Semi Protection

UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard/Archive 16

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


In regards to this discussion and the update to it, I'm not sure if any agreement was ever established on what admission requirements would be for the new group. In the absence of a formal policy, I'm just going to ask for that right for myself and let others fend for themselves. :) That brings back up the question of how to do it, keeping in mind that whatever is done for me will probably set a precedent:

  1. Do I just ask and if one (or maybe all) admins agree, I get the rights?
  2. Do we want a formal Request for Block Permissions discussion, the same as we would for Patroller or Administrator?
  3. Do we want to hammer out a formal requirements list?
  4. Do we want to have a requirements list and a vote (like Patrollers are now).
  5. Alternatively, if a requirements list is wanted, but we don't want to wait, we can put the cart before the horse and grant permissions by one of the first two methods, then put a requirements list in place at a later date.

Also, semi off-topic, when someone has a chance, I think we can remove Krusty from the Blockers group, as he already has those rights as an Administrator anyway. Robin Hoodtalk 03:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I've created a stub of a page at UESPWiki:Blockuser (with a redirect at UESPWiki:Blockers) and added pertinent info to UESPWiki:Blocking Policy, UESPWiki:Administrators, and UESPWiki:User Group Rights. I've intentionally tried to avoid describing the process, since we haven't decided.
My opinions on the matter are that we don't need a formal requirements list or a vote. I do think, however, that it should be an agreement between at least two admins that an editor is suitable for blockuser rights. It's definitely something we should decide before assigning the rights, though. --GKtalk2me 19:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with GK. I recall that the entire reason to get the role assignable by admins was to allow the rights to be given quickly and easily when required. If an admin knows that he or she will be away for some time and that no other admin is likely to be around, it should be allowable to simply give the right to some user who is on IRC or obviously active on wiki. The idea is to ensure that there's always somebody around who can block as required. When the admin returns - or another becomes active, the rights could be removed if there's no need for them any more, or they could be left in place - I don't think it matters too much.
We definitely don't want a procedural rigmarole over this because it would eliminate the point of the group. rpeh •TCE 14:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
In light of the current bout of vandalism, with no admin currently available, I would like to formally request to be made part of this group on a long-term basis. Following GK's suggestion in the absence of any other formal procedure, can I get an admin to agree, and a seconder to implement, please? Robin Hoodtalk 23:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Ditto. Luckily, it seems as if Nephele was by her computer when I sent out a "please help!" email, but a better suggestion would be to use the facility we now have. rpeh •TCE 23:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm fine with giving Robin Hood blocker permissions. I'm not entirely sure what the proposed process is here, and I'm also not completely sure whether GK was specifically supporting Robin Hood or just generally supporting moving forward. So I haven't actually made any permission changes. However, any admin should be able to grant blocker permissions at this point, assuming someone else wants to second the proposal.
That said, though, I'm a bit concerned about unrealistic expectations here. Unless dozens of people are given blocker rights (which I'm not inclined to think is appropriate), I don't it's realistic to expect every vandal to be blocked within minutes. Even if an admin is active, the admin is likely to be busy with his/her own wiki project and might not check recent changes more than a couple times an hour. And to expect an admin to delegate someone blocker permissions every time he/she steps away from the computer for an hour seems pretty unrealistic -- especially given that breaks are as likely to be unplanned as planned. So if the issue here is that people think it's unacceptable for it to sometimes take an hour before a vandal is blocked, I don't that issue is about to be solved; I'm not even sure it can really be solved.
Also, FWIW, I just happened to check recent changes in the ten spare minutes I had between gardening and taking the apples I'd harvested to the homeless shelter. There's no way I could have or would have blocked the user any sooner or later than I did, because that was the only time I spent near my computer all afternoon. My timing was unrelated to Robin Hood's post or to any emails -- I still haven't even checked my email. I just don't want people to start thinking that they need to take unnecessary measures every time there's an admin action, because, at least in this case, those measures made no difference. --NepheleTalk 01:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Evidently you haven't had time to read discussions referred to at the start of this discussion either. I'll relink the important one so you can refresh your memory.
The fact that in this case merely 15 minutes went by before a user with block rights came to the keyboard is immaterial. There have been previous occasions on which it has been more. There have been occasions where, even if the suggested changes had been in operation, the delay would still have been a long time. None of this alters the fact that if RobinHood's request had been acted upon earlier, the site would have experienced less vandalism this evening.
This discussion has already taken place and unless somebody has useful objections, there's no reason why the actions previously agreed upon by the community can't be enacted. rpeh •TCE 02:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Rpeh, I'd appreciate it if you would stop making blatantly incorrect assumptions about what I have or have not read.
As for the point at hand, I have already acted upon the community's agreed proposals -- namely I made it possible for admins to add/remove people from the blockers group (an action which in and of itself proves my familiarity with the original discussion). Beyond that, I only see agreement with GK's suggestion that two admins should agree that an editor is suitable for blocker rights. I don't see any other statements by admins (even GK) saying that they support Robin Hood being a blocker, making my statement the first of two required admin votes. I'm not going to unilaterally take an action when the community has said that two admins must agree. --NepheleTalk 04:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, Nephele, I'd appreciate it if you could act as if you had read those discussions. Yes I'm glad you acted on my suggestion that the new group should be assignable by Admins. Thank you for that. After that, you appear to have ignored the main thrust of the debate, namely that admins should be able to assign the new group as and when it is required. That was the entire point of giving admins the ability to assign the new group. If you "don't see any other statements by admins", please re-read the discussion to which I linked you, and take greater care over comprehension next time. rpeh •TCE 05:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

() (edit conflict) My take on GK's response was a general support on moving forward, not any kind of endorsement of me. As for the unrealistic expectations, I think the goal here is just to have a higher likelihood of someone being around to stop it when vandalism occurs. It may not be flawless, but it'll certainly improve the vandalism situation. Not that the delay was inordinate by any means, but there were several Patrollers around today who could have stopped the vandalism even sooner had they had Blocker rights. Even if it were only the senior-most Patrollers, there were still two of us (that I noticed) who were active at the time. I agree that blocker permissions being given on-the-fly should not be the norm, but it's certainly good to have the ability should the admins need it. (Atreus comes to mind, for example, as someone who might not need/want long-term Blocker permissions, but whom we would all trust to have them for the short term, if needed.)

