Semi Protection

UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard/Archive 31

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.

Request for abuseeditor rights

I'd like to request abuseeditor rights so that I can edit the AbuseFilter. Every now and then I come across a word or phrase that's common in spam and not used elsewhere (like certain brand names or curse words) or a website that should be added to exceptions for the external link filter (like the xbox site and the site we link to for copyright licenses). It's more a convenience than a necessity, but I understand the syntax and would rather be able to edit it myself than having to mention it to Jak Atackka or an admin. Vely►t►e 17:52, 27 March 2013 (GMT)

I think this is a great idea; one or the other you is pretty consistently available in case the filter needs to be tweaked, and if you know what you're doing I have no problems sending you in there ;). Sounds good to me! eshetalk 17:57, 27 March 2013 (GMT)
Of all the non-admins on the wiki, Vely is the top choice I would make for an additional editor with abuseeditor rights. I wouldn't have any issues with him having these rights at all. — ABCface 18:14, 27 March 2013 (GMT)
Velyanthe and The Silencer are the two users who I would most trust with this duty. Having worked directly with both of them before, I trust the two of them completely with the Abuse Filter. I know this is currently for Velyanthe, but since we're already doing this, I'd like to nominate The Silencer to receive these rights as well. He is free to decline, but he's definitely skilled and trustworthy enough to get these rights as well. I know that once next year rolls around, I may not be as active as I'd like, so it'll be wise to give all of the trusted users that have shown significant interest in the filter the rights to maintain them. • JAT 18:21, 27 March 2013 (GMT)
I can't deny that I'd be interested, so if people want to trust me with these rights, I'd put some time into learning how they work (rather than just poking Jak). Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 18:51, 27 March 2013 (GMT)
I'm good with either or both of them having abuseeditor rights. They've both shown the technical proficiency I think a user needs to look at the insanely messy syntax of those rules! :) Robin Hood  (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2013 (GMT)

() Using examples like the xbox site, which I hit my head against straight away when I first registered here, (and Jak came to my rescue at that time), I can see how important this role is. Both Vely and Silencer have my support for this. Daric 20:06, 27 March 2013 (GMT)

I have no problem with either of them having this. --Xyzzy Talk 21:44, 27 March 2013 (GMT)

Done! -- Daveh (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2013 (GMT)

Thanks! Though I'm not sure you wanted to give Vely the rights so much as Velyanthe... Vely's my doppelganger :) Vely►t►e 18:36, 8 April 2013 (GMT)

Rotating Proxy IP bots

We have what appears to be at least one bot spamming a couple pages as several different IPs. Last month on March 1st we had a series of vandalism to Morrowinds Grazeland page starting with this one [1] and leading to Lurlock placing a protect on the page. This evening we've had a string of extremely similar vandalism to the Lore Talk Daedric Prince page, in particular 2 of the edits were identical to edits made by the bots a month ago, and were placed in the exact same order. In both cases the bots ignored previous vandalism that had been made and proceeded to vandalize a different part of the page. I feel these IPs are all the same bot and it is routing through proxies to mask itself from being blocked. I would move that if this keeps up ALL of the IPs related to these two strings be blocked for at least a few months to prevent future vandalism. Lord Eydvar Talk|Contribs 09:48, 2 April 2013 (GMT)

As a followup, it just occurred for a second time this morning, on the Kynaran Order page, same pattern, 1 IP makes first edit, 2 more follow up with additional vandalism. Lord Eydvar Talk|Contribs 09:59, 2 April 2013 (GMT)
Here is a list of IPs involved so far.

There may be previous vandalism series I haven't caught but those 5 IPs all appear to be the same bot. Lord Eydvar Talk|Contribs 10:07, 2 April 2013 (GMT)

Preventing spam: A new captcha

The mediawiki extention Asirra (original Microsoft page here) requires users to look at pictures of cats and dogs (the number is changeable) and click on the cats (which will then be selected with a green border and can be deselected by clicking on them again). The images show as small thumbnails, but hovering over them will enlarge the images. You can test it out by editing this page; it show up after you click "save page".

Users can tell dogs and cats apart; bots cannot. In addition, bots won't be able to save the images for easy recognition because the images are randomly selected from (which allows the images to be used because of site exposure; clicking "adopt me" when hovering over an image will take you to the info page for that animal). Failing to select the correct images brings up a little window saying "please correctly identify the cats".

Replacing the old captcha would probably greatly reduce the amount of spam accounts that are created and allow us to block accounts that repeatedly attempt to spam the wiki, clogging up the spam filters. Asirra is still in beta phase, but it appears to work well and I think it wouldn't hurt to try it out.

Thoughts? Vely►t►e 20:15, 2 April 2013 (GMT)

I'm in support of this. This would be the best possible replacement to the currently useless captcha for terms of difficulty of the bots getting by it and simplicity for our new users (in fact, it'd most likely be easier than doing a captcha). --AKB Talk Cont Mail 20:20, 2 April 2013 (GMT)
I like this too. It's less of a pain than normal captchas, and I can see how bots would have a hard time with it. It even works on mobile platforms (or at least my mobile platform, which is good enough for me!). eshetalk 20:26, 2 April 2013 (GMT)
I'm in favour of this too. I still think it would be better if we could have "click the Frost Trolls but not the Dragons". But this is still better than what we have presently. My old eyes were struggling to read those words, and I had to reload the Captcha numerous times before I could read one. Daric 23:09, 2 April 2013 (GMT)
Trolls and dragons would be fun, but the huge, changing database of images on the pet site would prevent bots from being set up to remember so few images. And yeah, captchas are hard to read for humans too. Vely►t►e 23:20, 2 April 2013 (GMT)
I was looking up the installation instructions, and there may be a problem with using Asirra. From the Assira section of the ConfirmEdit page (which is what triggers Captcha/Asirra): "Currently reported to not work with all browsers (especially IE 8 and 9) even if using the latest/trunk version." I'll try setting it up on the dev server later and test it with the modern versions of all the PC browsers, but I can't readily test with older versions or non-PC browsers. Robin Hood  (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2013 (GMT)

() IE9 (9.0.8112.16421), Chrome (26.0.1410.43), and Firefox version 19.0 both work with it for me (on the test page), though Firefox takes longer to load the images (but the hover works right away). Vely►t►e 02:19, 3 April 2013 (GMT)

Okay, Asirra is up and running on the development server if anyone wants to try it in a UESP-like environment. (Keep in mind that the development server was created as a copy of the wiki back in early December, so you may have to log in with an older password.) Just to confuse the issue, Asirra v0.8 includes a copy of ConfirmEdit v1.0, while ConfirmEdit 1.1 includes a copy of Asirra (no version) that's totally different from the original. There's no particular guideline on which one to use, but since Asirra's page says they're not supporting the ConfirmEdit version, I went with Asirra 0.8 rather than ConfirmEdit's version.
Also, it appears to work in all five major PC browsers (Chrome 26, Firefox 20, IE 10, Opera 12, and Safari 5), though I only went as far as the "Create User" page and tried clicking the cats...I didn't actually create a user after the first one. Robin Hood  (talk) 03:25, 3 April 2013 (GMT)
That seems like a lot of cats to click on, and on slow connections the images might be a pain to load. It feels like a lot of effort for the end user. No real criticism, but it's still an annoying captcha. —Legoless (talk) 03:38, 3 April 2013 (GMT)
The amount of pictures per row is changeable; we could cut it down to four total images or so. Would it be possible to make this captcha apply to only account creation and the other to adding links? Would we want that? That way it would only show up once per user, which may be enough to discourage bots (unless they like guessing games). Vely►t►e 03:46, 3 April 2013 (GMT)
From a previous conversation, which I couldn't find, I thought captcha was easily defeated by the spammer forwarding it to an unsuspecting person who solves it for the spambot. Is my memory faulty, or has this changed? --Xyzzy Talk 18:04, 3 April 2013 (GMT)
So, is there a plan to implement this soon? Also, who would be able to do so?
Xyzzy, it's possible, but I don't know how prevalent it is. Vely►t►e 17:04, 14 April 2013 (GMT)
If it at least stops the small-time spammers, then it's worth it. I had problems with the dog/cat captcha some months ago while trying to create an account with some website that I've since forgotten, eventually giving up. If everyone else is testing it without incident, then I have no objection to switching our captcha to this. --Xyzzy Talk 17:14, 14 April 2013 (GMT)

() I've got an idea. On our account creation screen when the captcha shows up, we can direct users to post on the AN or CP (or some other designated page) anonymously if the captcha is confusing, difficult, or not functioning correctly. Vely►t►e 17:22, 14 April 2013 (GMT)

