Semi Protection

UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard/Archive 17

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.

Let me in! Let me in!

I can't log in right now! Any clue as to why? TheAlbinoOrc-- 06:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't too. I left a message at Daveh's page. Rigas Papadopoulos. -- 06:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Does this affect anyone else?— Unsigned comment by TheAlbinoOrc (talkcontribs)
Oh, by the way I tried logging on as TAO too. Same thing.-- 06:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I've posted a request for help on /r/oblivion (on reddit, for those unfamiliar with it). Hopefully it'll help.-- 06:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Having problems here as well -Dlarsh 06:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Logged in. It wouldn't let me edit. 'Sorry! We could not process your edit due to a loss of session data. Please try again. If it still does not work, try logging out and logging back in.' So I logged out. Then I logged back in. It wouldn't let me edit. 'Sorry! We could not process your edit due to a loss of session data. Please try again. If it still does not work, try logging out and logging back in.' -- AKA Riddle 06:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

() Sorry to hear that, guys! I'll send Daveh an e-mail - hopefully he will be able to solve the problem quickly. --Krusty 06:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This hit me yesterday, but I thought it was just a problem on my end because I'd been playing around with the bot account, different browsers, and all kinds of different things. Yet again, I saw the behaviour where really old passwords would work (mentioned on Dave's talk page some time ago), where my current ones didn't, but even when they did, it would see me as logged in one moment, then needing to log in again when I accessed preferences, for example. Changing passwords repeatedly to the same password I was already using seemed to resolve the problem after several attempts on each individual server, but that could've just been luck of the draw too.
I'm now having the same problem Riddle is.
I know Dave reenabled the Squid cache on content1 a few days ago, so maybe that's got something to do with it? Robin Hoodtalk 07:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I've edited the Reddit post to reflect the new info.-- 08:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC) AKA TAO
I'm having the same problem too. I was unable get onto the site several hours ago, and since I can, I can't edit under my name. ~ Dwarfmp aka 09:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
The last time this happened it was down to a config change. I imagine it's something similar now. rpeh •TCE 09:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't know who did what but I'm back in. How about everyone else?--Ghurhak gro-Demril or TAOYes? 16:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I am fine, Dwarfmp is fine too. I don't know about Dlarsh, but I suppose he is fine too. --Rigas Papadopoulos • TalkDeeds 16:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Riddle should be fine also. good to hear everything's working again!--Ghurhak gro-Demril or TAOYes? 16:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Looks like it's working for me. --Riddle 01:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Requesting Block of User talk:

Please. --Arch-Mage Matt Did I Do That? 22:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Timenn-<talk> 23:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Phew! Thanks Timenn. :) --Arch-Mage Matt Did I Do That? 23:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Rename Request

(moved from User_talk:Daveh)

I know this part hasn't had a reply in a few months but I saw it was about username changing and was wondering if I could get mine changed to Lycos Devanos. Thank you --Raleka 12:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible New Nonsense Bot

We just had three very similar edits to Oblivion:100% Completion that all introduced random characters along with replacing some items with HTML expansions (replacing quotes with "&quot;" for instance). I'm assuming good faith for the moment but it looks like these might signal some new kind of nonsense bot. Just thought I ought to mention it here so there's a record if more of these start to crop up. The three edits are this, this and this. rpeh •TCE 11:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Well there were three more edits to the same page while I was posting this. Definitely a new nonsense bot. rpeh •TCE 11:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Considering some of the edits added URLs, I think it's safe to say this was a nonsense/spam bot. A badly programmed one, I think, seeing the kind of parsing mess it made... Thanks for the initial blocks, I made them indefinite. --Timenn-<talk> 16:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Emergency block

I just blocked User:Exodus for 15 minutes without prior warning. This account has been responsible for several instances of deletion just recently, in addition to other cases in the past. Please could an admin review this block. rpeh •TCE 01:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

See the user's talk page. I'm just going to let this short block expire, and assume good faith other than what appears to be retaliation for an inappropriate warning. We'll see how it goes. --GKtalk2me 01:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Draco the great - copyvio

Draco the great (talk+ contribs edit count logs email) has just posted copyrighted material for the third time despite having had one unofficial and one official warning. This time I issued a three hour block. I'm bringing it here because the Blocking Policy states this conduct should receive a one week block, which I'm not able to give within the agreed restrictions on Blockuser accounts.