In regards to the issue of whether to e-mail an admin or whatever, perhaps it would be a good idea for Admins and long-term Blockers to indicate on the Admin, Blockers, or their user page whether or not users should contact them by other means if vandalism is going on. Robin Hoodtalk 05:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

There were several Patrollers active at the time. Me, S'drassa, RobinHood, and rpeh. I could see why the senior Patrollers would get the rights because there is always a Patroller on and they could handle the tools a little better than per se me. IRC and Email are always good ways to contact a User, but the preference should be listed as a notice. For example; I never check my Email but am always online in IRC.--Corevette789 05:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe in the concept of "senior patroller". I certainly don't consider myself "senior" to any other patroller and I very much doubt RH does either.... except in the purely literal sense of age, and I doubt either of us would rather talk about that!
I still believe the role should be assigned when needed, which is why I asked that it be assignable by admins; something that Nephele, so graciously, granted. At the moment, there seems to be a lack of admins caused by unexpected factors such as pregnancy... although WHY GK couldn't have waited until a more convenient time, I don't know!
The "two admin" suggestion was only a suggestion and never part of any policy. Right now, we probably need at least one other person with block permissions. I don't care who gets given these permissions, but I think we need more coverage.
Since Nephele doesn't trust me (which is fine, because I don't trust her either), give the role to RH and somebody else from the Euro area. All I want is a decent chance of protecting the site around the clock. I don't know why some people think anything else. rpeh •TCE 05:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
"Senior" was my doing, and I only meant it in the sense of those who have the most experience with the site, not as any form of ranking. Robin Hoodtalk 07:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
To get back to what this discussion should be about, I also agree with RH being given block rights, so in light of Neph's endorsement, I've given him the rights. --GKtalk2me 18:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I noticed right away looking at my Watchlist. Thank you! I'll test-block Joram just to find out how it all works, so don't be surprised if you see blocks of—and if I need it, possibly a single "vandalism" edit from—that account. Oh and you'll make a great Mom, GK. :Þ Robin Hoodtalk 19:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Aw, thanks RH! --GKtalk2me 01:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Block Request - User:Elliot

First of all, I am aware that this is quite late but bear in mind I was very busy with exams and was therefore unable to post anything till now. I am asking to once again block Elliot, and this time for a month. Below is an email I received on June 18th from Elliot's uesp email, I'm guessing in response to this comment.

"Do not involve yourself in matters that concern me you little prick.
This e-mail was sent by Elliot to SerCenKing by the "E-mail user" function at UESPWiki."

This is a clear violation of WP:HARASS, but not only that: Elliot had been blocked for exactly this kind of behaviour. It appears as if he has yet again not learnt a lesson from his week long block and I therefore ask for a month-long block in the hope that it will help him understand that this behaviour is unacceptable here at UESP. --SerCenKing Talk 18:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It might not be my place, but I support disciplinary action against Elliot. I'm sorry you were harassed like that SerCenKing Corvus 18:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
His block has expired and he has not returned to the site afterward. Some of you may know I was subject to the same thing earlier, but even so, I am going to remain neutral because he has shown no interest in returning.--Corevette789 18:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Core, yes he has. See here. The email was sent after his block had expired. --SerCenKing Talk 18:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Done. Ideally, I would have preferred to only block Elliot from using the wiki's email features, given that the immediate cause of the block is solely related to email. However, after looking at the wiki code it doesn't seem possible to do an email block without also blocking the user. Furthermore, I didn't think it was worth wasting my time on finding/creating a way to do an email-only block. In particular, there is no evidence that Elliot plans to make constructive wiki contributions (and in fact he has made statements specifically saying the opposite). --NepheleTalk 19:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Neph :) --SerCenKing Talk 22:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if Krusty got my e-mail about this same issue, but since posting the text above isn't a violation of the privacy policy, I received this e-mail from Elliot on June 17:

Are you a fucking baby?

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! He told me to stay off of his page! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH Nephele do something! I am too stupid and incompetent to even comprehend rules! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH He hurt my feelings!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH.

Grow up you fucking idiot. A retaliatory move like this shows your incompetence on a new level. Just leave the site. You are too retarded to contribute positively to it.

Leave before you make a further ass out of yourself you worthless pile.

-- This e-mail was sent by Elliot to TheAlbinoOrc by the "E-mail user" function at UESPWiki.

I'd like to request that if there is any further continuation of this behavior Elliot be blocked permanently. This was presumably received in response to my change of vote and my comment on Nephele's talk page (which I would have clarified and expanded upon but I didn't feel like dealing with it at the time).--TheAlbinoOrc Got_a_question? 23:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

In light of the recent email sent to TheAlbinoOrc I suggest that we extend Elliot's block to something like 6 months, maybe even block him indefinitely. It's behaviour like this that led him to his patroller status being stripped from him and another sad thing is that he appears to be continuing his childish behaviour even after Nephele blocked him not that long ago. So yeah, I suggest we extend Elliot's block by a considerable amount. --ModderElGrandeTalk Contribs 16:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about being late in to the discussion, but I brought this issue up in May, but GK prevented me from taking action. Elliot is clearly unable to handle the responsibility of the wiki's Email function. --Michaeldsuarez (Talk) (Deeds) 15:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that whole thing unfold, sorry your thing was invalidated because of the privacy policy. At least now what people should do is clear though: Try to contact the Admins and then if they don't respond (or they tell you to bring it up on-wiki) do what was done here.--TheAlbinoOrcGot_a_question? 19:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if this is grounds for an extension of the block. But Elliot, has just dismissed me as well as several other editors when he has been warned about doing that already. So if it okay with the wiki admins, I am requesting his block to be extended by another month. --ModderElGrandeTalk Contribs 10:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Elliot has the right to remove content from his talk page if he wants to, although saying "Go away" in the edit summary is definitely not helpful. rpeh •TCE 13:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah it was the "go away" that I was referring to with my comment. --ModderElGrandeTalk Contribs 14:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Question: Has Elliot attempted any kind of apology for this kind of behaviour, and entered some form of undertaking that he will not engage in such behaviour in future? Jadrax 19:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If you've looked at his talk page recently, you'll see that I encouraged him in that direction, but he ignored it. If he has done something along these lines, he hasn't done so publicly. Robin Hoodtalk 21:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
In that case, as the purpose of a block is to prevent abusive behaviour, it would only seem logical to extend the block in cases were the subject shows no understanding of why their behaviour is unacceptable. I would suggest extending the block until at the very least an apology is received. Jadrax 21:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I can see your point- but I know that if I had done nothing further wrong after being blocked, and received an extension of the block simply because I hadn't apologized I'd be ready to tear someone's head off (not literally of course). Besides repeated warnings/blocks have had no effect. Why should an apology?--TheAlbinoOrcGot_a_question? 06:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
He's also just deleted the entire discussion on his talk page claimed it to be "gang warfare." --ModderElGrandeTalk Contribs 15:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
So??? As already pointed out, it's his talk page and he is free to remove content (other than official messages) from his talk page. It's also not exactly surprising that he's upset, so just let him be. There's no point in paying attention to the actions of a blocked user that have no impact on the rest of the site. --NepheleTalk 15:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Possible Block Needed

I think the new user User:Cpl.CumInAHam falls under the inappropriate username category. -- 15:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way that was me who posted the above comment, I just forgot to log in. --ModderElGrandeTalk Contribs 15:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Subdomain Redirecting

It was just brought up in IRC by Magnus that now redirects to This dosen't seem right to me. Is this something that needs to be fixed by Daveh or Nephele?--Corevette789 02:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I made a small change on the server which hopefully fixes things so they work the way Daveh intended. But if I seem to have introduced any new odd behaviours on content1, bring them up. --NepheleTalk 05:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Request Semi-Protection

Please can Oblivion:Must Have Mods‎ be semi-protected?