To answer Vely's question, I haven't discussed it with Dave, but it seems those who have commented are more or less in agreement, in which case any of the server admins can implement it. I can't disagree with Legoless that it's an annoying capture, but I tried lowering the amount of images per row only to find that it still gave 12 images, only over three rows instead of two. Looks like we have no control over it—one way or the other, we're inspecting 12 images.
The idea of putting a help message there is a good one. Once the extension is installed, we can customize the messages. If nobody foresees any problems, I can put Asirra in place this afternoon. Just for reference, here's a list of pages that we'll probably want to customize:
  • [[MediaWiki:Asirra-addurl
  • [[MediaWiki:Asirra-badpass
  • [[MediaWiki:Asirra-createaccount
  • [[MediaWiki:Asirra-createaccount-fail (not sure if we'll need to do this one or not).
On a slightly different note, in testing this, I discovered that we currently issue a warning when adding external URLs, then once they get past that, we also ask for the Captcha. Do we really need both? Robin Hood  (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2013 (GMT)
I'm not sure we need to have this for anything other than account creation yet. We can probably leave the old captcha in place for posting URLs. If the bot-people later figure out that they have to do the account creation by hand, we might add it for URLs as well, but I think just having this be a one time thing at account creation should stymy the majority of spam bots. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2013 (GMT)
(edit conflict) One significant issue with Asirra just came to light: it requires Javascript to work. If you have Javascript disabled, you can't perform any Captcha-triggering actions including creating a new account, logging in if you failed the first time, or posting external links.
Responding to Lurlock's post that I got EC'd on: we can't pick and choose which Captcha is used for what, we can only choose which Captcha we use overall and which events we use it for (account creation, password failure, creating pages, editing pages, or adding a URL to a page). Robin Hood  (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2013 (GMT)
Robin Hood, yes, the second captcha when entering a URL has been a problem for a while. I suspect, though, that it's a good thing, because many bots can get past captchas, but aren't programmed to get past a second one. If it's a significant problem, then we should look into what's causing it, but I'd just as happily leave it the way it is. • JAT 21:44, 14 April 2013 (GMT)
In the absence of any other feedback, I've tentatively enabled Asirra. It's easy enough to go back if there are problems, so let's give it a try for a few days and see how things go. Robin Hood  (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2013 (GMT)

() Just as a point of reference, since the beginning of the year, we've been averaging about 60 new users per day; over the last 500 edits, we've been averaging 80 new users per day. Based on the User Creation Log, obviously some are still getting through. We'll just have to wait and see if Asirra's actually cutting down on the number at all. Robin Hood  (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2013 (GMT)

On a tangentially related note, I've also just disabled account creation via the API. The API, for those who don't know, is a secondary method of accessing the wiki, primarily meant for bots. As near as I can tell, roughly 25% of all the recent account creations were done via the API, which doesn't have the same checks as the "real" wiki does. This includes two of the four accounts that were created since installing Asirra. I'm hopeful that this, along with the switch to Asirra, will bring these false account creations close to zero. Robin Hood  (talk) 22:50, 29 April 2013 (GMT)
Whoa - bots were able to create accounts directly without going through the standard checks that a human goes through? No wonder we were getting so much spam. Good catch closing that loophole - I'm shocked that this would even be possible, as there's virtually no legitimate reason to do so. That's like, the one thing that should be impossible for a bot... — TheRealLurlock (talk) 00:49, 30 April 2013 (GMT)
I didn't notice this yesterday, but apparently, that's actually something coming up in 1.21, it's not yet available. We've...errr...preemptively prevented it. :) While it looks like there's been a significant drop in account creation, some are still getting through and managing to bypass CheckUser. Of those that didn't bypass CheckUser, most look legit, though some are a bit more dubious. According to what I've found so far, the only way of creating accounts that we have available should be the normal method that we all use, so I'm not sure how these account creations are bypassing CheckUser. The only other way of creating accounts should involve automated creation via an extension (e.g., for things like linking forums and wikis), but as far as I know, we don't have anything installed that allows that. I'm doing more research, and I've also written to Tim Starling, one of the main MW programmers and a creator of CheckUser, to see if he's got any ideas. Robin Hood  (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2013 (GMT)
I've discovered an issue with updating a page using the new captcha. If you preview the page first before saving, you will run into an infinite captcha loop if you have any new URL links in it. If you save the page without previewing, you only get asked for the captcha once and it saves fine. Without the new URL links, previewing and saving works as expected. Saebel (talk) 12:30, 4 June 2013 (GMT)
Thanks for the report. While I'll agree that that's a significant issue, I don't think we can do much about it. I've only got the barest knowledge of PHP, personally, so I don't think I can fix it myself, and the owner hasn't updated the project in over a year. If people feel this is a significant enough issue that we want to try experimenting with other options, there is another version of it with the ConfirmEdit extension, which looks like a total rewrite. We can try that and see if it exhibits the same behaviour or not. Robin Hood  (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2013 (GMT)

Creative Commons 3.0 Is Not Backward Compatible

(moved from Copyright and Ownership at the advice of Vely in IRC.)

This query relates more to the licenses that can be applied to images when uploading them to the UESP's server, rather than to the license(s) applied to the site itself. I've been uploading several images lately that have been sourced from (or are derived / remixed from images sourced from) places such as Wikimedia Commons and Mediawiki. I've noticed that very often (such as this example) the CC license in use for the source image has no exact analog in the drop-down list for licenses we can apply to images here. In the given example, I have ended up having to manually add a comment that states what the original license was, before it was uploaded to the UESP's server.

This is very important, as the BY-SA 3.0 license, for example, is not backwards compatible with the 2.5 license. Essentially, this means that "users cannot license a work that incorporates or remixes a work offered under a BY-SA 3.0 license (like Wikipedia articles) under an earlier version of BY-SA". My remixed images on the UESP are currently in violation of this, as I can only license my remixed images on the UESP website under the licenses that are currently available from the drop-down list on the Special:Upload page, or by manually applying a template later, for which there currently are no CC 3.0 alternatives.

There has been some discussion here already about jurisdiction, with Canada being the likely candidate. I notice however that the available CC license templates {{Cc-by-2.5}}, {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}}, and {{Cc-by-sa-nc-2.5}} are all using the Unported (International) 2.5 licenses, rather than the Canadian Ported 2.5 licenses (Canada doesn't yet have the Ported 3.0 licenses yet, as far as I know). This is fortuitous in some respects as it would probably be best to adopt the Unported (International) 3.0 licenses that other websites are commonly using, rather than have to concern ourselves with Canada's lack of 3.0 support. I'm happy to help create the new templates for the Unported 3.0 licenses. Daric 13:41, 27 March 2013 (GMT)

Ah yes...good to know. There's no reason to not include the 3.0 license so feel free to go ahead or I'll get to it at some point. -- Daveh (talk) 13:05, 11 April 2013 (GMT)
Thanks for the reply Dave. I'll get on it right away. Daric 20:00, 11 April 2013 (GMT)
Okay, here are my samples for the new 3.0 Unported licenses. Please note that I have standardized the wording to Creative Commons terminology, such as "remix" instead of "modify", and the non-commercial one is now BY-NC-SA instead of BY-SA-NC. {{Cc-by-3.0}}, {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}, and {{Cc-by-nc-sa-3.0}} I hope these are appropriate. If so, they will probably need to be added to the drop-down list on the Special:Upload page, which I can't help with. 😁 Daric 20:32, 11 April 2013 (GMT)

Limiting Page Creation As A Policy For New Games

...and for when DLC comes out. Page creation was blocked after votes when Skyrim and Dragonborn were due for release. As both changes were almost unanimously supported, I think one more vote is needed, a vote to make this a policy, rather than a case-by-case procedure. The policy in a nutshell is this (and yes it is basically Nephele's rationale, I see nothing wrong with that):

  • 1: Limit creation of new (Example Game) pages.
Rationale: As soon as the game is released, bots (as long as we have bots who can do this) will start automatically creating placeholder pages/redirects for every quest, place, NPC, item, spell, etc. in the game data files. In other words, bots will create every necessary (Example Game) page. Using bots ensures that all pages are spelled and capitalized properly, and also ensures that they're given the correct categories and breadcrumb trails. Once the bots start running, anyone trying to create a page will probably be trying to create an incorrectly named page (e.g., "River Wood" instead of "Riverwood"). With this restriction, we'll avoid the chaos of multiple pages on the same topic, merging those pages, redirecting/deleting the incorrect one, etc. Any editors who try to create a page will instead be directed to place a request at New Page Requests.
Time period: Release date (specifically, older namespaces immediately, and once bots start creating pages for the new namespace) for Two months for a new game, one month for DLC.
  • 2 Limit creation of Lore, Main, and the newest old game (e.g. Oblivion was blocked for Skyrim) namespace pages and only for new games (not DLC). Prevent anyone except those with tboverride rights from creating new pages in these namespaces (will not apply to talk pages).
Rationale: These three namespaces are places where editors unfamiliar with UESP are likely to try incorrectly creating (Example Game) pages. As with #1, preventing incorrect articles from being created will reduce the chaos. There shouldn't be any need for new (Old Game) or main namespace articles, so there's virtually no downside to restricting those two namespaces. On the other hand, new Lore articles will need to be created, so the question that needs to be discussed is whether there's likely to be enough demand for new Lore articles to justify the risk of allowing unrestricted page creation.
Time period: Release date (specifically, older namespaces immediately, and once bots start creating pages for the new namespace) for Two months.

Additionally a clause can be inserted that if there are no bots available, we do not limit creation, and only for #1, #2 can still be implemented.