Assuming the admins agree, I would ask for the normal block on this user, along with a post reinforcing my own - he's obviously not prepared to listen to me. rpeh •TCE 19:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring an unofficial warning is one thing; ignoring an official one is serious - I'll change the block to a week. --Krusty 19:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent Spambots

We seem to be getting a spate of spambots creating accounts: Fitzgerald599657, Barnaby131416, Brendan994140 and Gresham317705 are four that have been created in the past few hours.

It might be worth adding the following two lines to MediaWiki:Titleblacklist to stop these accounts:

# Prevent accounts ending in six digits from being created - spambot attack on 6 December 2010
.*\d{6} <newaccountonly|errmsg=Your requested user name has been blocked because it is of a form currently being used to spam UESP. Please try again with a different name.>

I don't believe this will impact too many users, and it can always be removed once the attack is over. rpeh •TCE 00:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, as it is getting old blocking those bots; I added the lines to the Titleblaclist. Hopefully, it will at least lessen the attacks and prevent further problems. Thanks! --Krusty 06:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
It's been a couple of weeks now, and I've not seen any more instances of this type of bot creation recently on other wikis I frequent. It might be an idea to turn it off (ie, delete those lines) and see what happens. The regexp can always be reinstated if the bots come back. rpeh •TCE 23:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the restriction. We'll see how it goes. --GKtalk2me 00:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Cheers, GK. I hope it doesn't cause a flood of spam. rpeh •TCE 00:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Not a flood, exactly, but Gale530566 shows that the pattern is still being followed. Maybe put it on again for a while longer? rpeh •TCE 22:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

() Got it. --GKtalk2me 22:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

TESV: Skyrim

While I don't like over-protecting the wiki, I'm going to suggest that the following pages be semi-protected for at least the next week or so:

...along with their respective talk pages. It looks like we're in for some heavy traffic. rpeh •TCE 02:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

On this subject; would it be too early to make a Skyrim:Skyrim page? --Arch-Mage Matt Did I Do That? 02:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
IMO, yes. We don't have enough information about the game for it to be able to warrant it's own namespace...yet.--Corevette789 02:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I definitely agree. These pages will be created over and over in the coming weeks, so we might as well make sure that we can address the contributors about it. I'm going to semi-protect the three of them now. --Krusty 02:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes! And forgive me for de-linking your previous post. You can't just create a page in a new namespace like that - Daveh must create the new namespace first, otherwise you get a weird situation in which there's a page called Skyrim:Skyrim but it's actually in the mainspace. We had this a while ago with Shadowkey:Potions, which showed as a wanted page even though it existed. Please, PLEASE don't do that yet! rpeh •TCE 02:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok, ok, that's why I'm here and not there. --Arch-Mage Matt Did I Do That? 02:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
It may be early for this also, but I suggest that when the game is released, new users and IP's be stopped from editing (or a similar system). Just throwing it out there :P - Emoboy64 02:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Something will have to be done when the time comes, that is for sure. Looking at Recent Changes tonight proves that. Still, it is 11 months away and we have plnety of time to discuss a strategy. --Krusty 02:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

() I would suggest editing would be restricted to Autoconfirmed users for a period of no less than 3 months.--Corevette789 03:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

There are various ways of restricting editing during the release of a new game. No decision needs to be taken just yet on which option is to be used. rpeh •TCE 03:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
These are troubled times. Let me know if any more pages should be protected, maybe even fully. Is it possible to block pages with the name "Skyrim" from being created? --Krusty 10:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Possibly semi protect General:Elder_Scrolls as well? Also a question, should edits to a talkpage be marked as minor? Mxk101 11:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
(e/c)Yup. Add the following to MediaWiki:Titleblacklist:
# Prevent pages with the word "Skyrim" in them from being created
It's a good idea to add that in the short term. rpeh •TCE 11:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Added. Thanks a lot! :) --Krusty 11:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Yup, that's working, although I imagine admins will be able to get around the block. rpeh •TCE 11:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

(o/d) I see that Lore:Places has gone on the semi-protection list too. Since the number of places where people are adding Skyrim-related information seems to be increasing, I thought I'd better explain my reasons for thinking this is inappropriate at this time so we can see what the consensus is.