I'm asking because the last couple of weeks have seen an upsurge in activity on this page and it's difficult to see this in any other light than people pushing either their own mods, or ones that they like. Certainly, none of the additions have been close to "must have". I'm aware that this is a wiki, and I'm also aware of the Etiquette policy, but this is one page where we are giving 3rd party mods the UESP imprimatur, and we should be more careful what is allowed on the page. Restricting edits to "known" accounts at least lets us question the users who add suggestions. rpeh •TCE 21:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

All done. You are right, there have been a load of edits to this page in the last couple of days and it is a nuisance, mostly because people tend to add mods that they created themselves - or, like you said, because they like them. If any other admin's object to this semi-protection, let's discuss it. In the meantime, and until we reach a decision, the page might as well be protected. --Krusty 21:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Krusty. rpeh •TCE 22:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

New namespace

Please can an admin edit this page to add:

Dawnstar ; DS   ; Dawnstar

...thanks to Krusty's latest purchase :) rpeh •TCE 20:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Let me know if I screwed anything up. ;) --GKtalk2me 21:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Well it looks like the Western hemisphere escaped, but I wouldn't want to have been living in the East after that change.... ;) rpeh •TCE 21:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Why didn't it add itself to the sidebar?--TheAlbinoOrcany_questions? 22:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
The sidebar is static, not dynamic. The Powers That Be have deemed the mobile games to be of insufficient importance to add to the sidebar. rpeh •TCE 23:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
That, of course, is a discussion we will have to revisit in the very near future. While I'm not sure we need to list all four mobile games in the sidebar, a simple "ES Travels" link would be appropriate, especially if we end up with good coverage on all four games. --Krusty 23:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Semi-Protection of Oblivion:Mathieu Bellamont

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

I disagree. Protection of any type should be used to prevent repeated vandalism, which has not occurred on this article. It doesn't really make much sense to protect it, since every edit by an IP (at least in the last year) though it may have been reverted was made in good faith. --GKtalk2me 22:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
(e/c) I'm not sure it is a good idea to start semi-protecting every page that gets a lot of traffic. The reason the Mods page was semi-protected recently was that several anons used it to advertise their own mods, and this is not the case here. They more or less acts in good faith and that is fully justified. A much better alternative on a page like this - instead of several reverts within minutes - is to take it easy, take deep breaths for a few hours, maybe send the anon a message - and then revert. --Krusty 22:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Blockers, Take 2

rpeh brought up a point in IRC that I had forgotten about or perhaps initially misunderstood (after 5 months, who knows what I was thinking at the time): in the original proposal, rpeh's intent was that Blocker rights would be granted on a very short-term basis when an Admin left, then revoked when they returned. I saw the first part of his suggestion as being a permanently-granted role, and reading between the lines, I think some others did too. He tried to clarify in the ensuing discussion, but I think it got lost in the large volume of edits that ensued.

I certainly hadn't intended to ask for something that wasn't originally intended by the proposal. If others, like me, understood that this would be a permanent right, then all is well. If it's felt that this should be granted on a short-term basis only, then by all means, I'm happy to relinquish the privilege, except as needed. Since this is really a question of whether Admins want to grant the privilege to somebody every time they leave, I think it's really up to them to decide. Thoughts, admins? Robin Hoodtalk 00:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I understood rpeh's original proposal to be that, in addition to having permanent "blockers", we can grant temporary rights when necessary on a short-term basis. That's a handy additional feature, but I understood the main proposal to be to create a new group of users that have the permanent right.
Rereading the original proposal, it also reminded me of the suggestion of a page where blocks performed by non-admins would be listed immediately upon the block being given, so that there's a central page that admins can reference when investigating such blocks. Should that perhaps be a subpage of this page, or of UESPWiki:Blockuser? --GKtalk2me 01:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I could see it going in either place, but my vote would be either in the AN itself or as a subpage of it, just so that it's in a highly-trafficked area that people are more likely to know where to find it. At first, I didn't like the idea of the page, but on consideration, I think it'll give us a convenient location to provide an explanation for the block, to ensure that all appropriate steps were taken, and to have follow-up discussions, if necessary. Robin Hoodtalk 17:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Following up on my thoughts below about IRC and official wiki decisions, I think we also need some type of official wiki statement from Timenn about rpeh's current Blocker rights. Specifically, are those rights supposed to be temporary? In which case, how long are they supposed to last, or under what conditions are they supposed to expire? In fact, I think perhaps the Blocker policy needs to be amended to state that any time temporary blocker rights are given, there needs to be some record of the expected duration of those rights (perhaps using the Current Blockers list, or probably even simply by including the expected duration in the comment written when assigning the rights).
Conversely, are those rights supposed to be permanent? In which case, there needs to be a discussion on the wiki (e.g., here on the Admin Noticeboard, or else on the Blockers talk page) about those permanent rights, and in particular the two admins approving the decision need to post their approval. Also, based on RobinHood70's precedent, any permanent blockers should be listed at Current Blockers.
Basically, I think for this policy to work, there needs to be some type of official wiki record of all Blocker-related decisions, so that the other admins know what is going on. The whole purpose of temporary Blocker rights is that they are assigned when no other admins are active -- so by definition the only way for other admins to learn the details of the decision is if something is posted on the wiki. Or else we at least need some discussion of what should be assumed in the absence of any extra information. --NepheleTalk 16:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I asked for temporary blocker rights because he wasn't going to be around and we were experiencing heavy wandalism. If you think it would benefit the wiki to remove them and leave the site unprotected during the US nighttime, please feel free to remove them. rpeh •TCE 17:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Pages Needing Protection

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

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

Oh, and as RobinHood pointed out in May, Template:Archive Header still needs semi-protection. rpeh •TCE 09:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Protection set for said articles. --Timenn-<talk> 09:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Timenn! rpeh •TCE 10:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
And from me as well! Robin Hoodtalk 17:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Archiving, Revisisted

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

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

The system was working fine until you started to try to change it. Why change a working system? The only argument I've seen for large archives is that if we stick to smaller ones, we'll end up with too many. 19 CP archives and 15 AN archives in 5 1/2 years argues against this, unless we keep having irrelevant discussions about archiving. Long pages take longer to generate and load, and take more CPU power to process too. They're less useful because the date range will be much less specific.
As far as I'm concerned, I'm not "switching back" to anything and I really can't believe somebody who's edited the wiki as much as you is really claiming you had a consensus for your suggestion. If we said that everything that came up on CP and AN and didn't get a response is approved nemine contradicente, we'd have some seriously weird policies and pages. rpeh •TCE 19:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Skipping the denigration of my personal opinions, which isn't really helpful to the discussion, I already consider 19 and 15 archives to be exceedingly large. Since a lot of that is recent, as the site gained popularity, I expect that to increase even further once TESV comes out. Robin Hoodtalk 19:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
(warning, this became longwinded) - What is the purpose of maintaining the archives? If its purely to get the information off the page, then it dosen't matter how you do it, and one bog archive would be fine. If your actively expecting people to reference them, then you probably should theme archives by topic rather than by date (Which I notice already is how Administrative Requests and Vandalism are dealt with). My gut feeling is no-one aside from me and rpeh ever feels the need to read the things, and for me personally a page per year would be fine. Obviously rpeh prefers things more split up than that. I suppose in a nutshell, we need to answer why you feel 19/15 archives is to many? How do you feel its detrimental or why do you feel a smaller number would be beneficial? Jadrax 02:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
If you think that's long-winded, you clearly haven't been reading my posts or Nephele's! :) There are probably a few different answers to your first question, but to me, the primary point of an archive is to have a searchable record of previous discussions (usually used in discussions just like this one). After that, you've made me realize that there are really several questions here, rather than just one, and I think that's adding to the overall confusion. So re-thinking/re-stating, here are the questions I see and my thoughts on them:
  1. What size of archive is appropriate?
    Contrary to the impression I seem to have given rpeh, I'm not really a fan of huge archives. Large archives are usually faster for the computer to search than the equivalent number of small ones, but that depends on the system, and in this case, the time difference for something like this is probably negligible in any event. (Nephele has a much better understanding of that than I do, I think.) Time to transfer the page to the viewer is more of an issue, and rpeh is correct that smaller is better in that regard, though on the flip side, the pages are not highly accessed, so I tend to feel that...errr..."size doesn't matter" (much). I tend to prefer larger numbers of topics than we've had historically (prior to Archive 13) for the simple reason that it allows you to search/read through more than just a handful of topics at a time. This is useful in a number of situations like searching for something that isn't categorized into an existing topic, searching for a post by a specific author, searching for a specific word you remember being used in a discussion, or whatever other unforeseen need-of-the-moment you may have.
  2. What archive organization is appropriate?
    I think it makes a lot of sense to have some coherence to the system where, for example, each archive spans x number of months and is set on a year-boundary (i.e., January automatically starts a new archive), rather than some random amount based entirely on when someone felt like archiving the page. This was the main thrust of my previous discussion. Given the size of the more recent archives, I was figuring that a break-point of every 6 months would make sense, but if the general preference is for smaller pages, then every 3 or 4 would also be logical. It would also allows us to simplify the archive table to something like "2010: 1 2 3 4" rather than listing each archive individually. If we're going to move to a by-topic organization, then that's fine, but I think we should move entirely to such a system (though that would be a whole other organizational discussion). I personally find this mish-mash of chronological but separating out only some discussions by topic to be very chaotic. But maybe that's just me.
  3. Should archives be categorized?
    It's not the way I tend to search, but it's commonly done with archives of most kinds and I can certainly see the benefit of it. Assuming we keep categorizing discussions, I would suggest that we start categorizing as a discussion takes place rather than leaving it to the archiver to figure it out. It would make it easier to find for all involved if they knew what it would be categorized under when the discussion took place and it's less likely that categories will get left out. If we don't want to categorize the whole page, then we could put them in an HTML comment or template designed to only categorize when in an archive page. (Though again, this may be better off as its own discussion.)
Robin Hoodtalk 04:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Some Admin Eyes Please?