For clarification, tboverride includes UserPatrollers upwards (I'm unsure of Autopatrolled though), and hence a UserPatroller can ignore the limits. I can't find anything about what happened around Oblivions release, so any discussions on creation limits would be helpful if links are provided. These time limits are my choice, Dragonborn was blocked for 1 month as DLC, and Skyrim for 3.5 months which I feel was a tad too harsh/long (and actually even longer as it was forgotten about). My proposal is solely focused on page creation, nothing else (in case something slipped in from the copy/paste). Finally, the reason I choose the CP this time, is that this is intended to be a permanent temporary policy, not a temporary temporary one. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 02:47, 18 February 2013 (GMT)

I think #2 will work reasonably well, but I'm not so sure about #1. For Dragonborn we didn't bot-create all the articles. For a future DLC the situation will be better, NPCs, quests and so on will probably be bot-created. But I don't think the coverage will be as thorough as it was for Skyrim, still leaving the need to create many articles by hand. Additionally I didn't see any major problems arising from not limiting page creation for the Hearthfire and Dragonborn releases (in the Dragonborn namespace for the latter). And in all likelyhood we won't be able to bot-create the majority of content for ESO anyway. --Alfwyn (talk) 14:01, 18 February 2013 (GMT)
I think people underestimate how much we will be able to gather with bots in ESO. Likely, locations will not be able to be bot created (i.e. the individual sub-zones of the provinces), but I think that items, NPCs, monsters, skills and professions will likely all be able to, at least somewhat, be gathered via a bot. This is the case with many other major MMOs (like WoW, TOR, etc), and officially sanctioned fan sites, with links from the official site, use bots, so clearly they are able to, and allowed to do so. There is a complicated technical reason why much of the data is stored in the client, which I would be happy to explain to people on IRC, but suffice it to say that much of the data is stored in the client, and thus accessible by us. Jeancey (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2013 (GMT)
I think everyone here can at least understand the reasoning for why a lot of MMO data is kept server side, if not the technical information for why it is that way. I agree with both of these proposals, as long as it's made completely clear with the first proposal that we CANNOT protect namespaces if we don't have bots who can work on it immediately. As for the second proposal, lore should only be protected if we have bots working on adding pages (not that I expect bots to add lore pages, but just because there would be a lot less work for the average editor if we do have bots). --AKB Talk Cont Mail 18:55, 3 April 2013 (GMT)
Actually AKB, I was saying the opposite. Much of the data is kept client side, not server side. The server really just stores specific references for NPCs, (i.e. the specific instance of a monster), and does some of the calculations, but the majority of the actual game data is stored on your PC. Jeancey (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2013 (GMT)
Sorry, I skimmed through your post. As far as I understand from the explanation I've been given when I've asked about that before, the data kept in the client is data that would be a pain to have people download from the server. I don't know much about the technicalities, but that was the simplistic answer I was given. Either way, we can't rely on bots with ESO as no one here that I know of is overly familiar with MMOs, and we can't expect our bot users to be able to get that information quick enough. It would be better to leave ESO open in case there is a delay with data extraction than risk us losing time. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 19:07, 3 April 2013 (GMT)
That was how they USED to do MMOs. WoW changed everything by including the data in the client. That way, the majority of the calculations are done on the individuals computer, and then just sent to the server. The server stores everyone's exact position and updates everything on everyone else's client. This allowed for less lag, little to no loading screens, and help people play effectively even when they had a terrible internet connection. After WoW did this, pretty much every major MMO has done this too. It drastically lowered the number of servers required to run an MMO, thus reducing the cost. If ESO is going to have 200+ people in a single battle, it HAS to do the calculations in the client. Otherwise the more people, the more connections to the internet you have to make, and it slows everything down. If you are doing the calculations in the client, then the majority of the data has to be in the client too. It is much more complicated than this, but that is the gist of it. Jeancey (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2013 (GMT)
Per silencer's request:To sum up, bots WILL be able to gather information for ESO. Jeancey (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2013 (GMT)

() Alright, I get that. However, that still doesn't change the fact that data extraction might be held up. With Skyrim, we knew exactly what we were doing. We were familiar with the game's structure and we were able to very rapidly extract data. There is a real possibility that we won't be able to do that with ESO, though. We might be able to learn more as we get closer to the release date, but until the situation changes, ESO should be open to page creation. If the very real possibility that we won't have bots available comes up, than we can't lock it up. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 19:45, 3 April 2013 (GMT)

I'm hoping that Jak gets into at least one of the betas and can test out how to extract the data then, before the game gets released. If the NDA gets lifted and there is a large, mostly complete open beta, we may even be able to add the data to the wiki DURING the beta, and just fix up anything that gets changed when it is released. Jeancey (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2013 (GMT)
That's absolutely the ideal scenario, but I like to keep the worst one in mind. Now that I think about it, if anyone here does get into the beta, it might be for the best to give it up to either Jak or Robin so they can examine it beforehand. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 19:52, 3 April 2013 (GMT)
(edit conflict) To the point of when bots might not be available/able to extract data for particular games etc, its already in there "Release date (specifically, once bots start creating pages)" and I've altered it a bit (I'll do that once the ec's stop) for that to only apply to the new namespace, older namespaces should still be protected pro-actively. The policies as worded here should not perhaps be taken as the final wording, just an outline of an policy. Once accepted we can work on defining the policy more clearly. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 19:54, 3 April 2013 (GMT)
While you're probably just thinking out loud, AKB, we're not supposed/allowed to give a beta pass to someone else. But there will be an open beta, so that should give enough of an opportunity to check data extraction. Vely►t►e 20:11, 3 April 2013 (GMT)
If you want to be technical, the beta also strictly forbids any messing with the game files. Let's just stop discussing this line of thought here, period. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 20:19, 3 April 2013 (GMT)
I completely agree with limiting page creation in lore. Cleaning up lorespace is very time-consuming with so few editors working on it, so reducing the mess in the first place is very helpful, especially when the new lore is hard to verify. Blocking page creation for older games (i.e. the Oblivion namespace when Skyrim was released) doesn't seem necessary, but might still be a good precaution. —Legoless (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2013 (GMT)

() So far as bots go, I can't speak for Jak, but I'm hoping not to have anything to do with ESO at all. As I've mentioned to a few people before, I despise the entire MMO concept, so if I can avoid ESO, so much the better. Now, that said, if Dave's offering the same deal with ESO as he did with Skyrim, and people feel it's an absolute necessity that HnB be put to work on it, I'm willing to look at it, but there are still a number of impediments:

  • I'm not currently signed up for the beta (as you might have guessed).
  • We don't know how much data will be available client-side, though I tend to agree with Jeancey's assessment.
  • We don't know what format that data will be in.
  • My ability to read Skyrim's game files is still under-developed compared to Dave's, Nephele's and Rpeh's respective programs.
  • If programming is required on a time-sensitive basis, I'm obviously not a good choice due to my health, since my ability to program can be several hours on a good day, or not at all for several days if I'm having a bad period (and Spring is generally bad due to allergies aggravating the CFS symptoms...this is the first good day I've had in about a week).

So, if Jak thinks he'll have time to get into processing game data and getting it onto the wiki, great! If not, then we're going to have to examine other options. One option that comes to mind is that we split the workload. Someone like Dave, for example, has a lot more experience working with the game data than I do, assuming the format of the data is comparable to Skyrim, but he has no bot that I'm aware of. It's certainly quite possible for one person to extract the relevant data into a text file, ship it to Jak or I, then one of us can take that and do the necessary formatting and uploading to the wiki. That would also avoid the issue of the bot owner needing access to ESO. Robin Hood  (talk) 05:43, 4 April 2013 (GMT)

I am definitely willing to work on getting ESO data, at least at this point. I didn't get into the beta, and currently the sign-up link isn't fully working - you can fill it out, but it doesn't give you any indicator of how likely you are to be selected, leading me to believe that they aren't going to have another beta signup soon. Because they are using an entirely different game engine, and it's made by a different company, I suspect that the data will be completely different from past TES games. Because of this, my readiness entirely depends on whether or not I can get into the beta. If so, great, because then I can prepare the bot to extract data from the official game once it's released. However, if I don't, then don't expect me to get the bot up and running for at least a couple weeks. This is, of course, assuming that the game is indeed primarily client-side and not server-side. If it's the latter, then fetching anything outside of world data will be nigh impossible.
Realize, though, that a bot can only get technical data. It can write {{NPC Summary}}s, but it can't write articles on how to find them or the best strategy to kill them. Regardless of whether or not we can get a bot up and running, we'll need people to be playing the game and writing articles, just like any other game (I know I'll be doing plenty of "researching" when it comes out). Dave might also be willing to do it, and Nephele if she comes back, in which case we'll split the work load and focus on different parts of the game.
As far as the proposal itself, I'm still thinking about it, but I'm leaning towards #2, because it's less dependent on bots. • JAT 06:11, 4 April 2013 (GMT)
Just to follow up on this: I think everyone here is generally in agreement with these changes based on the responses here and the previous times we've done this. While the specifics might need a bit ironing out, I think it'd be best to add these to the Protection Policy page whenever it's convenient. No rush, though. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 00:49, 9 April 2013 (GMT)
That page seems to be about how to protect, I can't see how to add it to that page seamlessly. Maybe a short line on when protection is implemented, but have this policy on a subpage? Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 00:01, 15 April 2013 (GMT)
I've added it, but I'd like someone to run their eye over it and see if anything has been left out, or needs better wording (or placed elsewhere on the page). Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 00:01, 13 May 2013 (GMT)

Check User Privileges

Once upon a time, all administrators had Check User privileges (the ability to look up users' IP addresses and cross-reference possible sockpuppets). When Skyrim came along, we promoted a few admins temporarily, but didn't give them Check User rights since they were only temporaries. After the worst of the Skyrim edits were over, most of them became full admins, but we still didn't give them Check User rights. I think this was probably just an oversight in the still fairly hectic post-Skyrim environment. Does anybody have any concerns about granting them the rights that all admins prior to them have had? The affected admins are:

  • Alpha Kenny Buddy
  • Dwarfmp
  • Legoless

Robin Hood  (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2013 (GMT)

I think they've proved themselves worthy admins many time over now, they should have all the rights associated with the position. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 19:52, 4 April 2013 (GMT)
I have no objections to this. --Xyzzy Talk 15:42, 6 April 2013 (GMT)

Archive ease of use

Once again, the issue of looking up past easter egg proposals in the archives has come up, so I want to address a few things that have bothered me for a while:

1. Is there an archive header that places "prev" and "next" links at the top of each archive page, like the footers do? That would make searching through archives a little easier.