Basically, if we start adding "Skyrim is where TES V will be set" (for now) or other Skyrim-related information (when it starts to appear) is that it's all going to have to be in the future tense and then we'll have to change it all again when the game comes out. We're also going to be constantly checking these rumors to make sure they're true. Wikipedia operates a similar policy, encapsulated by the WP:CRYSTAL policy - "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". UESP reports what has happened, not what's going to happen or is likely to happen. We've reported that the game has been announced, and that should be the extent of our reporting at the moment.

Obviously all this is just my opinion, and if enough people believe otherwise then obviously we'll have to change things. Until then, let's keep the Skyrim stuff on the news page where it belongs. rpeh •TCE 18:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. Having monitored the Diablo III page on Wikipedia, it seems quite likely the same phenomenon of adding speculative information will happen here as well. Let's just stick to, at most, information published on any official pages, and even then, as rpeh says, we'll have to think about whether we really want to word it in future tense, present tense, or just plain leave it off the site until the game is out. Robin Hoodtalk 19:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
While I'm not completely comfortable with semi-protecting all these pages, it is only temporary and hopefully things will ease down a bit in a week or two. I agree with everything that's been said; no need for us to play Crystal Ball, without knowing what will happen or what the game will be about. Let's just take it easy, await news from Beth and see where it leads us. --Krusty 20:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I imagine in a week or so the pages can be unprotected - it's understandable that there's a bit of a buzz in the community right now, but it'll fade soon enough. It's easy to find the protected pages and review them anyway.
Thinking about this a bit more, I think we can ask Daveh to create the new namespace to avoid problems with any links that get made. A Skyrim:Skyrim page would also let us have a central page where all the relevant new information can be mentioned, along with a talk page for other stuff.
One minor point... I'm going to suggest SY as the prefix for the new game. We've already assigned SK to Shadowkey, and while we could change that, it'd be a big job for not much benefit. The other options would be SM or SR, I suppose. If we're going to create a new namespace we need to get this decided for the MediaWiki:Uespnamespacelist page. rpeh •TCE 21:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I've created the Skyrim namespace on content1/2. I didn't see Rpeh's last comment so the current prefix is 'SR' which can be changed if needed (the sooner the better). If any other changes are desired just let me know as usual. -- Daveh 21:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm fine with SR, but please can an admin add the following line to MediaWiki:Uespnamespacelist:
Skyrim              ; SR   ; Skyrim
Thanks. rpeh •TCE 21:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Done. Please check if everything is okay. --Krusty 21:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that SR is probably the right abbreviation here. It would fit with the method used for practically all namespaces (of which TR for Tribunal is the exception).

I also agree that a Skyrim:Skyrim article can already be created. I think there's enough content for one article, and all news from Bethesda about the game can be gathered there. There's even some concept art in the banner of the BethBlog at the moment, which I'm sure represents Skyrim (nick it for the article?). At some we are going to have create the article, so we might as well do it now. We don't have to adhere to Wikipedia's notability guideline for this, as the games (and extra) is the single thing the site's about.

Anyone else noticed how all links to site are no longer functional since it was redesigned for Skyrim? (It all ends in 404s). See the link to the official Oblivion website, for example. --Timenn-<talk> 08:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah they've pretty much borked all our links to their website now :/
I tried writing a Skyrim:Skyrim page the other day (we can use the link now Dave has created the namespace) but got stuck because we know almost nothing. I was a post for the forums but may as well post it here because it's just as applicable:

On the wiki, we'll create a Skyrim page when there's something to say. At the moment there are two facts that are known about the game: It's called Skyrim and it's likely to be released on 11/11/11. Likely, because deadlines slip and although Bethesda will do everything they can, this one might slip too.

Everything else you've heard about the game is speculation.

Look at some of the "facts" we've had posted on some pages.

  • It's set in Skyrim. Not necessarily, although I will admit it's staggeringly likely. Oblivion was mainly NOT set in Oblivion; Daggerfall was set only partly in Daggerfall; Morrowind was set in Vvardenfell (which is only part of Morrowind).
  • It features dragons. Not necessarily. The dragons could be a metaphor for Akavir. It could refer to Akatosh. It could refer to the Empire somehow.
  • You play the Dovakhiin. Not necessarily. You didn't play the person who saved Tamriel in Oblivion - that was Martin. Your job was to get him to the right place at the right time.
  • It features the Dovakhiin. Not necessarily. It seems likely, but it *could* be a giant MacGuffin.

