Support

Archive/AN Search

Archive/AN Search Issues and Improvements

Archive/AN Search Log

Archive/AN Semi-Protection

Archive/AN Semi-Protection of Main Pages

Archive/AN Server-level Blocks

Archive/AN Server-level Problems

Archive/AN Server Connection Limitation

Archive/AN Server Monitoring

Archive/AN Server Upgrade

Archive/AN Site Contact

Archive/AN Site Load

Archive/AN Site Update

Archive/AN Skipcaptcha Please

Archive/AN Skyrim Preparations

Archive/AN Some Admin Eyes Please?

Archive/AN Special Characters

Archive/AN Squid Assessment

Archive/AN Style and Main Template

Archive/AN Switching to New Content1 Server

Archive/AN TESV

Archive/AN TORolling

Archive/AN Table valign command

Archive/AN Talk Page Capitalization Inconsistency

Archive/AN TemplateSandbox

Archive/AN Template Protection

Archive/AN Templates and Performance

Archive/AN Templates et al

Archive/AN Temporary Role Changes Archive/AN TesSource Down

Archive/AN The Infernal City

Archive/AN Things That Need to Happen

Archive/AN Troublesome Anon

Archive/AN UESP Blog

Archive/AN UESP E-Mail Server

Archive/AN UOP Changelog Summary - Wikified

Archive/AN Upcoming Hardware Changes

Archive/AN Updating Patroller Guidelines

Archive/AN Updating ProtectSection

Archive/AN User 78.40.239.5 and Da Best

Archive/AN User Page Obscenity

Archive/AN Using Captcha on Anonymous Editors

Archive/AN Vandal IP

Archive/AN Vandalism (Warning Template Suggestion)

Archive/AN Various things

Archive/AN Warnings Policy

Archive/AN Wiki DB Switch

Archive/AN Wiki Security Upgrades

Archive/AN Wiki Upgrade to 1.10.0

Archive/AN Wikia

Archive/AN Worshiper to Worshipper

Some of them have prods, but I felt this would be easier for the community. Thanks! elliot (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Some of them still have links (Archive/AN Things That Need to Happen , Archive/AN UESP Blog). Not an objection, just a thing that should be systematically checked before deleting them. --Alfwyn 13:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. A few of the transclusions caused some problems with What Links Here, so some still erroneously show up as linking somewhere. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 08:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks. You can try doing a null edit, but they should go away soon. elliot (talk) 08:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

New Maintenance Template

Just an FYI, administrators, I went ahead and created {{deleted}}. Basically, it's used when you are removing a link from a page because the linked page was deleted. It's mainly for historical purposes when looking through things such as archives. It helps to dispel any possible confusion. elliot (talk) 07:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Spammer

I have two requests I want to make. First one, if this user I linked above hasn't been blocked yet by the time this is read, they need to be for spamming the site. Second question, Since I am awake at odd hours, may I have blocker rights so I can deal with stuff like this rather than go posting to the AN or asking an admin in the IRC to do this stuff for me. I just figured it would make everyone's jobs easier. Snowmane^T•E•C 13:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

If by "stuff like this" you mean spamming, blocking for max. 4 hours isn't going to be necessary. If you mean vandalism, well then that wouldn't be a bad idea ~ Dwarfmp 14:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocker rights have been added. I'm assuming you've already read UESPWiki:Blockuser about what to do.

However, to echo Dwarfmp, 4 hour spammer blocks are unlikely to be needed (I can't remember a spammer ever making lots of edits, thus requiring quick, short-term action), and even posting a message on the AN is probably creating unnecessary work for everyone. Simply putting {{speedy|spam}} on the created page has been working fine, in my opinion. Most of the time it gets caught by the next admin who pulls up recent changes; worst case, it gets handled next time an admin goes through the speedy deletion requests. --Nephele^Talk 17:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Nephele. And, by "stuff like this", I was referring to all variations of blockable actions, since at the times I am on, nobody else is really editing anymore. Thanks again, and I will skim over that page once again to make sure I didn't miss anything. Snowmane^T•E•C 22:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

More Odd Site Behavior

The issue of anons being unable to see recent content has lately been affecting me while logged in. I can look at my watchlist and see that an edit has been made, say, a day ago, but if I look at the history of that page, it may not show any edits within the past five days (that specifically happened on the Skyrim:Easter Eggs page). When I clicked on the link to my userpage (the one on the top right of the page), I was shown my page as it was up until February 5, and the page showed me as being logged out (with no special links on the top right of the page). When I refreshed, it updated and showed me as being logged in. Sometimes I am logged out without any reason--I log in, navigate to a page or make an edit, and suddenly I am logged out and must log back in. This has only occurred in the past few days. --Velyanthe 21:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I have the logging out issue as well, although it only happened once, yesterday. However, just in the past few minutes, the website has only loaded blank pages. Viewing the source of the page reveals that there is no data loaded; however, I can still ping the website. I just tried it on someone else's laptop and they had the same problem, so I know it's not just me. Is anybody else having this problem? Jak Atackka 02:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I assume that's this fixed problem, I had the same thing happen. --Velyanthe 02:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