2. The table of contents are full of poorly-named section headers. So many of them just say something generic like "Possible Easter Egg", forcing editors who wish to propose an egg to scroll down and read through a lot of unrelated talk page topics. The few conscientious editors who attempt to wade through the archives will likely just give up and post their proposal. Changing talk page section headers to something that more specifically reflects the subject of the section would help. I know that changing others' talk page posts is fairly taboo, but this might be another good exception.

3. I know that, as one person put it awhile ago, "F3 searches aren't hard", but I think a large percentage of people aren't aware of it. Placing a blurb about how to use browser search functions at the top of the page might help.

If we are going to expect people to check the archives before proposing an egg, then it is our responsibility to accomodate searches as much as possible. Either that, or stop griping at people when they propose something that has already been proposed. --Xyzzy Talk 15:41, 6 April 2013 (GMT)

I'd support changing ambiguous headers in the eggs archives, I'd also suggest a summary table/list/something at the top of the page listing what all has been discussed in the sections in that archive. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 15:54, 6 April 2013 (GMT)
I agree with The Silencer - a table summarizing what Easter Eggs have been discussed would be very useful. "Prev" and "Next" links wouldn't really help (because you can always hit your browser's "Back" button and go to the table again). F3 searches (I thought it was Ctrl-F) don't always work, especially when you don't know what term to search for (frozen mammoth? icy elephant? chilled pachyderm?); also, there are times when the search terms may be rather ambiguous (for instance, anything mentioning "Castle Volkihar"). Few people are going to set down their controllers long enough to meticulously search through 13 archives in order to see if that really cool thing they just came across was already mentioned. If we're going to spend all the time to go through and change the section headings, we might as well create a table of discussed Easter Eggs. • JAT 21:03, 6 April 2013 (GMT)
Wikipedia has a system that allows you to search the archives from a search box built into the navigational box. Is it possible for us to do something similar? Jeancey (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2013 (GMT)
Jeancey, maybe. However, we'll still run into issues of potentially unclear or ambiguous phrasing (both by the searcher and in the archives), and unless I'm mistaken, the search engine lists each page once, even if that page may have multiple relevant sections. I've started a sandbox of Easter Egg discussions and their results; feel free to add to it. • JAT 22:08, 6 April 2013 (GMT)

Cleaning the AbuseFilter

I recently had Wabbajak compile a list of the worst offenders of the AbuseFilter, which can be found here. Some of them have a lot of hits. Although it's very good that AbuseFilter has been catching these edits, the problem with leaving the users unblocked is that if the filters are tagging too many edits as spam, they shut themselves off, for safety purposes. However, this lets the spammers right through, which is why we still have a trickle of spam every now and then. The best way to deal with this is to clean the filters every now and then, i.e. ban users that very frequently attempt to spam. The list includes all users that have triggered the spam filter more than 10 times (which includes a handful of legitimate users, including Wabbajak :P). I've tagged all of the legitimate users that I recognize, and they are all below 50 hits. However, the first 10 unbanned users make up 10% of all spam, so going through the list and banning the worst offenders would do wonders for our filters. If anyone with CheckUser rights is willing, they can go through and find the IP addresses of each user, and if there are any common ones, they can be blocked for even greater effect. At the very least, though, we should block the worst offenders. • JAT 22:21, 6 April 2013 (GMT)

And in conjunction with that, I've just done the database equivalent of a mass CheckUser on the entire set of users Jak highlighted, minus the genuine ones. While I don't believe it constitutes a breach of privacy (based on UESPWiki:Privacy Policy#Disclosure), I've e-mailed all the admins the offending IPs who have more than one account rather than publishing them, just to be on the safe side. I think the list gives us a few possibilities we may want to consider Range Blocks for. Robin Hood  (talk) 23:13, 6 April 2013 (GMT)
I'm shocked that the filters have such a critical weakness - we positively identify something as spam, but if it happens too many times the filter shuts down? What kind of absurd logic is that? To me that means the filter is clearly doing a vital and necessary job, and it makes no sense at all to shut them down just because they're being triggered too often - if anything, that's cause for them to be strengthened, not disabled. One possibility is that if the same filter is being triggered too many times, could we just break it down into multiple smaller filters? I'm thinking those ones that catch specific repeated spam targets - if we just split those lists in half and distribute them among two otherwise-identical filters, would it make this stupid filter-shutdown feature less likely to trigger? — TheRealLurlock (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2013 (GMT)
I just checked, and those are configurable parameters. They're designed to prevent accidents from badly designed filters that, for example, prevent all edits. Have a look at the configuration options, then once we've decided on a good choice, Jak or I can update them to something that doesn't cause this issue. Currently, they're not specified in the settings file at all, so they're using the default values. I'm a little confused, though, as they list four variables in the description, but there are only three settings. Anybody understand that better than I did? Robin Hood  (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2013 (GMT)
I noticed that too - that they describe four variables, but only list three. I think we can set $wgAbuseFilterEmergencyDisableThreshold to 0.5 (50%). The conditions for shutting down the filters are rather specific (so simply matching x% of edits won't turn it off), but setting it to 50% should set it high enough that the other conditions don't match. There are times that the filters have matched over 67% of edits, though, so be wary that it may still shut down. And TheRealLurlock, I'm afraid splitting the filters into multiple near-identical ones won't help, because multiple filters can match the same edit, and it's very common for multiple spam words to be used.
We still should go through and ban the most prominent spammers. All they are doing is clogging the filters (which makes it very difficult to check for false positives), and they will simply keep spamming until they manage to get an edit through. • JAT 19:20, 7 April 2013 (GMT)
Hmm, could you maybe add a (sortable) column to that table that gives the date of the most recent post? I tried sorting by most posts and seeing if I could maybe block the biggest offenders, but most of them haven't posted anything in over a month. It's worth more to know both who is a major offender AND is still active so we know which blocks will be the most effective. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2013 (GMT)
I might be able to do that later today. However, a lot of bots have spurts of activity - Bjlnvsola, the worst spammer, primarily edited in February, but tried again a month later. Hfgghftd showed similar activity. There's nothing saying that the bots won't start up again, so those that haven't attempted to spam recently may very likely start up again, making listing by date irrelevant. I can still get the dates if you want, but in my mind, it's not necessary. Blocks only take about a minute (or so I heard), so someone with some free time on their hands could just go down the list and start banning. There's nothing wrong with blocking a spammer retroactively. • JAT 13:44, 8 April 2013 (GMT)
I just blocked everything with >900 filter hits. Keep an eye on those and see if they try anything again. (Do we get alerts logged when blocked accounts attempt to edit?) It seems the bulk of these are from China - I spot checked each of the accounts before blocking them, and most of the text was about Chinese cinema or politics. One of them looked like a clipping from a news article about the US Defense Department, though that could just be a bot ripping legit text from the internet to hide its links in. I still don't understand the motivation behind these bots. Even if their posts had gotten through, it would've just been some useless links on a user page that nobody will ever see, much less click on. Can't understand how they expect to profit from this. So they're basically just annoying us for no reason... — TheRealLurlock (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2013 (GMT)

Page editing etiquette

Discussion moved to User talk:

Archive request

Can we get semi-protection up for Skyrim talk:Easter Eggs/Archive 14? ThuumofReason (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2013 (GMT)

Done! eshetalk 13:46, 8 April 2013 (GMT)

Oversight Permissions

While we're updating user rights, I think we should update the list of users with oversight permissions to include all current active administrators. While I don't anticipate having to use this feature particularly often, it may come in handy once in a while, particularly when more information about the ESO beta becomes available and we have to make sure we're not liable for any violations of the non-disclosure agreement. While we're at it, we should probably update the proposed policy page to include NDA issues as well. Would anyone object to this? eshetalk 18:32, 9 April 2013 (GMT)

While we are updating them, what about giving Patrollers the suppressredirect user right, so that when moving pages to their correct names, we don't have to go through the extra process of tagging them for speedy deletion, and then have someone else delete them. I think that the process to become a full patroller is strict enough that we can trust those who have it to not abuse this user right. Jeancey (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2013 (GMT)
Well, since I'm here and already thinking about it, I'm not sure suppressredirect for patrollers is a great idea. I've seen quite a few cases over the last few months where people are going too fast when they are renaming images, and it's only fixed when someone else checks it. I've seen even more cases when people move files without updating links, and suppressing redirects would result in a lot of broken links and images when those mistakes occur. This actually occurs fairly often, sometimes weekly, depending on renaming activity. Frankly, I think a lot of file moves could be handled by bots anyway, so with those concerns in mind, I'm not really convinced this is necessary. eshetalk 19:02, 9 April 2013 (GMT)
(edit conflict) I definitely would agree with the suppressredirect for patrollers - going through and deleting all those redirects from file moves can be tedious and annoying. I'm kind of indifferent on oversight - I also doubt I'd use it much. Basically it just means you can delete an edit so that even other admins can't see it? Not sure what benefit there is to that. If we ever need to completely delete an edit from the page history (mainly due to links to pirated software and things like that), we can basically just delete the whole page and then restore everything but the offending edit - and this doesn't require oversight. If the only people that can see an edit are admins, it's as good as permanently deleted as far as copyright/NDA goes, I think. Or am I missing something? I mean, I don't think there's any good reason not to give the admins oversight, I just don't see that there's any compelling reason to have it either. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2013 (GMT)
Addendum, having read Eshe's post that I {{ec}}'d with. I can see that there are potential problems with suppressing redirects, but they're usually fixed fairly quickly. However, I do agree that most of that can and probably should be handled by bots. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2013 (GMT)
Just as a note, suppressing redirects isn't a default. You have to actively check a box in order to do it. I think that if we just let everyone know that they better check the links before moving the page and suppressing the redirect, that should be fine. There will be possibly a few minutes where the links are broken, but that should be fine. I check the wanted files/pages/templates etc special pages enough that even if someone makes a mistake, I'll catch it before too long. Jeancey (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2013 (GMT)

() Actually, we probably don't even need Oversight anymore, as we now have RevisionDelete available...we just have to enable it. I think the screenshots on the help page might be from 1.20 because the history page on my 1.19 testing wiki looks a bit different (a bit less intuitive). I have no experience with Oversight, but I'm told RevisionDelete is infinitely easier to use than Oversight was. I'll enable RevisionDelete for Admins in a minute and you guys can have a look at it and see what you think of that versus Oversight. (Update: it's now enabled. You should notice a bit of a change on page histories.)