You get the picture? In other words, everything we know is on the main page news story at the moment.

If we're going to create the page at this point, it's going to be incredible basic. Of course, it'll stop people asking us when we're going to create one so might be beneficial for that reason. It's an admin decision in any case, since nobody else can create a page called "Skyrim" at the moment. rpeh •TCE 21:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I would sugest something like this.--Ghurhak gro-Demril or TAOYes? 23:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

For the moment, I've just redirected Skyrim:Skyrim to General:The Future of TES Games. All of the information we have is listed there, and that should satisfy any users who want a page up. I figured I'd go ahead and do it, since it's easily changed/reversed. Thoughts? --GKtalk2me 23:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Very good idea. What do you think about a link to the official forums? The residents of the asylum are going into overdrive digging out every piece of Lore even possibly related to the game, and coming up with enough wild speculation to fill up ten wikis. That might satisfy the strange desire many people have to talk about what might be happening without bothering us or our forums. rpeh •TCE 23:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. Like so? --GKtalk2me 00:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Perfect! Thanks, GK. rpeh •TCE 09:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Kay, I don't see any real reason not to give the game its own page at this point. Check out my sandbox, let me know what y'all think, if it's ready to be moved to Skyrim:Skyrim. --GKtalk2me 02:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

() Alright, I've gathered more info from the magazine and updated my sandbox; was really hoping on some sort of feedback before I send it live... --GKtalk2me 22:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, GK. With holidays and illness I don't even remember seeing your original post. Your sandbox is looking pretty good. There's a pair of (semi-)decent sources here and here for some of the details if you feel like working some of the GI stuff in. In any event, what you've got there looks good to go, and I think we definitely need something now. rpeh •TCE 22:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Basically, I have the same apologies as rpeh - but the page is great and I like the fact that all information are backed up by sources; I think you should just launch it. :) --Krusty 17:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The page looks good, well done. Only the setting "presumably in Skyrim" isn't right in my opinion. Yes, it's a fact there's no way we can really be sure at this point, however, we've seen the map for Skyrim that's going to be used in-game, and seeing the game's name being Skyrim, I believe it's safe to say for now it just IS going to take place in Skyrim. But that's just what I think of course :) ~ Dwarfmp 18:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Kay, we now have an article at Skyrim! I've semi-protected it just as a precautionary measure, and I've also gone ahead and added Skyrim to the sidebar. Let me know if anything goes screwy :) --GKtalk2me 19:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
This book actually tells of the fall of Alduin, mentions Greybeards, and the 1000 steps of High Hrothgar. There is also a rumor from Oblivion: "There are foul tidings from Skyrim. The Greybeards speak of the end of all times." I think there has to be some relevant information in there. --Arch-Mage Matt Did I Do That? 22:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Alduin is mentioned in two books - both referenced on our Lore:Alduin article. Greybeards are mentioned in a few places: the Arcturian Heresy springs to mind - but our Lore:Greybeards article needs a lot of work. Yes, there's a rumor from Oblivion, but I think they were hedging their bets. It's not like Oddfrid's prophecy about Oblivion from Bloodmoon.
Basically, I'm advising against reading too much into things from the past. I'm sure there's quite a lot of stuff that could be seen as a reference to Skyrim, but remember that while Oblivion was set just six years after Morrowind (and hence Bloodmoon), Skyrim is set 200 years after Oblivion. That means that vague rumors about the End of Days don't really have much weight. rpeh •TCE 22:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
First things first, the new section is looking pretty nice (and it has certainly taken the pressure off the Future of TES games page). But I do have a question. The article mentions that there are 'were-yetis' in the game. While I have seen mention of were-yetis on certain websites, there are other websites that mention nothing of the sort. While I have not read the game informer issue myself, there has been talk on the forums that the were-yetis are a hoax.--Tovenam 22:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I say we keep the mention of Were-yetis, though we should probably add a template or something of the like that says; "This is an article about an unreleased game and is likely to contain information that will be contradictory to the finished version.". What do you guys think? Alpha Kenny Buddy 22:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like a good plan, as we can't trust everything we read about the game at the moment. At the very least there should be some sort of warning tag.--Tovenam 22:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
That's the way we do it too at our Wiki. It's really the best :) --Deepfighter 22:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The article already has a big warning at the bottom. We could always use {{Quality}}, but I don't like the idea of a sidebar article having such a template on it. rpeh •TCE 23:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Can an Admin put move protection at Skyrim:Skyrim? Thanks. --Rigas Papadopoulos • TalkDeeds 22:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