If the issue of being logged out only happened about 24 hours ago, then it would be this. I can't explain the odd caching or whatever it is though. – Robin Hood↝talk 02:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not being logged out anymore after extended inaction. I wouldn't say that's a problem, though; the site logging me out too quickly is one of my pet peeves. I wouldn't mind if this "odd" behavior became the norm. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 03:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm randomly logged out on every other page, it seems. Hitting 'Random Page' after logging me in took me through a cycle of randomly being logged in or out. Rather confusing, and annoying as I can't seem to ever log into the pages where I'm logged out once I arrive there (though if I try to edit I stop getting a cached version of the page and it shows me as logged in). --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 03:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Aaack! Where did my custom signature go? Jak Atackka 03:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

(←) As a temporary solution to editors still not getting an updated history/randomly getting logged out, you can try using content1 (instead of going to www.uesp.net, go to content1.uesp.net). That fixes all of the problems I've been suffering, at least. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 03:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

It appears that I also lost my email contact. ?• JA^Talk 04:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No problems yet for me personally; I guess the site recognizes how awesome I am. But I did notice that the number of Wanted Pages has been fluctuating for reasons I can't figure out. When I first loaded it up today a half-hour or so ago, it listed 237. Then that shot up to 263, and then back down to 254. Also of note is that I can't solve the last red link for Lore:Unnamed Book (that page was deleted, as it was subsequently named Three Thieves in Skyrim). It's extremely, well, pertinent to this topic. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 05:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The number of Wanted Pages can fluctuate as the wiki processes the job queue. When the job queue is very low (less than 20 or so for us), the wiki is basically all caught up and is only dealing with current edits. When the job queue is higher than that, it's busy going through a back log, so things like category members and wanted pages may be out of date or in flux. Large backlogs can be created by a number of things, the most common of which is probably updating templates that are used on a large number of pages.

As for Lore:Unnamed Book, that's a frequent problem caused by one page transcluding another. The subpage gets fixed and marked appropriately, but sometimes the parent page doesn't. Just do a null edit (edit the page, then save it without making any changes) and "What Links Here", categories, and so on will all be updated. – Robin Hood↝talk 05:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I tried a null edit; it didn't seem to work at the time, but now I can't find Unnamed Book on the list, so I guess the site finally caught up. Thanks! Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 05:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Which page did you do the null edit on? The...what was it...AN/Archive 18 page, I think? It should have worked...that's all I did to get rid of it. *shrugs* – Robin Hood↝talk 06:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 06:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The forums went a bit wacky yesterday, returning tons of "Failed To Remove Files from /cashe." Errors yesterday when people tried to post, along with the Google link to the wiki leading to a completely empty page at the url "www.uesp.net", which is normally the wiki page. I even checked the page source of it while it was like that, and it was completely blank.--I a m g o o f b a l l--Need Something? Drop by on my Talk Page. What I've done for this site. 06:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

(←) Just to recap changes made to the server lately that we know caused temporary problems:

• Two days ago, I made two separate changes (necessary to fix problems with the new Skyrim map) that caused everybody to be logged out of the wiki. Those changes were one-time changes, and are not indicative of some type of recurring problem that requires any further followup
• Yesterday, Daveh made some permission changes on the server at my request that had widespread unintended side effects. Such as all wiki pages being blank, empty pages. Such as the forum errors mentioned by Iamgoofball. The most obvious problems were fixed within 30 minutes; a few other ones might have taken a bit longer to be caught. Also, my experience was that I had to do a hard refresh in my browser to force my browser to clear out some of the error pages -- so problems that lasted for more than half an hour may don't necessarily mean that the server was still have problems. At this point, as far as we know, all of those problems were fixed. And again, those were one-time changes.

There have also been some ongoing, recurring problems, caused by trying to replicate our database so that the database workload can be shared by multiple servers. The database issues cause the types of problems first being discussed in this thread: recent changes page being an hour or two out of date, etc. I don't know the exact status of where the database issues stand right now, but as far as I know the root cause of those problems has not yet been identified.

Issues related to the job queue, special pages not having the latest information about transcluded pages, etc. are not unusual behaviour. It's the way the wiki has always worked and probably always will work.

In general if you notice something suddenly acting differently, check the UESPWiki:Upgrade History page. If Daveh or I has just posted something to the effect of "made a change; change caused a problem; problem fixed", that means we know there was a problem and we've already tried to take care of it. In that case, telling us that there used to be a problem but that it's gone away probably isn't too helpful. We'd rather know about problems that are still happening right now and that therefore require some type of action. --Nephele^Talk 07:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Just today I have been continuously getting "logged out". I am mainly seeing old version of pages that show I am logged out (even while trying to edit), but doing a hard refresh clears it up. It's happened well over twenty times now, but I never have to re-login, if that makes sense. elliot (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, just ran into a bunch of blank pages. That's the third time today that I've only gotten white pages for about a minute. Any idea why this has been happening so much lately? ?• JA^Talk 05:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there any chance these problems are specifically on pages that you last loaded during the site problems on Feb. 25th? Because I found that I had to hard-refresh any pages that I accessed during that time period -- that my browser was caching the blank copies of the page even after the site itself had been fixed. I haven't seen any strangeness myself since Feb. 25th. --Nephele^Talk 17:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, no, these were completely new manifestations. I ran into them while I was patrolling pages that I haven't visited in the past week/ever. Also, any idea why my signature and email contact were deleted? It only seemed to affect me. ?• JA^Talk 18:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Then maybe pages where the squid server cached a bad version of the page? Which pages have you had problems on, and what did you have to do to fix the problem?