As for suppressing redirects, I agree with Eshe's reasoning. I'm busy deleting over 1000 pages on another wiki, many of them redirects, and even though the users all know what they're doing, there are still times when links have been left that should be fixed. Robin Hood  (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2013 (GMT)

Can suppression be implemented individually (like blocking)? That would be an alternative (still only for patrollers though). The problem with suppressing redirects for images is that a redirect still allows the image to be seen on the pages it is displayed, even though it may be only a few seconds to fix it, someone could still load that page before it is fixed. The Bots are supposed to be gearing up to do mass moves in the future, meaning they can change the link the same moment they move the image, but many of these images need move manually. I've seen plenty of images moved in the past by bots to odd names/format "OB-quest-place-...". Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 21:26, 9 April 2013 (GMT)
We could do much like we have now with blockers and set up a separate user group for people who have suppress redirect permission if we want to go that route. If we enable it for patrollers at all, I think there'd have to be very specific guidelines as to when you're allowed to use it. For example, we could only allow it for recently created pages where there are no links to the page yet, or whatever other rules we want to put in place. Also, even the bots have a slight lag between moving and updating, and if it's a link that needs updated on 20 pages, that could be a significant lag. That's always been a concern: whether it's better to have a short link breakage (usually only a few seconds to a minute for a bot) or require an admin to go through and delete all the redirects after a move. Robin Hood  (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2013 (GMT)
I logged in this morning and was all "what's this (show/hide) link in the diffs?"...and then I realized that was the RevisionDelete you enabled :P. So, half a coffee later, I've been playing with it a bit (other admins, feel free to play with the test thread on my talk page). From what I saw, it basically mimics normal deletion as far as what is visible for other users. You can clearly see what was done on the deletion log and on Recent Changes, even as an anonymous user. On the page history and on the RC, the edit is stil there, but is struck out and italicized. Admins can choose to hide revision text, the edit summary, and the person's username or IP; if you remove the summary or the editor name, there's a little greyed out message saying it was removed (which, again, anyone can see).
So far as I can tell with my quick test, though, anything you choose to hide really is hidden, and can only be viewed by admins after that. When you view the diff as an admin, you get a little notice: "One of the revisions of this diff has been deleted. Details can be found in the deletion log. You can still view this diff if you wish to proceed." Anyone else will actually not be able to view the diff at all, but if you're paging through the diffs via the page history, you'll see "(One intermediate revision by one user not shown)" to indicate that a revision has been deleted. RevisionDelete can be performed on the diff itself (with the show/hide button) or by selecting one or more revisions on the page history, and there's even a convenient drop-down for selecting common deletion reasons.
If you ask me, it's pretty nice. I like that there's a lot of flexibility (you can do more than one revision at a time, or work directly from the diff page, and you can select precisely what you need to hide), and I like that it's all tracked in a visible log. I still don't foresee us having to do this very often, but it is much easier than deleting the whole page and restoring selected revisions and the actions are logged neatly. The only thing I have a tiny concern about is the NDA issue. I feel pretty confident that if someone were to add content that violated the NDA, then it were deleted with this feature so only admins could see it, nobody would come along trying to sue us. I'm not a lawyer, though, so if Daveh's cool with us using this as a solution to NDA violations, then that's good enough for me. eshetalk 14:21, 10 April 2013 (GMT)
It's possible to implement both Oversight and RevisionDelete, as they've done on Wikipedia, in which case Oversight permissions could be left with a select few, or perhaps just Dave, while all other Admins would have access to RevisionDelete. That would mean that if something really sensitive, like a non-disclosure agreement issue, needed to be removed, Oversighters could delete the edit, leaving only them and me (and maybe the other server admins, not sure) with access to those edits. Having said that, with only a handful of admins, as opposed to the bazillions they have on Wikipedia, I can't imagine anyone coming to sue us over a good faith attempt to remove the information, even if it does leave it available to a few users. Robin Hood  (talk) 18:22, 10 April 2013 (GMT)
Yeah, that was pretty much my thought as well. We're doing our best to be good little citizens and not break any laws, so I doubt anyone would make a big stink over a handful of people being able to see that kind of stuff (and it's not like we'd be taking it and publishing it somewhere else, either). It's so hard to delete anything permanently anyway. Tricksy internets... eshetalk 18:40, 10 April 2013 (GMT)
Plus, from a purely pragmatic perspective - if NDA or otherwise illegal content existed on the site, but deleted and only visible to admins, how would Bethesda even know? As far as I'm aware, none of our admins work for Bethesda. (I've applied, but haven't heard back. If I ever get that job though, that's probably the last you'll see of me around here.) I feel like taking it out of the publicly viewable part of the site should be sufficient, both from a legal standpoint and a practical one. If we do just that, I feel we'll have done our duty as responsible web admins. Granted it's possible that in the intervening time between objectionable content being posted and it being removed by an admin, it's entirely possible that it will be seen by regular users. But there's really not much you can do at that point. If a regular user acquired the materials in the first place, the leak has already occurred, and there's nothing stopping them from posting it wherever they want. (Obviously, Bethesda can and should go after anyone who so blatantly breaches contract.) If we want to be extra diligent, we could report any such incidents directly to them, along with whatever info we have to trace them by. This might actually be the best policy - we want to keep friendly relations with the developers as much as possible. It might be worth adding a notice on the edit screen that in addition to not violating copyright, users should also not violate NDAs or post pirated material or links to pirated material. It shouldn't be necessary to tell people not to break the law, but a reminder couldn't hurt, and might help keep us in good graces with the company... — TheRealLurlock (talk) 04:51, 11 April 2013 (GMT)

Minor Blocker Page Change

Hey Blocker types! I just made a minor change to UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Block_Notifications that I hope will make our lives just a tiny bit easier, since we'll just be able to sign rather than having to type in our name and the date (or do the 5 tildes/3 tildes thing, like I usually do). If anyone doesn't like it, by all means, change it back. I just clued in that it was redundant to have the two fields separate when our signatures give us both together and are faster to type. There is the minor disadvantage that you can't sort by date, but when was the last time anyone did that? Robin Hood  (talk) 06:20, 10 April 2013 (GMT)

It's better for the blockers, that's for sure. I hate filling out that page. Hope the minor time differential between signing the notification page and when the actual block took place isn't inconvenient for the admins. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 04:57, 11 April 2013 (GMT)

Headers on Block messages

Do we really need them? The changes I made a while back to the block messages were because it was annoying to manually add the headers every time. But they depend on subst'ing a message (pretty much the only way around it), which doesn't allow you to customize it before posting. This doesn't bother me, but I notice that some people aren't using the subst'ed block messages for this reason. The only other solution I can think of to this is to simply NOT require that all block messages have a "Blocked" header above them. It's pretty useless anyhow, since the vast vast majority of blocked accounts are spambots who will never see these messages. If we simply eliminate the requirement that block messages have a header, we could have the best of both - easy and quick block message adding, and easily customizable if you really want to for some reason. If we're blocking someone who isn't a spambot (been a while since we've had the need, but it happens occasionally), you can still add the header if you want. But for all of these spambots, I see no reason whatsoever to require that header. Especially since with spambots we generally disallow editing their own talk page (since that's where the spam is almost always created), so it's not like they can respond anyhow. In other words, there's not likely to be multiple sections for discussion on any of these talk pages, so there's no real need for section headers. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2013 (GMT)