Hope this is the appropriate place to draw attention to something like this, but could someone take a peek over here and perhaps throw some water on the fire? The random appearance of an unknown IP user is heating things up a bit. Arthmoor 08:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It's time for the discussion to stop. I stopped bothering yesterday evening because it was obvious nobody was going to change anybody else's mind. The same is still true. rpeh •TCE 08:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
No offense, but you're at least part of why I brought this issue to the Administration. I'd like an administrator to comment on it. The random IP guy has apparently decided to descend into personal attacks at this point. Arthmoor 08:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Youre the one who decided to turn this into a fight. If you had accepted the CONSENSUS that you are WRONG, this debate would have been over long ago. 08:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Seriously, the pair of you - stop this pointless bickering. If this continues, you'll both be in line for a warning. I'm not going to give the warning myself because I was involved in the argument even though I stopped, but somebody will. rpeh •TCE 08:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it's at all appropriate to once again receive a threat from you on this issue when all I did on this page is try to bring it to an administrator's attention. I can't control what the other guy decides to do. I tried to make a contribution, and two people jumped down my throat about it, one of whom has resorted to blatant insults. This isn't the kind of thing that encourages people to want to contribute. It has exactly the opposite effect. If I'm to receive a warning for trying to argue a case, so be it, but that sends a very bad signal to others who might have observed the exchange. Arthmoor 10:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I have never threatened you and I am not doing so now since I clearly said I would not be handing out warnings. I suggest you read the site's Blocking Policy and consider whether your contributions are currently constructive or disruptive. rpeh •TCE 10:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Well since I've made plenty of other contributions and I haven't attempted to engage in a reversion war over the incident that caused this mess, I'd be inclined to say I'm not causing a disruption. I'd be more inclined to say your veiled threats are what's causing the disruption, and this other person's rather over the top hostility is causing disruption. Arthmoor 11:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Can somebody block this Arthmoor guy? I think everybody is getting bored with his continual harping on the same issue when he obviously knows nothing wiki policy. The way he keeps distorting what other people say should be considered a personal attack. 10:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
ok i read the whole thing and what i have to say is...arithamor(forgot your name) you have to be open to new ideas, even if your sure something is right, it could still be wrong, and unknown don't be so rude,you're never going to get to someone with a idea if your always shouting/being rude. i don't think either of you require a warning but you should both change your attitude,very much--GUM!!! 11:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Being open to new ideas is fine. But there is a big difference between that and being bullied into accepting that you're "wrong" when you don't believe you are. Since someone else has already commented in the discussion suggesting precisely what I already tried to do, is it safe to assume that edit could be done? I think we can all agree it's worthy of notice even if nobody can agree it's actually a bug. Arthmoor 11:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
It may also be worth noting that wikipedia has the ip address permablocked as its a proxy address registered to [[1]] Jadrax 22:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Which is why Robin Hood tagged the IP address as one that needs to be blocked, and why I then permanently blocked it -- I explicitly stated in the block reason that wikipedia confirmed the IP was an open proxy, because I had already looked at the wikipedia user talk page. --NepheleTalk 22:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah excellent. I should have realised it had already been dealt with! Jadrax 23:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Block Notification

We had suggested the idea that all blocks done by Blockers would be posted somewhere specific. Since nothing formal has been set up as yet, I'm posting here for now.

I've just blocked User: for 3 hours for intimidating behaviour on Oblivion talk:The Necromancer's Amulet and for being an open proxy. Robin Hoodtalk 05:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The block is not immediately obvious when looking at the user's talk page on Wikipedia, but it can be seen here: [2]. Robin Hoodtalk 05:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Robin Hood. That's the info I was looking for -- I'd checked the standard block log, but forgot about wikimedia's global blocks. --NepheleTalk 05:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
And another one. User: is also blocked for 3 hours per Wikipedia. Robin Hoodtalk 09:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Update: It seems the user is IP-hopping. It may be beneficial to semi-protect the page rather than trying to keep up with blocks. Robin Hoodtalk 09:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I've created this subpage to keep track of blocks not made by admins. rpeh •TCE 11:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
That works for me. Can I suggest that an admin permanently semi-protect it to minimize the chance of vandalism to that page? Robin Hoodtalk 16:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I blanked the list once Krusty had made the blocks permanent. Do we want to do it like that or should it always be an admin who clears the list? rpeh •TCE 17:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm fine either way, though if we're going to leave it in place, I'd suggest we add new entries at the top rather than at the bottom, just for easier administration (no pun intended). Robin Hoodtalk 18:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
While we're on the topic (in a very broad sense, at least), did we want permanent Blocker requests to be archived like Admin and Patroller discussions are? Robin Hoodtalk 18:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that's necessary, but it wouldn't bother me if people wanted a permanent record. rpeh •TCE 19:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

New Set of Blocks

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

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

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

Removal of Blocked Notice for RoBoT

In regards to rpeh's removal of this block notice, I've reverted it because I believe that it should have Admin approval first.