As for your signature and email, I don't know. That is information stored in the database, and none of the server configuration tweaks should have had any effect on the database contents. The problems with database replication could have caused you to read out-of-date information (out-of-date meaning hours out of date, not months out of date). Had you recently changed your user preferences? Or is there anything else you did around that time that might have been out of the ordinary? --Nephele^Talk 19:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah the logged out, and not showing any new posts, my posts, or up to date user page issues are exactly the problems I'm having, I actually emailed Nephele about them since I hadn't seen this post. I've been having this issue for maybe a week now. Hard Refreshing works but I have to continuously do it to do any editing. Lord Eydvar 20:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

To add on to my information (I have tried deleting cookies, etc.), the out-of-date pages seem to be random. Yesterday when opening six or so lore pages within the same minute, about a third of them showed up about 3-5 days out of date. Same thing happened with the ones I looked at one at a time. I've never seen most of those pages, and haven't changed user preferences for a while. However, it seemed that they were consistently days out of date rather than hours, if there had been an edit days before. --Velyanthe 21:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've finally been able to reproduce some problems. Specifically, hitting "random page" repeatedly, I'm shown a "logged out" version of the page maybe one time in five. Hitting refresh on the page, I get the correct logged-in version of the page.

Except I'm only seeing the problems on one browser so far, namely in Safari (Mac Lion, Safari 5.1.3) -- although in that case I'm getting the same problems doing tests both as Nephele and NepheleBot. On the other hand, in Firefox, it never happens. I've clicked Random Page at least 40 times now in Firefox, and every single time it's been the logged-in version of the page; Firefox is also the browser I use by default for editing, so it's what I've been using without problems for the last five days. But I also don't see any problems in Safari on my iPad or iPhone, so it's not just a Safari problem.

Nevertheless, now that I can see something I'll keep experimenting to see whether I can better diagnose when it's happening and why. Although, the fact that it's only happening in Safari makes it much more difficult, because I don't have any of my usual browser tools. Anyone know of Mac/Safari tools that let you see individual cookies? Or see what headers have been sent/received? --Nephele^Talk 22:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think I've narrowed down the problem, and unfortunately I've narrowed it down to the realm of only-Daveh-can-fix. As best as I can tell so far, squid1 is the source of the problems (squid1 being the server that used to be the primary site server; since November, squid2 has been acting as "www", the main site server). As soon as I try to access a page using squid1.uesp.net as the URL, I'm logged out (well, at least from Safari... Firefox is still happy; still haven't figured out what's different between browsers). Which makes me think that what's happening is that doing a normal web request sent to www.uesp.net, some 20% of the time that request is being forwarded to squid1, and squid1 is returning a not-logged-in version of the page.

I'm not sure why/when requests would go through squid1 instead of a content server. And I don't know what squid1 is doing with those requests -- is it generating its own version of the page (if so, it's using a bunch of out-of-date server settings)? Or what seems more likely is that it's returning an old cached version of the page -- I doubt that squid1 is being told when a page is out-of-date (when a page is edited/purged on content1/2 they send a message to squid2 telling squid2 that its cached page is invalid, but I don't think squid1 is any of those messages any more).

Definitely somewhere in the system out-of-date copies of page are being stored and treated as if they're current. On one page that I was looking at, the server sent me a version of the page with a parser cache timestamp from January -- even though the actual parser cache version of that file has a timestamp from this morning. Which means the bad version of the file is coming from somewhere other than content1/2/3. --Nephele^Talk 23:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Using squid1 in Chrome, it initially tells me I'm not logged in whenever I navigate to a page, but refreshing the page fixes that as has been working, still with the squid1 url. Checking random pages with squid2, I also seem to get the "logged out" problem. Using content1/2, the problem is not there. --Velyanthe 00:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Not that this is of any great technical help however, I'm using the current version of Firefox and am experiencing pages seeing me as logged out even after just logging in on that page until refresh. Additionally, just selecting random links on a page will cause me to occasionally becoming seemingly logged out until refresh. One other issue thing that I've noticed is that I did not have to log in this morning as I usually do as for some reason it retained my logged-in state. This issue seems to be much more prevalent when accessing the site from my android 4.0.3 tablet. I've no idea why you'd not be seeing the same behavior with Firefox on your system. Thuraya Salaris 00:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Velyanthe: is it happening for you every time on squid2, or just a fraction of the time? squid2 is the same as www, so you should get the same behaviour using either URL. Squid2 is then supposed to semi-randomly decide whether to ask content1 or content2 to generate the page. I suspect, though, that it's actually choosing between content1, content2, and squid1 -- meaning that some fraction of the time it's returning a logged-out/out-of-date version of the page generated by squid1. --Nephele^Talk 00:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

(←) I think I've discovered why firefox was working differently for me than Safari -- firefox was still storing some old cookies (cookies with 'my_wiki' in the name) that were being recognized by squid1. I've now cleared out all my cookies on firefox, and I'm getting the same bugginess using Random Pages in firefox. So the advice I'd previously given about clearing cookies probably made the situation worse for anyone who followed that advice ;) --Nephele^Talk 00:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit Break