I keep the headers out of habit, and because my preferences are set to yell at me if I don't leave an edit summary (which is handled by the Subject/headline field for new messages). It's actually quicker for me to delete the header that comes in the pre-generated message and add it into the subject field myself to skip the "are you sure you want to skip the edit summary" stage. If you'd rather omit the header...whatever, I guess? Or revert all the message templates back? Any format we go with for the auto-messages saves a few seconds for some people and adds a few seconds for others, so I'm not really convinced it matters either way. eshetalk 14:13, 15 April 2013 (GMT)
I think it only takes longer if you care about what it looks like. Since it's just a block message for a spammer who will never see it, I figure the method that saves the most time is always the best, whatever it looks like. I'm just thinking you could save a little time and effort by just not caring what the block message looks like, since it won't be seen by anyone. (Yeah, it shows up on the RC page, but I think most editors pretty much ignore the block message creation entries.) Incidentally, were you forgetting to leave edit summaries a lot before turning on that preference setting? Because if not, maybe you don't really need that warning anymore, and that could save you some time when leaving block messages. Just a suggestion, I'm just trying to make things as quick and easy for everyone as possible so we can not waste any more time that absolutely necessary dealing with these spammers and focus on the stuff that really matters. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2013 (GMT)
No, not really, it's just the old anxiety disorder at work ;). In any case, I'm sure I'd still do the header even if I turned the preference off. I haven't timed exactly how long it takes me, but I'm pretty sure it's less than a second. Honestly, with my job being as slow as it is right now, I savor every wasted fraction of a second I can get :D. eshetalk 16:16, 15 April 2013 (GMT)

Forgotten Deletion Review

In its page protection run, the bot protected UESPWiki:Deletion_Review/Lore:Slavery and flagged it as an archive, since it hasn't seen any activity in over 30 days. It looks at a glance like there's no consensus, but can an admin review it and make a decision please? Thanks! Robin Hood  (talk) 03:24, 27 April 2013 (GMT)

I'd say there's a consensus, but I'm obviously biased. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 02:02, 29 April 2013 (GMT)
There's no consensus. There are two Deletes, one Delete or userfy, one Userfy, one Keep, and one Weak keep. Consensus leans towards deleting or userfying it, but 3v2 or 2v2 is hardly unanimous. I don't think a decision can be reached at this point. I imagine discussion will start up again after ESO is released, as that's the only possible new thing that will decide whether or not an article is necessary. • JAT 02:54, 29 April 2013 (GMT)
The Deletes implicitly count as votes for Userfication; there's no other logical way to understand this process because the people voting to delete have no reasonable cause to deny someone else the right to preserve the page in the userspace. "Delete" simply means you don't care whether it's userfied. Votes to userfy and votes to delete are all counted as votes for removing the page from the applicable namespace, otherwise the wishes of the community could be frustrated over semantics. Hence, the vote is 4-2 at this point. I'm not 100% sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if other 4-2 votes had been treated as achieving a consensus for the majority position. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 03:02, 29 April 2013 (GMT)
Combing through the FA and FI nominations, there are surprisingly few 4-2 decisions. However, I did find one: UESPWiki:Featured_Images/Past_Nominations/Archive_2#MW-place-Akulakhan.jpg. Many votes demonstrated that a 3-2 or 6-4 vote is too close to call, but several demonstrated that a majority position which has 50% more support than the minority position is an actionable consensus (for instance, this 6-3 decision). Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 03:22, 29 April 2013 (GMT)
That's fair. I'd vote for userfying it anyways, so in that case I'd say there's fair consensus. The one user that strongly voted for keeping it already moved the article to his userspace, so I think it's safe to delete. • JAT 03:23, 29 April 2013 (GMT)


Ufd43765 (talk+ contribs edit count logs email)

This user has repeatedly inserted false information and removed correct (and verified) information from pages. They have never made an edit summary to explain why the changes have been made and the only talk page message they posted was a bland "request" for more information. Despite two warnings and a previous block, the behaviour has continued. I would suggest at least a months block this time (I have temporarily blocked the user for 3 hours). Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 00:15, 29 April 2013 (GMT)

Done ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2013 (GMT)
I know we're supposed to assume good faith and all, but everything about Ufd's behavior tells me that he is a troll, and that the few edits he's made which may not have been detrimental were merely cover so that he could inflict greater harm upon the wiki over an extended period of time. Someone with a PC who can properly fact-check these things should comb through all of his contributions, because I suspect that some of his garbage is still harming the pages. Further, his block settings should probably be changed to disallow editing his talk page, as he's used the privilege to try and remove his warnings and blocks (and his history suggests this will happen again and again until we act). Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 02:00, 29 April 2013 (GMT)
I agree that the good edits he's made aren't enough to make up for the bad. I'm not sure if the incorrect info itself is trolling—it's at least possible that Ufd is only going based on in-game experience for a lot of these things—but the fact that this person insists on reverting the corrections and hasn't once used an edit summary or engaged in talk page discussion about those edits amounts to the same thing as trolling, regardless of Ufd's intent. I wouldn't be opposed to an indefinite block, but based on the talk page blanking, I think the message has at least gotten across this time that that kind of behaviour won't be tolerated. Lastly, the talk page blanking itself isn't necessarily a sign of anything trollish—Wikipedia allows removal of messages and blanking is a common way to say "I'm leaving". On some wikis, blanking is also considered a request to delete the page (albeit, a more annoying one to track down). Robin Hood  (talk) 04:09, 29 April 2013 (GMT)
You're right about the talk page, of course (and if he actually wants to try to explain his behavior, I'd love to hear it). As for Ufd's intent, I'm not forgetting Hanlon's Razor, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". However, I do not believe that his behavior can be adequately explained by stupidity. Given the unexplained removal of verified content, the virtually complete lack of communication, the (effective) edit warring, as well as the facts that his edits demonstrate he has a working knowledge of the English language and wiki formatting, I cannot imagine any reasonable scenario where his intent could be construed as benevolent. Perhaps I hold too much regard for the intelligence of the human race, but it is my firm belief that considering all the facts here, no one could be this stupid. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 04:46, 29 April 2013 (GMT)

() The page has been section protected for now. So long as there are no further shenanigans, we can leave it at that. If the behavior continues after the current ban is up, however, we can implement a longer block (perhaps indefinite) as per usual. eshetalk 15:10, 29 April 2013 (GMT)

Image Crash

This image crashed after I uploaded a new vision. File:SR-Map-Windhelm.jpg Please take a look. Dreamshadow (talk) 23:22, 30 April 2013 (GMT)

Fixed, at least for now. I made a change to our setup on one server for just long enough to generate a couple of thumbnails that were in the same boat. I've noted what I did in our logs, but since it could affect our servers significantly in ways that it would be difficult for me to tell, I'll leave it to Dave whether to re-make the change on a permanent basis. Robin Hood  (talk) 02:09, 1 May 2013 (GMT)

Archive Request 2

Can we get semi-protection for Skyrim Talk:Combat/Archive 2? --Ad intellige (talk) 02:01, 2 May 2013 (GMT)

Yes ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 02:11, 2 May 2013 (GMT)

Bad links

Many red links here, can we fix them? Dreamshadow (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2013 (GMT)

Those are missing icons caused by my (incorrectly) adding markers to the Place article summaries that aren't actually discoverable on the map. Silencer then moved them out of the summary, which caused the missing icons. I'm not sure how to fix it, other than completely removing the markers from those places articles. --Xyzzy Talk 15:20, 4 May 2013 (GMT)
I thought the template only needed the type of icon to use, but apparently it needs the full image name, fixing now. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 16:18, 4 May 2013 (GMT)

Invisible Quest Link Template

I've noticed some problems about Quest Link Template. If you edit a quest page (Quick Walkthrough and Detailed Walkthrough in my case), the quest description in the Quest Link Template (such as place pages, Related Quests section) related to this quest will become invisible. I don't know why. Purging the page won't fix it. However, one easy solution is re-typing the quest name in the Template and save it. This edit won't be counted as a contribution, but it do work and make the missing text visible again. Dreamshadow (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2013 (GMT)

Any null edit would do. This can't be helped, as t is due to the software. I think RH and Daveh are already looking into it though. Jeancey (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2013 (GMT)
That or a page purge, which is usually quicker. You can get the Purge tab on top of your screen by enabling it in your preferences. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2013 (GMT)
I see. It seems that purging the place page won't fix this problem, but making a null edit would work. Dreamshadow (talk) 02:33, 9 May 2013 (GMT)
Just to follow up on Jeancey's comment, it's on my "to look into" list at some point, but I want to familiarize myself with Nephele's code and the MediaWiki API first, which is going to take some time, so it won't be soon, but I'm hoping I'll be able to fix it at some point. Robin Hood  (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2013 (GMT)

Needs block?

Does need a block? It looks like a nonsense bot. --Xyzzy Talk 14:57, 18 May 2013 (GMT)

Blocked for six hours. The Chinese lettering mostly translates to TES stuff, but it's randomly inserted. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 15:01, 18 May 2013 (GMT)
Reblocked for a year. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 15:02, 18 May 2013 (GMT)
Danke schön. --Xyzzy Talk 15:04, 18 May 2013 (GMT)
Machine translation of our pages. I know ;) Dreamshadow (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2013 (GMT)
Thanks for that confirmation, Dream. It seems extremely odd that anyone would inject random bits of our translated articles into other articles. What could they possibly hope to gain by doing so? --AKB Talk Cont Mail 15:56, 18 May 2013 (GMT)
Testing our ability to identify and block spam, perhaps? --Xyzzy Talk 15:59, 18 May 2013 (GMT)

IP Ban needed?