Please don't take this the wrong way, it's just that I just don't want to set the precedent that any user, no matter who, feels that they can remove a warning from a page under their control without prior permission from the Administrators. Given that rpeh has been allowed to archive his own personal warnings, I see no reason that he shouldn't be allowed to archive RoBoT's as well, though I would vote against outright deletion, on the basis that, so far as I know, he wasn't allowed to delete his own warning, either. Robin Hoodtalk 09:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Once again you're interfering in things that don't concern you. I was given permission to remove my own warnings, from Timenn, who discussed it with Ratwar. I was allowed to remove the warning as long as I archived it into its own page and gave that page a link, which I have done. RoBoT never broke any policy and was only blocked out of vindictiveness, so should never have got a block in the first place. Since the block was aimed at me, it is stupid to keep an invalid notice on RoBoT's page. Now stop sticking your nose into other people's business. rpeh •TCE 09:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Furthermore, it seems that rpeh felt the need to re-revert, against warning message removal policy. I will not start an edit war, however I feel that the warning should be re-instated until such time as Admins have specifically allowed him to remove it from RoBoT's page, as he has already been given permission to do with his own. Robin Hoodtalk 09:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
The block was aimed at me. I have been given permission as already discussed. RoBoT has nothing to do with it. This discussion is a pointless waste of time. rpeh •TCE 09:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
As I said on my talk page, point me to the discussion that allows you to outright delete a block notice on RoBoT's talk page, as opposed to archiving notices on your own, and I'll apologize for the misunderstanding. It's just that it sets an extremely bad precedent for a user to outright delete a block notice just because he feels that it violated policy. Honestly, if you'd simply archived the warning and your reason had been that you were archiving it like all the others, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Instead, you deleted it, citing that you believed it was against policy. Robin Hoodtalk 09:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
The user being blocked was me, not RoBoT, which was only included because the admin concerned was feeling particularly vindictive. I've archived the warnings given to me, but it's stupid to keep a notice on RoBoT's page as a sign of contrition when it's a series of ones and zeroes that can't show any such emotion. Honestly, if you'd simply stayed away from a situation that was over months ago, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Instead, you jumped into a situation that never involved you in reply to a month old comment. Can I get back to doing important work now, please? rpeh •TCE 09:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

() This is absolutely ridiculous. rpeh, I understand your reasoning, but did you honestly think that this was the best way to go about it? If you felt the pressing need to remove the block notice, sure remove it - with your reasoning. RH's actions and comments, however, were not out of line. I don't understand how you can think anything he did was less than appropriate. He's entirely correct in saying that it sets a bad precedent. Just a little civil back-and-forth conversation on the matter is all that's needed. If your response to RH's actions had been to re-state your reasoning and request support from admins, you most likely would have gotten it and been able to remove the notice without any of this BS. It's not that difficult, and a little forethought would've resulted in the conclusion that that would be the most amicable solution. What was out of line were your dismissive comments ("go away", "Once again you're interfering in things that don't concern you.", "Now stop sticking your nose into other people's business.", "This discussion is a pointless waste of time.", "you jumped into a situation that never involved you", "Can I get back to doing important work now, please?", "MYOB"). I'm rather disappointed in the way this was handled.

I, in fact, agree that the block shouldn't have been extended to the bot in the first place without a reason (such as the blocked user still using the bot's account), and that there's no reason to keep or even archive the block notice since the bot didn't deserve any administrative action in the first place. This type of behavior, however, is not acceptable from any user, no matter the provocation. --GKtalk2me 13:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