(←) Just to add to the weirdness, where Velyanthe's experiencing this on Chrome, I'm on Chrome as well (PC version) and not experiencing any issues at all on any server, content or squid. – Robin Hood↝talk 00:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Squid1 shows me logged out until I refresh the page, squid2 does that only sometimes, the same as the regular www site works for me. Content1 and content2 work without issues. Thuraya's comment reminds me--lately, I have not been automatically signed out of the wiki after being idle for an hour, which was regular behavior up until this week. --Velyanthe 00:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

RobinHood: is your browser storing 'my_wiki' cookies? If so, that's why you're not having problems. I'd recommend not deleting them unless you want to join the legions of the cursed ;) --Nephele^Talk 00:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was. When I got rid of those, Squid1 stopped showing me random pages at all even though I was logged in (same as logged out behaviour—going to a random page then never randomizing again after that). Squid2 worked as expected, but just like you thought, it occasionally gives me a logged out page (even with Squid1 offline right now). – Robin Hood↝talk 01:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't found much to confirm anything but here is a bunch of history and other information to perhaps help figure this out:

• The original switch to squid2 back in November was to fix the "overloaded" router from the traffic increase due to Skyrim's release. That issue has been fixed and with the lesser traffic we're getting now we could switch back to squid1 at any time if needed. The only reason I've not switched yet is that I've been trying to fix other issues and didn't want to complicate matters.
• Just before Christmas I finally figured out how to apply the "X-Vary-Options" patch to Squid that prevents third party cookies (like Google Analytics) from spoiling the Squid cache (it involved a lot of additional changes to actually work). This was tested and it appeared to work and after enabling it on squid2/1 the cache hit rate improved as it should. I think the custom patch itself is fine but it may help explain the issues being seen.
• www is currently being served entirely off of squid2. I have played with getting squid1 in the past to act as a sibling cache but couldn't get it to work and it *should* be disabled (the lines are commented out in the squid2 config). It is possible that this required Squid to be stopped/started instead of just "reloaded". I'll try this later tonight or tomorrow morning as it basically requires the site to be taken offline for a few minutes or however long it takes Squid to stop and start.
• The Squid patch basically looks for specific types of cookies as specified in the X-Vary-Options http header and ignores all other cookies. If any of these cookies are found it results in the Squid cache being skipped and the request passed onto content1/2. The short story is that an anonymous or logged out user should get the fast Squid cached version and all logged in users get the slower dynamically loaded page. The catch is that at the moment there appears to be a mix of "my_wiki" and "uesp_wiki" cookie names along with a mix of X-Vary-Options from squid1 and 2. This results in cached pages being returned when they aren't supposed to and vice-versa.
• While squid1 hasn't been used in a few months it still should have been updated with PURGE requests from content1/2. This is confirmed by the squid1 log but it is possible that some of the time that the squid1 was off during the patch development resulted in some stale entries.

I *think* (double underline that word) that if we "clear" the squid1 cache (delete and recreate the cache directory) and restart squid2 it should at least reduce some of the wonky behavior. If it doesn't completely solve things it should at least make it more obvious where the ultimate issue is. I'll be clearing squid1 now since it is not being used (at least not on purpose and not a lot) and llook at restarting squid2 sometime later in the morning. -- Daveh 01:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

squid1's cache has been cleared and restarted and using "random page" on it doesn't appear to result in randomly logged out pages any more. Squid2, however, still has a few "logged out" pages which are due to the page having "my_wiki...." in its X-Vary-Options header instead of "uesp_net_wiki...". The only real way to eliminate these would be to delete and recreate the cache on squid2. The easiest method, however, would be to switch the DNS for www back to squid1 and in a few days restart squid2 when it has no traffic (no possible downtime makes me happy). From there we can see if any other issues still exist. -- Daveh 01:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Squid1 works perfectly for me, I didn't know about that before reading this but tried loading the pages that weren't working using Squid1.Uesp.net and all of them loaded the current up to date version perfectly. Lord Eydvar 04:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, all of that still leaves unanswered the question of why anonymous users are being shown out-of-date versions of pages. I'd been hoping that squid1 could provide a nice neat explanation of all the various problems, but if it's been kept up-to-date all along, then it's not the source of out-of-date pages -- and I don't think outages last December can explain the anon problems, because the pages are a couple days out of date, definitely not months out of date. Unfortunately, I can't give examples because the two cases I found earlier today and was using for experiments are now both showing up-to-date versions.

One minor discrepancy that I've noticed is in the wiki's squid settings on content3, which has squid turned off. I know that standard wiki requests aren't being handled by content3, but nevertheless there's nothing preventing editors from making edits there, and as it stands, the squids won't be told about any edits made on content3, which would cause out-of-date content. I doubt it's responsible for any significant fraction of our anon problems, though.

Although I should mention that one minor improvement, for whatever unknown reason, is that the non-random random page issue mentioned by Robin Hood seems to have miraculously fixed itself. Using www.uesp.net, squid1.uesp.net, or squid2.uesp.net, I'm getting new random pages every time I hit Random Page, even when I'm not logged in. Whereas earlier today squid1 was permanently stuck on a single random page. So maybe kicking squid1 caused some settings a few extra settings to be fixed. --Nephele^Talk 05:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of being accused of throwing your own advice back at you :), try deleting your cookies, Neph. The non-random random page issue recurs once they're gone. – Robin Hood↝talk 06:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I know I'm a little late to this conversation since I've been off the site for a couple days, but these issues were happening to me earlier in the week as well, and are apparently continuing to happen. I got on here maybe 90minutes ago, and just now edited the Bugs section of the Battle for Whiterun page. After finishing my edit, it took me to the section I just edited, as normal. I generally proofread my own edits by looking at the revision history directly after making an edit, and when I did so a few minutes ago, the revision history page loaded an old version (days old) with me logged out. The hard-refresh fix worked, just like before when the issue happened. So whatever's going on, I guess it's still happening. Alphabetface 06:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