The Skyrim:Followers page was vandalized twice in quick succession by two anonymous IPs. Both made the same type of edit, so I suspect it's a user resetting his or her IP address. was the most recent vandal, as of this post. Is an IP ban appropriate? ThuumofReason (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2013 (GMT)

I just noticed they were different, I blocked thinking they were the same. I'm not undoing the ban as I agree that they are rotating IPs, and in that case a ban is justified. There's no need to ban .222 unless it goes back to that one. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 22:58, 18 May 2013 (GMT)
I've extended the block on the later one. Should activity continue, a range block should be implemented. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 23:02, 18 May 2013 (GMT)

Interaction Ban

I am requesting an Interaction Ban between myself and Elliot. It has become clear to me that I am being targeted for some reason in a hate campaign. Things are being brought up as issues when I do them but are not mentioned to, or even discussed anywhere when another editor does them. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 20:08, 19 May 2013 (GMT)

This is ridiculous. Bringing up something you did in violation of policy is not harassment nor is it a hate campaign. For anyone who has missed the context, read this. elliot (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2013 (GMT)
The underlying issue here is whether a blocker is violating policy when he or she blocks someone, and an administrator had been active about two hours beforehand. I'd love to hear administrative opinions on that, for the sake of clarifying for all blockers when we should act. Anyways, the blocking policy is sometimes difficult for blockers to follow perfectly, as it's not always clear when an administrator is available, so the fact that an administrator changes block settings within a few minutes of a blocker taking action cannot be construed as a de facto violation of the blocking policy. I think it's clear that the prompt action by administrators in the blocks at issue made by Silencer rendered filling out the block notifications page unnecessary, so that's a non-issue. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 20:29, 19 May 2013 (GMT)
Just so everyone is clear, there is no problem whatsoever with how blockers have been using their privileges. The whole point behind specifying that blockers shouldn't jump in on a block when an admin is obviously around is that it just saves a step; the admin would have to extend the block anyway, and it's easier to just have one person take care of it when possible. I don't see any blocks made by blockers that have actually caused a problem, however, so there is absolutely no call for alarm or pointing fingers here. The fact that not a single admin has ever brought this up as a problem should speak for itself. Everyone can carry on as usual :). eshetalk 21:00, 19 May 2013 (GMT)

Request for the removal of rights of The Silencer

I am requesting that all access rights that have been given to The Silencer (abuseeditor, blocker, and patroller) be removed. This partially stems from his misuse of privileges mentioned above and here. This definitely is not enough to remove his rights, and I, by no means, had any intention to make such a request until he decided to personally attack me via IRC in such an egregious way. And since all behavioral policies on the wiki are in effect in the channel, I feel my request is appropriate, if not deficient in and of itself. Insults thrown at me by Silencer include 'cunt', 'dickwad', 'bastard', etc. I'm not quoting everything, but I am emailing the administrators the full log of everything that took place. elliot (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2013 (GMT)

In case it isn't already clear, no one should feel obligated to respond to this request. I have reviewed the logs in question, and the situation is being dealt with in proportion to the transgressions that were committed. eshetalk 21:25, 19 May 2013 (GMT)

Elliot's Block Appeal

Per the Blocking Policy, all editors are entitled to an appeal on the Administrator Noticeboard, so at Elliot's (indirect) request, I am starting a thread here, and posting what has been said on his talk page, so that everyone can see it, and he can provide his argument for appealing the block. --Ad intellige (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2013 (GMT)

You know, Eshe, you really are something else. Instead of, you know, actually focusing on people who call other users cunts, dicks, asstwats, bastards, etc. you try to block me? Perhaps if you actually enforced the policies you claim to defend so well, I wouldn't have to be the one bring up the errors of other users. It's obvious all the administrators (and definitely you) have a hard on for me (since everything I do is so wrong and everything everyone else does is so right), but since when does what someone has done recently factor into anything? When has there been a requirement for what people edit? When did it become a requirement to edit a whole bunch of other things before bringing up the issues of other users? Can you tell me when those policies were written or did you just make them up as usual? Not that it matters though:
Elliot, in the time since your last ban, you have contributed little to the site except for periodic rude, snide, condescending comments.
Wrong, since my last ban (November 26, 2011), I have edited over 4,000 times, more than all but 35 editors have ever done. I suggest that you start counting from here. (Just to clarify the lie you told in order to validate this inappropriate block.)
It's why I was chosen for the autopatrolled group (it was made for users like me). Look above at all the comments I have received since my last ban. A lot of thank you's, a few cookies, etc. I set up a new archiving system for the AN and CP, made a brand new template, set up the icons for quests that are on thousands of pages (which required extensive work). So as you can see, I have contributed way more than a "little". This indefinite block is by no means warranted.
A week or so? Maybe. But an indefinite block is ridiculous, as is your complete ignoring of personal attacks thrown at me by The Silencer. So yes, consider this an appeal.elliot (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2013 (GMT)
I misspoke, perhaps: in the last several months, you have done little but stir up drama here. The conditions of your last ban state that you were permitted to continue editing, with a "zero-tolerance policy on impoliteness - not just personal attacks". You have been consistently disrespectful and discourteous to other users, and their behavior toward you does not excuse your actions.
You were chosen as an Autopatrolled user and you have made helpful contributions before, but I see little in your recent pattern of behavior that suggests that you need to continue editing, nor why that would be in the community's best interests, given all the disruptions you've caused lately. If you could address these concerns, I would be happy to move your appeal to the Administrator Noticeboard.eshetalk 22:12, 19 May 2013 (GMT)
No, you'll move my appeal to the AN regardless (please read the policy). The first appeal made by any blocked account will always be put to a community discussion. But that's beside the point. As I have stated elsewhere before, I have been dealing with a broken hand for months. That's impeded my ability to edit the way I do (a whole bunch of edits over a short period of time). It's getting better due to physical therapy, but it's still rough. I have been editing things that require little time (votes, nominations etc.) because those are easier for me. The only issue I have brought up recently is The Silencer issues (which you still have failed to address).
So, no, I don't see how I have just stirred up drama over the last few months. I made a few comments about the colors of some templates, let you know about an issue on the main page, organizedTemplate:Skyrim Powers, opposed Chezburger's nomination that was withdrawn, opposed a nomination that was also opposed by the community, brought up a possible meat puppet issues to Dwarfmp, which turned out to be true, and the Silencer issue (which again, the administrators have outright ignored).
So, how have I done little but stir up drama? elliot (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2013 (GMT)
I'm not making any judgment about guilt or innocence, but it seems to me that an editor's edit count is not relevant when it comes to a question of disciplinary action. Any decision should be based solely on violations of site policies, and discussions should focus on that. --Xyzzy Talk 02:49, 20 May 2013 (GMT)

() Now that the block appeal has been brought up here on AN, can I suggest that any further discussion continue on Elliot's talk page itself, where he can reply directly. This copying back and forth is redundant and confusing. Robin Hood  (talk) 04:19, 20 May 2013 (GMT)

Procedural Change to Block Appeals

Any blocked user can appeal the block, by adding a request for an appeal to their user talk page. An administrator or other editor will then initiate a discussion of the case on the Administrator Noticeboard.

Currently, our block appeal procedure reads as above. This often leads to a mishmash of copy & paste editing whenever the blocked user wants to reply to the AN discussion, but is forced to do so on their talk page. As I just suggested in Elliot's block appeal, I think we should change the procedure slightly to the following, which I believe we've sometimes done in the past anyway:

Any blocked user can appeal the block by adding a request for an appeal to their user talk page. An administrator or other editor will then post a notice on the Administrator Noticeboard linking back to the user's talk page so that the community is aware of the appeal and can discuss its merits, while also allowing the blocked editor to respond to any concerns or questions.

There could probably be some wording tweaks there, but I think the procedure is more the issue than the wording right now. Thoughts? Robin Hood  (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2013 (GMT)

Support: Makes no sense that the discussion would occur in a place where the person appealing cannot directly reply. Also, since this is always misunderstood, we might want to clarify what an indefinite block means. I suggest we lift this line from the wikipedia blocking policy page: "Indefinite does not mean infinite: an indefinitely blocked user may later be unblocked in appropriate circumstances." Jeancey (talk) 05:23, 20 May 2013 (GMT)
I support this as well. It makes sense. Vely►t►e 05:28, 20 May 2013 (GMT)
Sure. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 05:34, 20 May 2013 (GMT)
As I am not an administrator, I do not know if I can vote. But I will say that when I appealed my block, having the discussion in only one place was very useful. So If I could, I would support this change. :D --written by Nocte Chat with me?Look at what I did! 06:39, 20 May 2013 (GMT)
Comment: Like Nocte said, I don't know if I can vote, but this definitely makes sense to me. Plus, it's in keeping with the wiki's policy of not listing the same information twice. I might be paraphrasing a bit. Either way, it's a good idea. ThuumofReason (talk) 11:47, 20 May 2013 (GMT)

() Just to clarify, policy changes are open to comment from all users. There are probably times when it's only appropriate for admins to vote, but in this case, it affects how the entire community does things, so I can't think of any reason this should be limited to admins. Robin Hood  (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2013 (GMT)

The opportunity for the user to "redact" posts on their own talk page probably needs to be considered, as it means that the community needs to be more vigilant about checking the page history during such an appeal procedure, which wouldn't be so necessary were the appeal held on the AN. I'm not for or against this, just pointing out the obvious. 😁 Daric 20:18, 20 May 2013 (GMT)
Just to throw this out there, we do have the ability to use section protect tags on a user's talk page if this becomes an issue; it may still be easier than constantly porting comments over to the AN once an appeal is in progress. eshetalk
Yeah, I think we'd want to add some kind of proviso that the usual talk page guidelines don't apply, since it's a community discussion being held on the user's page for their convenience. Wikipedia even mentions this in their guidelines, though somewhat indirectly:
A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:
  • Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block, confirmed sockpuppetry related notices, and any other notice regarding an active sanction.
While the unblock may not yet be declined, I read into that that while a request is in progress, it's considered to be part of the "wider community's processes", and thus not subject to the user's normal ability to alter or archive it. We should probably make that an explicit part of the text, though. Robin Hood  (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2013 (GMT)
Yeah, I'd agree. One would hope the appealing user would already recognize that deleting others' comments isn't a great idea, but it doesn't hurt to specify it just in case. Either way, it seems much easier to me to keep the whole process on the user's talk page; if there's an issue and protection needs to be put in place, I think it's still easier than copying every comment over to the AN. I think putting a notice and a link to the discussion on the AN is still a good idea, but keeping the process all in one spot is looking like the simplest way to do things. eshetalk 00:39, 21 May 2013 (GMT)
Okay, changes made. For the part about not modifying unblocking discussions, I just added that to the existing list of things the user isn't allowed to modify. If anyone thinks it needs to be more prominent than that, we can also add it to the appeals section. Robin Hood  (talk) 06:45, 6 June 2013 (GMT)

Block needed...