If you felt the pressing need to remove the block notice, sure remove it - with your reasoning - I did, but RH reinstated it. Yet again I had to spend my time arguing about things rather than working on the site, and I'm sick and tired of it. RH was not involved in any of the discussions about warning archival and has no authority over RoBoT's talk page, yet he feels it necessary to reply to a two-month-old question and change an official notice. Why? Yes, my replies were curt, but I am fed up with having to deal with this kind of nonsense. rpeh •TCE 13:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Yep, you did. And RH reverted it. Which he had every right to do. The fact that he was not involved in any of the discussions regarding warning archival doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to become involved in this discussion. Your reasoning baffles me. Additionally, this is not "nonsense", it's community discussion, the backbone of a wiki. It's how things work. You are perfectly aware of the expectation to maintain (and perfectly capable of maintaining, from my memory) a civil tone even when you disagree. I don't understand why you thought you shouldn't do so in this situation. If someone disagrees with your actions, the acceptable thing for them to do is to revert your actions. Then, acceptable actions on your part would be to have a civil discussion. You know this, and (as I said) are perfectly capable of it. Why wouldn't you do so? --GKtalk2me 14:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Honestly rpeh, if you (or anyone else) is at the point where they feel that they have to contribute to a voluntary project, then they might want to think about taking a break before they burn out. The site should be about what people want to contribute, and hopefully they should be having fun while they are at it. The wiki might not get worked on as fast, but in the long term it is not worth much aggro. Jadrax 16:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
The trouble is, Jadrax, that when I don't contribute, nobody else picks up the slack. Every time I take a break, the patrol queue grows out of control, with inaccurate information being added and dozens of questions remaining unanswered. I do have fun on this wiki, but not when people start wasting my time for no good reason. rpeh •TCE 16:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That's not entirely true. When I was working on templates and noticed that the patrol queue had gotten behind a couple of weeks ago, I stopped my template work and worked on patrolling instead. I noticed several other Patrollers working on the backlog as well during that time. In the space of the next couple of days, we were almost caught up, then you came back from your break and finished it. And honestly, it's not the end of the world if the patrol queue falls behind - people will eventually notice the inconsistencies and fix them.
All that is irrelevant to the main point of this discussion, though. My actions were appropriate, based on our notice removal policy, and I would have taken the same actions with anybody from an Admin down to the newest user had they done the same thing. I understand why you might have thought it reasonable to remove it, but it really looked inappropriate for an involved user to just remove a warning with no clear record of why you should be allowed to do so, particularly this long after archiving your own warnings, and without even any mention of the permission to archive that Timenn gave you. It was a simple matter of dotting your i's and crossing your t's to get an Admin to simply say "yeah, go ahead and remove it", and I didn't see it as anything but. In fact, I got involved in that two-month-old discussion when I was browsing RoBoT and NepheleBot's pages during my recent work on HotnBOThered, and noticed that to anybody reading it, it looked like the bot was still blocked. I thought I was doing a service when I made it clear that the block no longer applied. Robin Hoodtalk 17:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry but it is true. Every time I'm away for any length of time, the patrol queue grows. That's why I re-applied to be a patroller. I don't dispute that other people do patrolling too, but I'm afraid it has been indisputable that they don't do as much as I do. rpeh •TCE 17:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I said not "entirely" true. Nobody's denying that you do the bulk of the patrolling, but that becomes self-perpetuating. The other Patrollers get used to you doing it, and therefore don't check as often, or sit down to do a bunch only to find that you've already done it. I think you're probably creating your own problem to some degree. Try taking a break for a few days or a week at some point, but tell people that you're doing so. I know I would've been a lot busier with the patrolling when you took your recent break had I known beforehand that you were going to do so. Robin Hoodtalk 18:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion, deletion of the block notice is inappropriate. Contrary to Mikeyboy52's assertion, RoBoT was blocked; the block notice is the official message recording that the block happened. In general, I think there are situations where outright removal of warning/block notices would be acceptable, but I think that only applies when the initial warning/block was a mistake: for example, if IP addresses get mixed up, or if a new editor gives an official warning for a good-faith edit. In RoBoT's case, the block was not a mistake: Ratwar intentionally blocked all accounts used by rpeh. Especially given that the situation was initiated by inappropriate use of multiple wiki accounts, I think Ratwar's actions were reasonable.
Furthermore, RoBoT is rpeh. Rpeh has the password to RoBoT's account and can personally login as RoBoT any time he chooses; he controls every action taken by RoBoT. The reason RoBoT exists is effectively to give rpeh privileges he does not usually have, namely to have the bot's edits hidden by default on the Recent Changes page. Any restrictions that apply to rpeh should apply -- perhaps even more strongly -- to alternate accounts with elevated privileges. From a practical point of view, in light of past events, I'm less likely to give RoBoT the benefit of the doubt should something questionable occur -- which is, from my point of view, exactly what the record of old block/warning notices is supposed to represent.
In any case, it should definitely not be up to the user who was blocked/warned to make a unilateral decision about what can or cannot be done with any block/warning notices. That clearly goes against existing policy, and any such precedent would make it impossible to enforce future warning and block notices. In fact, even the precedent to allow such notices to be archived is ambiguous, given that there is no official wiki discussion about the previous decision. In the absence of anything official on the wiki, we have no basis for assuming that any other messages can be archived.
Therefore, I think we first need to get confirmation from Timenn of whatever decisions were made in IRC regarding the block notices. (Ideally, it would be good to also get Ratwar's confirmation of his IRC statements, but I realize that's unlikely to happen). As everyone knows, policy states that IRC cannot be used for formal decisions, and a decision about what is allowed regarding official user notices should be a formal wiki decision -- especially if that decision is then going to be used to set the precedent for other user notices.
Only once we know details of the precedent can we meaningfully discuss whether to extend the precedent. Or else archiving (or even deleting) RoBoT's block message can be discussed as an entirely separate issue, without invoking any precedent -- in which case I think any discussion needs to start with some explanation of why such an action is necessary or appropriate. So far, I don't think any justification has been given for why existing policy should be ignored in this case. --NepheleTalk 16:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
RoBoT is not Rpeh or I wouldn't bother having two accounts. Policy states that users are blocked for actions they take: it does not state that blocks are made for actions that might be performed. RoBoT violated no policy (neither did I, but that's another matter altogether), and was blocked contrary to policy because the admin concerned had a chip on his shoulder (see his letter posted on Wikipedia for proof of that statement). I never tried to evade my block either as Rpeh or RoBoT. So why should RoBoT have to put up with what is an illegal block notice on its talk page? I fail to see the utility of continuing this discussion. rpeh •TCE 16:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Whatever people believe about the reality of the situation, the evidence available made it appear that you were abusing multiple accounts. In those circumstances, I think it was entirely appropriate for Ratwar to block all accounts that he knew were tied to you. The fact that there were personal issues between you is unfortunate, but his actions were nevertheless based on the available evidence and not out of line with what I think any other administrator would have done.
Now, we could rehash the whole debate about the evidence, motives, blah blah blah, but I really don't see the point. That's long over and done with, and best left that way. The question at hand is whether or not removal of the notice was appropriate, and given that you were never given permission to completely remove official notices by any administrator, it clearly wasn't. That moves us into... Robin Hoodtalk 18:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I will have to check my IRC logs later on to check what Ratwar and I literally said, but the important thing is that he agreed with the current solution of how it is on rpeh´s talk page now (IIRC, RoBoT wasn't mentioned or referred to). His main intent was that be warning and block notice both be easily accessible from the talk page. The current link as compromise was announced on the Admin Noticeboard, so others users were free to comment on it. Policy decisions need to be made on the wiki, but users are free to discuss their differences off-wiki if they wish it, as long as they realise it will only mean reaching an (unofficial) agreement among themselves. --Timenn-<talk> 11:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Timenn, in particular for mentioning the overlooked Warnings Policy discussion. And to follow up on one point of contention in that discussion: just because section protection was added to the policy later than the other text doesn't mean it somehow "takes precedence". In my opinion, the current policy pages, in their entirety, are all equally valid. The bottom line being that the Blocking Policy explicitly states "Deletion of official messages is only acceptable after receiving permission from the administrators. Such permission is only granted at the discretion of the administrators, in cases where the editor has acknowledged and made efforts to correct the original problem(s)." (And the talk page has the background behind that policy).
Furthermore, in response to rpeh, RoBoT and rpeh are two separate accounts because RoBoT has special privileges (as I already mentioned). Nevertheless, a single person is responsible for both accounts. As stated in Wikipedia's Bot policy: "Bot accounts are considered alternative accounts of their operator for the purposes of the user account policy." Furthermore, "bot operators should be editors in good standing" -- and I'd say if the bot operator is blocked, that automatically means the bot operator is not in good standing. In other words, bot accounts should automatically be blocked whenever the editor's account is blocked (and probably for even longer than the editor's account, because an editor doesn't return to "good standing" the minute a block expires). So upon further examination, the only problem I see with RoBoT's block is that it was insufficient: RoBoT should have been blocked four times, and for more than just one week.
All of which leads me to conclude that the block message belongs on RoBoT's talk page. Given rpeh's own words, I'm reinstating it until there's some conclusion about archiving official messages. --NepheleTalk 14:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Retrospectively applying sanctions is quite clearly against natural justice so to use an argument that RoBoT should have been blocked more and then base decisions on that argument is not valid. rpeh •TCE 14:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

() She didn't. She said that the original block and message were made in accordance with the policy of the time, then gave reasoning why she thought that policy could have been interpreted even more harshly than it was.

Also, just as a note for those not following the page, the warning message has now been archived, albeit with some rather petulant commentary...but that's rpeh's decision. Robin Hoodtalk 16:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Man! I can't believe I just spent several hours researching and writing down details for the new Relmyna Verenim article when I could have participated in this constructive discussion. Please notify me next time something this exiting is going on. Kidding aside, this discussion clogs up the Recent Changes, makes us all look like idiots and should end right now. --Krusty 16:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for Allowing Official Notice Archiving

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

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

This proposal works for me.
The only minor question would be whether there needs to be some clause comparable to that found in current policy, namely "in cases where the editor has acknowledged and made efforts to correct the original problem(s)." Which, I suppose, comes down to having some type of reassurance that any warning messages are no longer needed as active, regular reminders against inappropriate behaviour. --NepheleTalk 14:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Were there any further comments or concerns with this proposed policy, or should I go ahead and put it in place, with Nephele's amendments? Robin Hoodtalk 05:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

TOR Blocking

Subsequent to several discussions on blocking TOR exit nodes, I've recently found TorBlock. It's a relatively simple extension that allows blocking of TOR users with a variety of options. I think it's something we might want to take a look at. Robin Hoodtalk 15:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and installed it, instead of coming up with some way on my own to do the same thing. Configuration settings are the default settings (other than setting the wgTorIPs to a correct set of values). Which means without logging in, people accessing the site via Tor should only be able to read articles; logged-in editors using Tor have standard access. I haven't actually tested it, though (short of confirming that the extension shows up on the Version page). --NepheleTalk 22:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I'll download Tor and do some basic testing. Another user who's more familiar with it has also offered, but I'll let that person speak for themselves. Hopefully this will mean an end to, or at least a substantial reduction in, the number of Tor users we have to deal with. Now we just need to worry about all the other proxy servers out there. :-/ Robin Hoodtalk 22:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I happen to be that user. I offered to stress-test the system and I will plan on editing my own talk page under as many TOR nodes as I can with your permissions, of course.--Corevette789 22:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
As you can see on my talk page, I was able to get through on a TOR address with a little patience. Perhaps the extension just hasn't downloaded a list of IPs yet...? One way or the other, the IP I was editing from is there, so it should be easy enough to figure out why it wasn't detected. Robin Hoodtalk 23:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I went looking the other day for stuff on Tor and found this: it's a pretty small chunk of code, and from what I could tell, it worked to detect exit nodes. Since it uses a DNSBL provided by the people who make Tor, it should be fairly reliable. Arthmoor 23:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I've tried about a dozen exit nodes now, and all but two were manually blocked. The second time that I wasn't manually blocked, TorBlock kicked in and I was auto-blocked. So either something has changed since my last message, or it's just a matter of waiting until TorBlock has time to build up its database of Tor addresses. Robin Hoodtalk 23:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Update: Either I have strange luck or something just changed, as it seems that all the addresses I try, including the one that got through earlier, are auto-blocked now instead of manually blocked or getting through. This would suggest that my theory was right, earlier, and that the list just hadn't been downloaded yet, as I don't see anything from Nephele about any changes since installing it. Robin Hoodtalk 23:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