(←) Yeah the issue is still there on WWW.UESP.NET Alphabetface To get it to stop at the moment you need to run the site through SQUID1.UESP.NET As for Neph's post I'm not getting the problem at all as long as I run Squid1.Uesp instead of www.uesp so Robin Hood might be right. Lord Eydvar 06:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, yep, still getting non-random random pages once I clear my cookies as well as my cache (and my last advice was to not delete your cookies, Robin Hood ;) ). And for what it's worth, an example of a cached, out-of-date page -- that I'm not sure should even be cached in the first place -- is a search for quicksilver. I'm getting a cached version from before Feb. 18th -- not only does it claim that SR:Quicksilver doesn't exist, the text shown for several of the redirects is out of date. --Nephele^Talk 06:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks LE, I kind of only skimmed the discussion after the squid talk started, so not only was I late to the conversation, but my input was irrelevant. :) Oops! Oh well, thanks for pointing that out for me :) Alphabetface 07:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit Break 2

(←) Weird Nephele, I clicked the link and got the up to date Quicksilver search, You're running Squid1 right? I didn't get it to load right until logging out, clearing all my internet data (cookies, cache, offline temps, etc) and the going straight to Squid1.Uesp.Net and logging in. Since then no problem at all. Lord Eydvar 07:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm going through www.uesp.net. squid1 is only a temporary solution really -- everything there has to be up-to-date, because it's entire history was cleared out. Whatever problem is causing out-of-date pages to be incorrectly stored hasn't been addressed at all -- it's still going on on squid2 and presumably will start to take effect on squid1 given a couple of days. Most of us won't notice it any more at that point, because only anon editors see the bad cached pages, but it will still be affecting anon editors and causing complaints about "why did my edit disappear" and "why is the info on the page false". --Nephele^Talk 07:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah okies, yeah if I go back over to www.uesp.net I'm still getting the bad cache problem even when logged in. I can't see anything newer then 5-7days ago. Hard Refreshing still fixes it whereas on Squid1 everything is fine, I'm not having to hard refresh and it's not logging me out whenever I go to view a page I edited recently. Lord Eydvar 07:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Update No new information on the issue but at the moment 99% of the site is being handling by squid1 which was reset before being put into service. Any remaining issues (which I haven't started looking at yet) should not be due to old/stale caches on squid1 or old cookies on squid1. -- Daveh 15:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not sure if this has always been the case, but when I uploaded a new, square version of this image, it showed the old image's content with the new image's size. I thought I uploaded the wrong file, which is why it looks like I uploaded the same exact image twice. A hard refresh fixed this. Is this a site glitch or is it an issue with my browser's caching? ?• JA^Talk 09:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

That's been going on for awhile now, and it's not really a huge problem. But like you said, the hard refresh fixes it. But I have not been getting logged out recently. I can't think of an instance in the past few days. elliot (talk) 09:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I have had my caching and logout issues fixed, but that issue has come up for a few images for me (though that's both recently and a while ago). For me, refreshing the page does nothing to fix the image, and opening the image in a new tab only opens the old image. The thumbnail for the new image in the file history shows correctly on the file page. --Velyanthe 15:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Another spammer

User:BrettbCamp seems to be an advertising page for a rather unusual site. ThuumofReason 20:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Nephele took care of this about an hour ago. Thanks for the report. – Robin Hood↝talk 21:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Reminder

Just a reminder to all Patrollers and Admins that it's now March 1 and the patrolling guidelines for Skyrim space revert to normal, meaning that questionable info should be verified, language should be cleaned up, etc. I think most of us were doing this pretty much anyway, but now we have to actually follow the rules. :)

Also, whenever Daveh or Nephele has time, the rights of the various temporary Admins should be looked at to remove Admin rights from those who haven't run (DKong27 and SerCenKing) and double-check the rights of those that have completed RfAs (Alpha Kenny Buddy, Dwarfmp, Legoless)...in particular whether they should have CheckUser and Oversight rights. (Note that informal consensus seems to be that Oversight should remain with senior Admins only.) – Robin Hood↝talk 00:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the overlap here, AKB...hadn't caught up on Dave's page when I posted this earlier. – Robin Hood↝talk 04:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, does this mean all patrollers are expected to properly format talk pages comments before marking them patrolled? Also, does this now mean we're to treat talk page comments to a higher standard of relevancy and revert more often for forum-like commentary? Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 23:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. It generally means a 'return' to our standards from before 111111. Basically, if you can't confirm/test an edit, leave it unpatrolled for other patrollers to check. What a splendid feeling, yes? :) --Krusty 23:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Splendid? Maybe for you PC folks, but I'm a console cave man. Formatting talk pages isn't much of a problem, but fact-checking substantive contributions to the gamespaces is not exactly my forte. Any given edit which would take you mere minutes to verify could take me upwards of a half-hour. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 23:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It's all about 'area of expertise' - I'm on PS3 myself (never even seen an ES game on a PC), so basically you patrol the type of edits you know something about. In-game checking is as important as game files and CK stuff, as we have a few thousand instances where the game behaves differently than what it was supposed to - so we can be good too! --Krusty 23:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Not all comments on talk pages need to be verified, either. If someone asks a question and another user comes up with what seems like a reasonable response to it, you can mark it patrolled without verifying it personally (unless you feel like it). What we want to avoid are marking questions as patrolled but leaving them entirely unanswered, especially if they would directly affect the content of the page. Same thing goes for the content pages themselves—grammar/spelling edits can be patrolled as long as they're alright, while content changes should be confirmed. If it would take you an inordinate amount of time to confirm it yourself, leave it for someone with the CK, but if it's something you can confirm readily by popping into the game quickly, that'll probably take you slightly less time than a PC player, since you don't have to swap in and out, etc. Finally, if something's about to slip off the end of the patrol queue, {{VN}} and {{Good Question}} are there to make sure we can come back to them for verification at a later time.