For, please. Added nonsense to two pages. --Xyzzy Talk 03:25, 1 June 2013 (GMT)

Thank you. Now the block message needs updating... --Xyzzy Talk 06:11, 1 June 2013 (GMT)
Does it? I think that a blockee can infer a block has been extended when he/she is still unable to edit six hours later. A sentient blockee, at any rate. But on this topic, the "Temporary" block message could use some work. The name of the blockee doesn't appear on the Messages page for this particular entry, so the name must be copied and pasted to be used. The message itself could be altered to be more clear; I typically add "unless renewed by an administrator" to my block messsages, as I feel the default message may leave a person with the wrong impression that their block will expire in 6 hours when that's not the case (if I've exercise my privileges correctly). And, as long as I'm grumbling about petty blocking stuff that doesn't really matter, I'm not a big fan of the header for block messages being added automatically. Without filling in the header ourselves, we end up with a default edit summary that adds a bunch of wiki-nonsense to the recent changes page. And if we do fill in the header, it's easy to forget the header which has been added already, and the block message ends up looking like this. In my experience, at least. Also, it's my standard practice to block talk page use when dealing with a spammer, such as in that example, so either the default Temporary message should be changed to allow for this possibility, I should just assume my block will be renewed and use the Spam message, or blockers should just leave the messaging to the admin who deals with the block. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 06:26, 1 June 2013 (GMT)
What I meant was that even though Krusty extended the block to 1 year, the block message on the talk page still says 6 hours. --Xyzzy Talk 00:41, 3 June 2013 (GMT)

Images Not Loading

Almost none of the images on the site have been loading for me for a couple of weeks now. Is this a known issue or is it just something with my own computer/internet connection/browser? I had never had issues before now, using the same computer and internet browser. — Unsigned comment by Michaelt919 (talkcontribs) at 21:43 on 2 June 2013 (GMT)

While I haven't heard of this exact problem before, it might be related to this issue. I'm not entirely sure, that's just a shot in the dark. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 21:48, 2 June 2013 (GMT)

Image Crash, again...

This image crashed after I uploaded it. File:SR-map-Solitude.jpg, a really large image. Please take a look. Sorry for the trouble... Dreamshadow (talk) 11:23, 4 June 2013 (GMT)

Done, per my talk page. Robin Hood  (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2013 (GMT)

Duplicate User

I'm not trying to witch hunt or anything, but I think that User:Tamriel&Sovngarde and User:Dragon Guard might be the same person. Their pages look similar and they have been making similar edits. There's also the matter of this edit which I reverted onceonce when the first user made it and then was added back in by the second user in almost the same form. --A----N----I----L (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2013 (GMT)

We'll look into it as necessary. In the future, though, it's best to raise these concerns privately with an administrator through email. Thanks! eshetalk 00:13, 5 June 2013 (GMT)

Concerning Behavior

For reasons I don't want (or need) to speculate on, it seems I have a fan. Several days ago, my handle in the chatroom, "Minor_Edits", was hijacked. Then three days ago, someone made the account ME and went on a spree of profane edits while I was patrolling. Last night, I discovered that the new "Minor_Edits" had tried several hours before to take my new chat name, "Insignificant_Revisions". I thought, at the very least, I should give notice that someone out there is trying to impersonate me (or at least, is making pitiful efforts to annoy me). I haven't checked this out, but if you receive an e-mail from some variant of "Minor Edits", assume it's bogus. I never use e-mail.

Is there any way to take the ME account here away from the troll? If so, it's an abbreviation contributors often use to refer to me here; I feel I have some interest in having it redirect to my user page. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 02:26, 6 June 2013 (GMT)

I think the solution would be to block the account and rename it, then you can create a doppelgänger account in its place. Robin Hood  (talk) 06:20, 6 June 2013 (GMT)
I'd appreciate it if an admin could run a full CheckUser on the account to confirm what I'm seeing in the database. It looks to me like we're getting good-hand/bad-hand activity, including unapproved bot usage (dealt with via recent changes to server permissions), and an attempt some time ago to reset Daveh's password. Robin Hood  (talk) 07:49, 6 June 2013 (GMT)
I'm taking another look now, RH. I don't see any problem with reassigning the ME account as suggested (assuming the rename function doesn't spaz out on me), but will wait until I'm done poking around before starting that process. I'll try and catch you on IRC today so we can discuss what I'm seeing. If you're busy, there will probably be an email to all the admins later anyway, and I'll include you on that as well. Thanks! eshetalk 13:55, 6 June 2013 (GMT)

I just want to throw this out there, but when Vely and I were discussing this with the real Minor Edits in IRC, it came up that some unknown user had messaged me under the name "Nocte_Canticum" accusing me of taking his name. My impostor happened to share the same hostname as Minor Edits' impostor, so it may (or may not) be relevant. --Nocte|Chat|Look 16:25, 6 June 2013 (GMT)

Another similar problem, someone has registed my IRC nick name "Dreamshadow". I don't know who did this and I haven't meet this guy in chatroom. If you happen to see this guy, that's not me. Now, I simply use another name "Dream-shadow". I don't know much about IRC commands and I can't reclaim the use of my old nick name. Any ideas? Dreamshadow (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2013 (GMT)
Minor Edits, Nocte, and Dreamshadow: I can confirm that all three of your accounts have been registered by the same person (all the masks on those accounts are currently identical), and we're working on dealing with that. However, since your account is registered to Chatspike, not just our channel, I really don't think there's anything UESPWiki people can do to fix the problem. I encourage you all to please contact the Chatspike abuse team. I've never contacted them myself so I can't guarantee a timely or helpful response, but hopefully they'll be able to do something. You might want to try contacting Chatspike staff through their channel as well. Good luck! eshetalk 02:10, 7 June 2013 (GMT)
Update: as of this morning, your three nicks are no longer registered. Out of curiosity, did any of you contact Chatspike? eshetalk 13:55, 7 June 2013 (GMT)
Eshe, I contacted the abuse team yesterday and told them what had happened to me. I never got a response from them though. --Nocte|Chat|Look 14:28, 7 June 2013 (GMT)

Watchlist Issues

So, I just tried adding a page to my watchlist using the "watch" tab at the top of the article, and got a light blue error notice reading "An error occurred while changing your watchlist settings for '<Page Name>'." I also tried to "unwatch" a page that was already on my watchlist, and received an identical error notice. In IRC, Eshe and SarthesArai confirmed that they are receiving the same error notices when trying to "watch" or "unwatch" a page in that way. I haven't tried Special:EditWatchlist or Special:EditWatchlist/raw yet, but I figured I would at least bring up the known issues for now. — ABCface 16:29, 7 June 2013 (GMT)

Same error occurs for me. --Xyzzy Talk 16:31, 7 June 2013 (GMT)
It appears to be just the "watch" tab. I was able to add a page by editing my raw watchlist and remove it again using EditWatchlist. eshetalk 16:33, 7 June 2013 (GMT)
This looks to be a bug in the MediaWiki software. For some reason, limiting access to the editing API (which is pretty much only ever used by bots) causes the Watch/Unwatch tab to fail. I've reverted the restriction for now, so your watchlists should all work normally once again. Robin Hood  (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2013 (GMT)

Patrol Log

I don't expect any problems, but I thought I should post about it on AN just in case. I've just uploaded a fix for the Patrol Log so that it once again distinguishes between autopatrolled edits and real patrolled edits. In the event that there are any problems, please post here so I notice it. Robin Hood  (talk) 01:14, 8 June 2013 (GMT)

Oh, cool, I was wondering what happened to that! Thanks for the update, RH. eshetalk 15:17, 10 June 2013 (GMT)

Unpatrolled edit showing as patrolled

I was checking this edit, and noticed that it wasn't showing as needing patrolling. Wondering who would have let this slip through, I checked the patrol log, but couldn't find any record of this edit being patrolled. Am I missing something, or did this edit somehow not get marked as needing patrolling? --Xyzzy Talk 19:21, 18 June 2013 (GMT)

Edits are only able to be patrolled up to 30 days later (I think that's the limit). So obviously this one was never patrolled and just slipped down through the cracks in the wall of time. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 19:28, 18 June 2013 (GMT)
Actually, ABCface just recently noticed that the "abyss" has been extended; edits should now show up as "patrollable" for up to 90 days. So there's your fun fact for the day, lol. eshetalk 19:31, 18 June 2013 (GMT)
I had always wondered about. Thanks for clarifying. --Xyzzy Talk 19:50, 18 June 2013 (GMT)

Prev: Archive 30 Up: Administrator Noticeboard Next: Archive 32