() I've downgraded the version of the extension for compatibility with the site's current Mediawiki code (MW14.0), so we're now running the version of TorBlock that was in place at the time MW14.0 was released. The up-to-date version that I first installed was using some hooks that our Mediawiki doesn't recognize -- meaning that some parts of the TorBlock code were never being accessed. That said, though, the most important hooks (such as "GetBlockedStatus") are ones that our Mediawiki uses. Also, I only did the downgrade well after RobinHood70's last report that he was successfully getting autoblocked.

So, basically, all the tests should really be redone given that the code has been replaced ;)

Also, I ran loadExitNodes as soon as I installed the extension (before even posting any mention of it on the site), so it should have had started off with a list of tor nodes. However, after RobinHood70's initial comment about problems, I cobbled together some tests to check the tor node list -- which confirmed that it has a list of 1301 exit nodes (including the one that RH got through on), and that the list is being stored in and retrieved from memcached. So I'm not really sure why things would have been inconsistent. --NepheleTalk 23:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll re-test. At first blush, it appeared that I might still be able to create an account, but that's not 100% certain by any means. The one time I tried, I got a manual block notice rather than an auto-block notice. Just tweaking a template a bit, then I'll get on it. Robin Hoodtalk 00:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
On re-testing, everything still works as expected, and I was unable to get through anonymously on any node that I tried. It looks like account creation first checks for a manual block, then checks TorBlock, but either way, it's still blocked. Robin Hoodtalk 02:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Nephele, et al: If there's any further testing that you'd like to do with someone using TOR, either on-site or off, let me know. If not, I'll uninstall it in the next few days. Robin Hoodtalk 17:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to be certain, do the blocks only affect anonymous users? Can registered users still use TOR? I have to use TOR in order to access some blocked sites and to ensure my privacy whenever I travel to a foreign country (eg. China, Saudi Arabia). I believe that we should still keep TOR's original intentions in mind; it wasn't made for abuse. Also, TOR is slow anyway. --Michaeldsuarez (Talk) (Deeds) 17:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, registered users can still use TOR. New users would have to create an account without the benefit of TOR, though if that itself were an issue, they could readily ask someone (Daveh by e-mail, a friend, or in our forums) to create an account for them. We should probably update UESPWiki:Contact to reflect that. I'll wait a bit, in case people have other suggestions that should be taken into account. Robin Hoodtalk 19:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good. --Michaeldsuarez (Talk) (Deeds) 19:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit to Protected Page requested

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

Done. --Krusty 11:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


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

RobinHood70... AGAIN

You don't have any such right. I am not misrepresenting you because I haven't edited anything you said or changed the order of your posts so nothing on this page applies. So nice to have another productive discussion. rpeh •TCE 01:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
You have implied that I'm wrong and are removing any reply I make to the contrary. How is that any kind of good faith or good wiki editing practice? As for the page you just linked to, "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page." Removing my comment inherently changes the meaning, since it makes it appear that I don't disagree with your statement. Robin Hoodtalk 01:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't change the meaning at all. You said that rounding was why my program was producing values different by 13 from the existing ones. My response was that rounding has nothing to do with it. It doesn't. That means that, although I didn't say it on my talk page, you were wrong. I have no idea why you want to spread the fact that you were wrong over the admin noticeboard, but that's up to you. Now, I'm having nothing more to do with yet another thread designed to do nothing but distract people from useful editing. rpeh •TCE 01:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
No, if you look at the very first sentence in the post that you've forced me to leave on your page, I said that not adding 5 for the class attributes was the problem, and that rounding was what made the difference between the 12.5 that I stated and the 13 that S'drassa was seeing. Robin Hoodtalk 01:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Apart from the fact that this feels as an unnecessary escalation of matters, I think rpeh is right in this case. He's free to remove posts from his talk page, and the full responsibility for doing so is his.
You claim that you simply intended to remove your own post, but in fact you replaced it with another post (the "comment remove by author" was no neutral message), changing the initial discussion. The context of the earlier posts doesn't change with the addition of newer posts, it's just the nature of the discussion that evolves. Posts are traditionally accepted as comments made at a specific time and conditions not permanent statements you can never change your mind about or elaborate on.
That being said, I would really like to see from both you more attempts to not have these things escalate. Not every minor detail needs to be defended if it only means the rest of community must suffer another conflict. --Timenn-<talk> 11:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, that's a fair enough assessment. I would, however, like to remove my original post since it's clearly being misunderstood, and any attempt to "elaborate on" it is being reverted. That seems contrary to the very point you made. If I'm not allowed to elaborate and clarify, then I should be allowed to remove it, and my entire contributions to that discussion can be as though they never happened.
As for rpeh and I, I would not take it amiss if an interaction ban were enacted. I don't want our interactions to become as disruptive as his and Elliot's were, but I don't see our opinions of each other changing any time soon. Robin Hoodtalk 18:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
You have twice posted on my talk pages, then twice brought the same matter up on here, and now you want to ban me from interacting with you????? If you're getting fed up with arguing with me, stay off my talk pages. I certainly have no interest in talking to you. Oh, and it should be "rpeh and me". rpeh •TCE 19:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

- There is a Assurnabitashpi, shrine South of Ashurnabitashpi if this is the place they are talking about then there needs to be two seperate page for both places

Now, I'm pretty sure the page is correct...I remember some kind of note on the page about a cell and door spelling discrepancy. Confirm/deny?--Corevette789 20:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
As the note on the page says, the exterior cell in which the shrine is contained is called "Ashurnabitashpi". The two interior cells are called "Assurnabitashpi" and "Assurnabitashpi, Shrine". Additionally, the double-s version appears in dialogue three times: "Nuleno Tedas gave me directions to Urshilaku camp. The camp is due north from Maar Gan, but high ridges lie in the way. Follow Foyada Bani-Dad, a deep ravine just north of Maar Gan, northwest to the sea. A shipwreck at the seamouth of the ravine is a landmark. Swim east around the headland. Pass east through the ruins of Assurnabitashpi Shrine. Urshilaku Camp lies east of the ruins, inland in a low hollow.","Urshilaku camp is due north from Maar Gan, but high ridges lie in the way. From Maar Gan head east past the Silt Strider, then take a trail north to the Foyada Bani-Dad. Follow the Foyada northwest to the sea. A shipwreck at the seamouth of the ravine is a landmark. Swim east around the headland. Pass east through the ruins of Assurnabitashpi Shrine. Avoid Daedra here. They're powerful and aggressive. Urshilaku Camp lies east of the ruins, inland in a low hollow." and "At the ruins of Assurnabitashpi, they have an old shrine to Mehrunes Dagon. Stay far from that place -- it is cursed." Ashurnabitashpi does not appear at all. The paper map spells it with an h (in Daedric) but the clear weight is on the side of the double-s version. rpeh •TCE 20:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Minor question