Also, if anybody wants a refresher course (or you haven't yet read it for the newbies), take a look at Patrolling Guidelines. – Robin Hood↝talk 00:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

(←) Slightly off-topic, I expect we'll need more Patrollers as a result of the change, and I'll probably go on another Patroller recruiting drive shortly, but I'm waiting for a week or two to see how things go. Still, I don't think we can ever have "too many" Patrollers, so anybody who wants to nominate themselves or be nominated should feel free. If not, I'll hunt you down in a couple of weeks. ;) – Robin Hood↝talk 00:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

74.119.208.219

(Yet another) Spammer. –SkoomaManiac 15:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Krusty 15:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

And another. Kitkat ^{•Talk•Contrib•E-mail} 17:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

And done! --Krusty 17:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Archive Request

Hey, I saw on the Archiving Guideline page that a request can be made here to have a talk page archived if we don't feel comfortable doing it ourselves. So, here's my request. Can someone archive this talk page please? Thanks. —Alphabetface 17:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Done, also - anyone can create an archive. You just need an admin to protect it for you, an admin will normally see it in the Recent Changes however. --kiz ^talk_email 19:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

If you have any questions about the actual process, feel free to ask. Archiving is another one of those things like Unsigned that's easy to do once you know how and it's nice to have more users around who know how to take care of maintenance tasks like these. – Robin Hood↝talk 00:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Kiz, thanks for getting that. I knew I could have done it myself, but I was a little intimidated by the size of the page and didn't want to mess it up. And I know someone would have fixed anything I messed up later, but I'd prefer my first attempt at archiving be a less daunting one. I didn't even know archives had a protected status, and that's good to know, so thanks for that info. I appreciate it.

RH, thanks for (once again) being such a friendly and encouraging editor here. I find myself constantly wanting to ask you specifically for any questions I have. I'll probably ask you about this if I need to whenever I do get around to attempting this anywhere. Alphabetface 06:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Another archive request

Can we add a new archive to the Skyrim Easter Eggs page? It's been over a month since the last one and the page is starting to get pretty lengthy. I'm not particularly comfortable doing it myself, either, so I figured I'd ask here. ThuumofReason 18:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Done, awaiting semi protection from an Admin. --kiz ^talk_email 19:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Aaaand done ;). –Eshe^talk 19:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

heh, sorry about all that, too many people in there at one time, haha ABCface^◥ 19:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Saving headers. Can someone archive Blood on the Ice. I cant grasp how to do it. The Silencer 07:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. I was going to tackle it when I was archiving last week, but just looking at it gave me a headache. Let's see if I can get it done now that I've got some coffee in my system. –Eshe^talk 13:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Done! –Eshe^talk 14:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protect

Will some kind Admin please semi-protect the Skyrim Glitches Archives here, here, and here? —SkoomaManiac 01:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Legoless 01:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Legoless. –SkoomaManiac 01:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

(←) Forgive me for being rusty, but I have a question since I'm doing some archiving right now: should I go ahead and semi-protect the archive pages right away, or do we tend to wait until someone has tried to change them? Also, are archives supposed to receive move protection as well? In the protection policy, I can only find where it says they should be semi-protected. Thanks! –Eshe^talk 15:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

They should be protected right away. Here is the discussion. I don't see anything about move protection. --Legoless 15:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

They should be protected after creation, the point of the archive protection policy was to stop all non-maintenance related edits altogether. As for move protection, we've been giving them move protection from the start. Though I wish to point out this is pointless as you need to be autoconfirmed to move pages anyway. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 15:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay cool, thanks guys! I figured it made the most sense to protect them right away, but I wanted to avoid clogging up the RC in case that's not what you guys were normally doing. I agree that move protection seems kind of unnecessary...and since it's not in the policy, I guess I'm going to skip that for now. Thanks again! –Eshe^talk 15:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Bugs fixed by Official Patches - delete?