() As for the Notice, we simply decided to put it at the bottom because it was really ugly if it was on top of the huge Skyrim sign. Better let some time pass and see how it goes... --Krusty 23:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I already noticed the notice, we should at least expand it a little noting that the content already in the article could be inaccurate, as we have no way to truly confirm what might me taken out or added until it is in our hands. Alpha Kenny Buddy 23:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Correct me if I am wrong, I am still pretty new here, but I just noticed that since we now have a Skyrim article shouldn't we move this discussion there? I mean most of this is about the article development itself, so it should belong there shouldn't it? Alpha Kenny Buddy 23:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I've stuck the {{Quality}} template on it. It's never made the slightest difference before, but let's try it again now. rpeh •TCE 23:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Move Protection of UESPWiki:Getting Started

Page linked from sidebar. --Rigas Papadopoulos • TalkDeeds 21:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Anybody? --Rigas Papadopoulos • TalkDeeds 05:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Changed move protection to full for UESPWiki:Getting Started. Seems it needed move protection from you... --Timenn-<talk> 21:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


I think that it may be a good idea to semi-protect the page Lore:Tamriel. Within the last few days there have been several edits by IPs to include "This is the setting for the upcoming game...etc." --DKong27 Talk Cont 23:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

All done. --Krusty 23:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. --DKong27 Talk Cont 23:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
If it weren't where would it be? Akavir? Oblivion again? Ergh...--Ghurhak gro-Demril or TAOYes? 00:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Two New News Stories

Normally I'd just bug Krusty on IRC/Email, but he seems to be in bed so please can the first admin on the scene add two new news stories to the front page:

The "Game Engine" one is slightly older news despite me having created it earlier than the other one. Obviously, merge/change as required. Thanks. rpeh •TCE 00:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Userspace Patroller Patrollers

Whenever an admin has a moment, Corevette789 and Jplatinum16 can be removed from the list of Userspace Patrollers, as they're now full-fledged Patrollers. Robin Hoodtalk 05:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast! :) Robin Hoodtalk 05:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Haha, yeah - since the mistake is basically mine (I mistakenly clicked the UP rights and Patroller rights when I promoted them), I can be very fast! --Krusty 06:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

More protection

This something is going to have to be done maybe, either deletion or protection, I can see it causing more 'trouble' over the coming months - Emoboy64 18:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

More pages with move protection

The IRC and the Community Portal are also linked from the sidebar. --Rigas Papadopoulos • TalkDeeds 23:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I did not had to move the pages this time... --Rigas Papadopoulos • TalkDeeds 17:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Spam bot (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

per google --Wizy (Talk/Contribs) 05:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 hours pending permanent blocking by an Admin. Robin Hoodtalk 06:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Oblivion Roleplaying pages

I suggest to reduce the protection from full to semi. These pages are full with grammar errors, and it is annoying to have to make a request here every time some wants something changed at the pages, like rpeh does. I believe it will be better with semi protection. --Rigas Papadopoulos • TalkDeeds 14:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The Roleplaying pages are about to be deleted (see Community Portal discussion), so it's a moot point. Robin Hoodtalk 01:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't log into an account I just created.

Title say it all really. Signed up, activated the account and just can not log in. I've checked the password and spelling etc many times.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

My account is Esoteric Argonian.