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

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

Just as an aside, this looks to be an issue with the wiki software [3], where the protection level was moved when Oblivion:Easter eggs was moved to Oblivion:Easter Eggs, but the record of who protected it (Nephele) wasn't. Robin Hoodtalk 00:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. Good find. rpeh •TCE 07:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Block Needed. needs to be blocked. Please see the history of Shivering:Ghosts_of_the_Hill_of_Suicides for why.--TheAlbinoOrcany_questions? 18:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Protection requested

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

Excuse Me

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

Another Edit to a Protected Page please

Please can somebody edit Oblivion:Roleplaying and change the link to OB:Battlehorn Castle to OB:Battlehorn Castle (place)? It's showing up on Special:Disambiguations (there should only be 7 links on that page). rpeh •TCE 11:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

All done! --Krusty 11:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible Proxy (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

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

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

Template:Journal Entries

Is there any reason for which this template isn't protected? Considering that it's being used in pretty much all the quest pages for Oblivion and Morrowind, I think that it should be at least semi-protected. --S'drassa T2M 19:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I've just semi-protected it. --GKtalk2me 02:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Didn't notice this until now for some reason: the sub-template Template:Journal Entries/Line also needs protection if its parent is protected. Thanks. rpeh •TCE 10:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Done. Can't figure out if we need the padlock or not? --Krusty 14:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Everything's fine now. Thanks for doing that. rpeh •TCE 15:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


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


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

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

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

Anybody? --Rigas Papadopoulos • Talk to meMy work 14:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Of the several times it's been vandalized, only once has been by a registered user, so I think semi-protection makes sense. Thanks for the reminder. --GKtalk2me 22:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Inapropiate Username?

Would Better than you be out under the current guidelines? Someone just made that account.--Ghurhak gro-Demril or TAOYes? 19:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I really can't see anything wrong with the username Better Than You - sure, it is special and all that, but unless we have some very strict guidelines that I've managed to overlook, I think it is okay. --Krusty 22:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

And Another One...

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

It's not stated in our policy anywhere that I could find, but on the Create Account page, it says, amongst other things: Your username should not contain...names that imply that you intend to cause trouble (e.g. "Vandal" or "Trolls"). Robin Hoodtalk 03:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
The only thing I could find was this discussion. I'd like to assume good faith: did you consider that troll could be an actual troll from the games? (you know, those usually green, strong beasts) The user hasn't done anything wrong at all. -- Jplatinum16 02:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I didn't think much about that. I did believe they weren't a WikiTroll though, which is why I put this instead of something more official. I'll actually add to that though and say that they should create a userpage stating explicitly that are referring to "those usually green, strong beasts" (a phrase I like by the way - To my Userpage after this!) if they mean a Troll from OB.--Ghurhak gro-Demril or TAOYes? 04:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I don't think this account name justifies any admin actions. What I do want to mention is this; each and every time a person creates an account using a "controversial nick", they hope for a reaction. When they see posts like this on the AN, they achieve it. If you simply ignore them, they will go away 99% of the time. --Krusty 08:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Done. He made a userpage saying he means the trolls from oblivion.--Ghurhak gro-Demril or TAOYes? 19:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


I got this when trying to edit my userpage:

A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:

    (SQL query hidden)

from within function "Database::update". MySQL returned error "1213: Deadlock found when trying to get lock; Try restarting transaction (".

What does it mean?--Ghurhak gro-Demril or TAOYes? 13:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Note: When I went back and checked the edit had been made to my userpage.--Ghurhak gro-Demril or TAOYes? 13:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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


Please could an admin move Lore:Tamriel (continent) to Lore:Tamriel then put the former into Category:Redirects from Moves? The existing redirect at the latter page means I can't do it. This should have been done a while back as the final stage of the namespace move, but it seems we all forgot about it. Thanks. rpeh •TCE 10:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. If there's a Redirect I missed, please just prod it for Speedy. --Krusty 14:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - that's perfect. I can't believe I hadn't noticed this before. rpeh •TCE 15:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Probable Sockpuppet Accounts

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

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

Well, it looked like a Spambot attack at first glance and I managed to get worried and e-mailed Daveh about it - as soon as the e-mail was sent, the account creations stopped. Both me and Timenn monitored it from the beginning from the IRC while discussing what we could do. When everything stopped, we agreed to let it rest for the moment. I have used CheckUser on a few select accounts, and sometimes it comes up with nothing, sometimes not. What I'm trying to say is this: We are aware of the situation and are keeping an eye on it. --Krusty 06:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I didn't see anything about it here, and I know you're busy for the next couple of weeks, so just wanted to make sure it got noticed. Robin Hoodtalk 14:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


A new user is advertising a movie, "Inception". I don't any block rights so can the first admin that will see this to block them? — Unsigned comment by Rigas Papadopoulos (talkcontribs) at 05:50 on 30 October 2010

No more advertising from this new user. All done and cleaned up. --Krusty 06:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent Changes Problems?

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

I was just noticing that as well with "sHivering talk:Cutter". Playing around, it seems to be content1 that's causing the issue, but that's just based on a few random page views/refreshes, so that may be luck of the draw. Robin Hoodtalk 05:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I just switched back to using the Squid cache yesterday so I assume these problems are a result of that. I noticed that RecentChanges doesn't update properly as an anonymous user unless you force a reload which should be a cache invalidation issue. The content1/2 may be due to the old problem of using two different memcached servers but I'll look into it some more. If you notice anything else just let me know. -- Daveh 12:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Here's an interesting set of links to go with my previous post:
The comments are the behaviour I observed from each when refreshing the pages repeatedly. I'm guessing that the fluctuations have to do with each server load balancing to the other server. Robin Hoodtalk 06:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Can you check these pages again along with RecentChanges and see if you are still getting the same behavior? Both look ok now but I don't know what you mean by "right" and "wrong". Both issues may just have been due to a lack of cache purge permissions being set on squid1 so when a page changed content1/2 wouldn't have been able to purge the old version on squid1. -- Daveh 17:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
"Right" means that "Shivering" is capitalized properly. "Wrong" means that the "H" in "Shivering" is capitalized instead of the "S". And the links still show the same behaviour. Given that the first and last links are consistent, I'm inclined to believe that somehow, the database (or cache) on content1 has picked up an incorrectly-named page, where the one on content2 is fine. When you click on the second or third link above, you get redirected to www instead of staying specifically on content1 or content2, which sounds to me like the page lookup on that specific server is failing over to www. But that's just a guess. (PS, I moved your other response up out of the way so we're not constantly bumping it further away from what it's responding to.) Robin Hoodtalk 21:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
It looks like the problem affects the entire namespace on content1. Have a look at the filtered Recent Changes lists on Content1 and Content2. Robin Hoodtalk 00:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
It was just a capitalization error in LocalSettings.php on content1 which should be fixed now. -- Daveh 02:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Prev: Archive 15 Up: Administrator Noticeboard Next: Archive 17