I've seen bugs being removed from Skyrim articles that are fixed by Official Patches. Is this the right thing to do, or are they supposed to stay on the article with a note added stating they're fixed by a certain patch? I thought the second option made more sense, but considering they're being deleted because Official Patches are forced upon players, which means they would be impossible to recreate again, I can understand why they're deleted. Has there been discussion on this that I've missed? ~ Dwarfmp 19:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering about that myself, and had pretty much the same train of thought. I don't know of any discussion on the subject, but ultimately I think if people have no choice about running the patches, it's probably safe to remove them (since they effectively won't exist anymore for anybody). –Eshe^talk 19:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I think a note should be added noting the patch number of the fixing, I think they still need to be noted. --kiz ^talk_email 19:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it’s too early to remove them. Bug fixes sometimes cause strange occurrences and even new bugs, so for now let’s just stick to the usual bug fix template. Also, I’ll encourage all editors to actually test the fixes in-game before adding the tag – and patrollers to do the same when the tag is added. That’s the hard way, but better safe than sorry. --Krusty 21:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Can I suggest that we keep them for the time being, but as a low-priority task, perhaps when you're doing other edits to the page/section, move the fixed ones to the bottom of the Bugs list so that the unfixed ones stand out more. – Robin Hood↝talk 21:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think they should ever be deleted. My brother has a PS3 that isn't internet connected and if the bugs are removed he'd just go barging in on a quest like blood on the ice and possibly break his game. A note that the bug is fixed by patch(the latest one) is all that should be amended. And we should wait for the patch to be released so they can be verified. The Silencer 00:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

(←) I hadn't considered consoles can bypass the patches by simply not having an internet connection. I definitely think they should be kept now ~ Dwarfmp 01:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't think of that either. Good point! We should keep them. –Eshe^talk 01:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

You should also be aware that Steam can work in offline mode, after initial activation of the game you never have to log in as long as your steam credentials remain valid. We should really not just remove bugs due to them being patched by later versions, that's almost as insane as removing bugs because an unofficial patch fixes them. The patches aren't really mandatory, there will be people without them. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 01:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

More spam

User talk:QojotaWirafi —SkoomaManiac ^{Talk ♫ Contribs} 10:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Done! –Eshe^talk 11:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Kicking/Banning of Dwarfmp and Elliot

I feel it's appropriate at this point to request a formal explanation from Krusty as to why Dwarfmp was either kicked or banned from the #UESPWiki channel, and now Elliot as well. I asked in IRC, and quite frankly, the answer I got was astounding. While things got a little adversarial, Elliot's behaviour wasn't deserving of banning by any stretch. This is not the sort of behaviour I expect from an Administrator, either on the wiki or in IRC, and I think an explanation and/or apology are in order. – Robin Hood↝talk 04:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Why would both Dwarfmp and Elliot be banned from the #UESPWiki channel? As far as I'm aware they both have done nothing wrong, and plus because you mention Krusty's name, his comment above about the discussion about a new user-group was totally uncalled for. I'm not up to date with any disputes that may go on around here, but I did hear that awhile back that Krusty did get banned for inappropriate admin behaviour before - or something like that. Definitely abusing the use of power here, maybe you should consider that Krusty is not fit to be an administrator still if he cannot provide a reasonable explanation and apology for this? Helenaannevalentine 04:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

According to the policy, IRC logs can't be quoted, but let me say that to me, it seems like Krusty kicked Dwarfmp just for the hell of it, and he kicked Elliot simply because he asked if Krusty was done acting like a child. Elliot did not violate any policy. He was banned for absolutely no reason at all, so I had to go in and unban him. I held (keyword: HELD, past tense) a lot of respect for Krusty, but since he seems to want to go down this road, I don't know anymore what to think about him anymore. I apologize for rambling, but I just wanted to back up RH70 here. ES^{Question?•Email•Contribs} 05:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Well certainly since two other people on the Wiki certainly disagree to this illegitimate banning of Dwarfmp and Elliot (both of you seemed to have said that it was for no good reason, 'just for the hell of it'), and because both of them didn't break any policies or rules, I recommend honestly that Krusty receives a final warning. If he continues, then I hate to say it, but he needs to be banned himself, or at least stripped of his Administrator rights. Helenaannevalentine 05:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Questioning an administrator's actions is hardly grounds for getting kicked, let alone banned. Calling other users idiots, saying bad things about the community, and other similar actions are reprehensible for any user, let alone an administrator. Taking into account Krusty's prior actions, his recent comments, and his actions in the IRC, I call for Krusty's permanent removal of administrator privileges on both the wiki and IRC. Apparently his status has poisoned his view of what the goal of the wiki is, and we should not–we cannot–afford to deal with these distractions each time an administrator doesn't get their way or feels threatened. elliot (talk) 05:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Well since basically there is no acception to any form of behaviour like you just mentioned Elliot, and plus there is a form of consensus on the idea that his actions are irresponsible to his position as Administrator on the UESPWiki, his rights should be stripped of his priveleges. It's quite sad seeing something like this happen when we all share a common goal - to help make the UESPWiki a better wiki, but clearly he has indeed lost sight of that common goal. Plus I personally cannot stand for any form of abusing power, this is a clear example of this, and I indeed apologize on Krusty's behalf - even if he won't Helenaannevalentine 05:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The banning seems indefensible; even so, let's keep it in perspective. An abuse of discretion isn't the end of the world. Lynch mobs are always fun, but I'd at least like to hear what Krusty has to say before anyone's head ends up in a noose.