Try making it again, it isn't showing up in the user creation logs at least in the past month.--Pwnageincarnate 02:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Pwnageincarnate

Patrolling Talk:

While I was removing a forum-like topic from Oblivion talk:Oblivion‎, I noticed that all of the topics on that page were like that. I was under the impression that the Talk pages are supposed to be about their related project page, in this case Oblivion:Oblivion‎. None of the topics on that talk page are remotely related to that project page at all. --Brf 16:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I suspect that this was the very first OB page ever made and it naturally became an "all-round" topic talk, because there were no other places. Why people keep talking is a mystery - nothing serious, though. --Krusty 18:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

More News

When an admin has a moment, may they please bless the latest fruits of my insomnia. rpeh •TCE 02:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


Hi guys!

My IP just got a warning for an edit I didn't do :'(

I love this site - it's helped me so much - and seeing as I'd never want to harm it and I'm not a twelve-year-old schoolkid (I'm a 31-year-old engineer lady haha!) I would not stoop to editing about buttse>< (>< button broken!).

So please let it be know this was done without my permission.


Kim — Unsigned comment by (talk) at 00:18 on 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Erm... Where exactly is that warning?--Krusty 00:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
like Krusty said, there is no warning attributed to your current IP, but neither are there any contributions. Either you did get warned but are now using a different IP, or you misinterpretted something. Either way, you have no warning on this IP. --Pwnageincarnate 00:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Pwnageincarnate
I've had enough of this. We need to review the current idiotic policy that we use for IPs and start actually living up to our Etiquette policy. Wikipedia doesn't give out infinite bans or the sort of harsh warning we give to IPs, and they're far more susceptible to wandalism. We can easily cause warnings to expire after a given time and I think we've had enough false positives either to do so, or to come up with some other solution. rpeh •TCE 03:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Seriously. Can we look again at our IP blocking policy please? Especially in the light of autoblock, which I don't think was part of MW when the policy was first implemented.
I suggest all IPs currently blocked indefinitely be given an amnesty and after that we have a one year max-block policy.
Named Accounts should still be subject to infinite blocks after it becomes clear they have nothing to contribute. rpeh •TCE 23:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of a real problem here. How would your suggestion affect our policy on TOR IPs, spammers, and similar situations? --GKtalk2me 21:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
There may be a short problem with nonsense bots and the like, but at the moment we assume that once you're a zombie or a TOR exit note, that's always the case. In many cases, the situation was an accident, not intentional, so it's more likely that after a while, you fix the problem. There may be a few exceptions to this rule - the online anomisers like hidemyass and the like that might still merit an infinite block - but otherwise we shouldn't assume that IPs are always evil. At the very least we ought to adapt our IP warning and block messages to be more like WP, where they have prominent "if this isn't you" messages. rpeh •TCE 13:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

News tip -Technology behind Skyrim.

The tech behind Skyrim. -- 19:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


I would like to recommend a semi-protection on the page Oblivion:M'aiq the Liar due to the edits that have been coming up about his dragon mentioning. It has been reverted several times, even after the addition of a note specifically about that. --DKong27 Talk Cont 22:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

New Skyrim info

Since both page and talk page are blocked from editing, figure this is the only logic place to post this. New info from a Dutch gaming magazine, including confirmation of the return of the Dark Brotherhood and the game's start, can be found here.

If someone with access to the page could post an update ;) -- 19:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Logging Blocks

We've previously logged every single block made by members of the Blockers user group, but is this really necessary? I ask because I just gave a 15 minute block to an IP that had been making some silly edits as a cooling off hint. Editing the log page purely so that an admin can come along and remove it again seems... silly.

I'm suggesting that instead, we log only repeat blocks or blocks of the maximum length: in other words, blocks that an admin needs to do something else about. Make sense? rpeh •TCE 20:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, especially when we're talking 15 minute blocks; just use the log for the full 3-hour blocks. Of course, I can't speak for the other admins, but if things get really serious or you have to go somewhere, use the log - or the usual channels to contact me. :) --Krusty 20:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Makes sense to me too. If the blocked party feels the short-term block was unwarranted or should otherwise be reviewed, they can always bring the issue here after the block has expired. Robin Hoodtalk 21:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Two new Namespaces

Please could an admin add the following two lines to MediaWiki:Uespnamespacelist in the light of our two new namespaces?

Stormhold               ; SH   ; Stormhold
OBMobile                ; OM   ; OBMobile    ; Oblivion Mobile

Thanks. rpeh •TCE 09:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Krusty 16:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Prev: Archive 16 Up: Administrator Noticeboard Next: Archive 18