In regards to the name-calling: not appropriate. But I value honesty more than propriety. Krusty should try harder to maintain the amicable demeanor he has during 99% of his time here, but let's not overreact over the occasional slip-up. I'm just saying, we've been a little too quick in the past to throw away good people; let's not keep repeating that mistake. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 05:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

(←) Minor Edits is right. We need to keep this in perspective. Krusty normally has a spotless record, and as everyone always says, people have their bad days. I think we should have the explanation/apology that Robin Hood suggested, and maybe give him a warning. We already had a long debate and edit war over an admin last month. I, for one, am not in the mood for such a long, tiring, useless debate/ edit war again. So, let's keep it at an apology from Krusty, and a warning perhaps. ES^{Question?•Email•Contribs} 05:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Krusty does not have a spotless record. And I feel the need to remind everyone that personal attacks are grounds for an immediate block. Why do people think policies don't apply to administrators? elliot (talk) 05:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I admit, people do deserve chances, and I believe in all fairness that Krusty should be given a final warning with the exception that that kind of behaviour is not tolerable here on the Wiki. I agree, we need to hear from Krusty with at least and apology / explanation so we can therefore move on from this argument over such a thing in the hopes that this never has to be brought up again.. And in all fairness, Elliot, you do have a slight biased opinion because you were directly banned (not of your own fault however). At least give him a final chance with warnings - even if his record isn't 'squeaky clean' Helenaannevalentine 05:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not that I don't think policies apply, elliot, merely that they should be applied prudently and proportionally. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 06:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Forgive me if I missed a line, but I see only one rights removal, and that was Daveh last month. And, perhaps I worded what I said above wrong, I did not mean his record was spotless, I meant it is normally clean, and he just had a bad day. To the point of my message, I was there as you know, and I saw his attitude, but I am forgiving to a fault, and since he is normally a great guy, I feel a warning in this instance could work, whereas with rpeh, he had a long history of mistakes and inappropriate actions, and he was out of chances.

And, you're absolutely right. Personal attacks are grounds for an immediate block. However, and this is just my interpretation of the wording of it, "grounds for" to me suggests that you CAN justify the immediate block, but that is not necessarily always the right course of action on a case by case basis. That is my thoughts on the issue, and my rewording to clarify my above statement. ES^{Question?•Email•Contribs} 06:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I never said he should be blocked. If the community wishes to ignore his actions, then there is nothing that I can do. Perhaps removing his rights for a set period of time would help. This will get him away from the stresses of being an admin and might promote better behavior. Frankly, I don't care what is done, as long as it isn't ignored. elliot (talk) 06:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

You did call for the permanent revocation of his adminship earlier, which I view as the most severe punishment possible in this scenario. Seems like it would be a punch in the face when a slap on the wrist would suffice, you know? But I do agree that ignoring it is not an option. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 07:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

(←) There's really no reason at all for this to continue until Krusty has had a chance to explain himself on record (ie: here, unless he gives permission for logs to be posted). I agree that from what has been said the bans seem harsh, but all I hear is speculation--and, frankly, overreaction--because most of us, including me, weren't there to see it. I see no reason to call for such punishments before he even has a chance to explain himself, let alone apologize if necessary. –Eshe^talk 11:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

In issues like this, I tend to side with Krusty, and I know him quite well from IRC - therefore, I can honestly say that this behaviour sounds totally out of character for him. However, recently I've also gotten to know Dwarfmp, and his behaviour (that I've seen) isn't the kind that would warrant a kicking, let alone a block - therefore, to enforce both of these seems strange to say the least. But Krusty has never abused his founder status in the IRC channel until now - so can we please get the entire story before we start talking about removing administrator rights?? Kitkat ^{•Talk•Contrib•E-mail} 11:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Basically, he called me an idiot when I said I didn't care about the usergroup, and then banned me. I don't care about whatever caused this behaviour, this is unacceptable. I'm insulted, and hearing about Elliot being banned too, it's a disgrace ~ Dwarfmp 14:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we should: 1. Hear what Krusty has to say 2. give him a final warning 3. recognize that everyone slips up. Look at me, it took a personal request from RH to get me to cool my jets about the Easter Eggs page. Everyone has something that they're passionate about, and the important thing is that they learn their lessons and learn to moderate their own tones. That being said, I have a lot of respect for Krusy, and I agree that we should let Krusty chime in before carrying this any further. ThuumofReason 15:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't have much to say, except - lets give back these two brilliant editors the status they used to have, Sometimes, people get annoyed on IRC too, which is only human. --Krusty 15:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Is that okay with everyone? ThuumofReason 16:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I can accept that sometimes people just get frustrated and act rashly, and I don't think this needs to be a big thing. It's just that you're not in a position where you really can act rashly (especially in IRC, where you technically outrank everyone), at least not without potentially causing a hullabaloo. The banhammer is not a toy, yeah? I'm going to guess that Dwarfmp and Elliot in particular would probably like an apology, but other than that, I think the rest of us would just to see that our channel founder will try to keep his cool in the future. eshe^talk 16:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

True. I believe an apology is in order to them. But as an editor I respect a great deal, I believe you deserve another chance. Manic 16:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

(←) (edit conflict) Then I apologize like hell to these two brilliant editors! That's the least I can do. They're both very helpful on the IRC and never badmouths anybody - I don't know what I was thinking. I repeat, I d'nt know what I was thinking. --Krusty 16:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

And just to address the point about unbanning, both editors were unbanned by other users shortly after my post, so no further action is necessary there. – Robin Hood↝talk 16:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I accept the apology, Krusty. However, I am not convinced IRC leadership shouldn't change. We need someone who will remain level-headed. elliot (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Prev: Archive 23

Up: Administrator Noticeboard

Next: Archive 25