Semi Protection

UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard/Archive 35

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.

Etiquette Policy Clarification - "Grounds for blocking"

I've edited the Etiquette page to clarify that "grounds for blocking" does not mean "will be blocked". This has been a frequent misunderstanding in the past, and I thought it was time it was fixed. Since it's a policy page, and a topic that's just been brought up, I felt I should mention it. Robin Hood  (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2014 (GMT)

The Silencer's Block Appeal

Since Silencer is a big fan of following policy and procedure, I am linking his appeal on the AN. I doubt this is needed, but it is in line with policy. ~ Ad intellige (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2014 (GMT)

Group Add/Remove Rights

Administrators already have the ability to add and remove people from several groups, including all the different types of patrollers, as well as blockers. I'd like to propose that they also have the ability to add or remove Map Users, Cartographers (map editors), and Abuse Filter editors, which are relatively benign permissions. Dave would then only need to be contacted to change the various administrative and bot rights. Does anyone have any concerns with this? I've already asked Dave, and he's fine with it, but I figured I should put it to the community as well. Robin Hood  (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2014 (GMT)

I personally think this makes sense and have no issue with it. It seems like a tad too much to have to go to Dave to add/remove, like you said, benign positions. •WoahBro►talk 17:54, 6 August 2014 (GMT)
I'm good with this. We don't have to change these user groups very often, but when we do it's usually pretty straightforward. eshetalk 18:10, 6 August 2014 (GMT)
It's a little soon compared to the normal approval period, but I had stuff to do on all our servers that indirectly related to this, so I made this change at the same time. Administrators should now have a bunch more groups they can add people to or remove them from. Robin Hood  (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2014 (GMT)

Suspected vandals

For some reason these IPs keep editing the skyrim credits page. User: and User: I'm not sure, but I feel like they might need to get banned or something. I think they might be the same person on different IPs, but I can't know for sure. Me and a few other editors have undone multiple times. Can an admin find out for sure? Lorenut (talk) 08:08, 7 August 2014 (GMT)

I've protected the page. I'm not going to do more right now, cause it is like 3 am and I can't focus all that well at the moment. I don't want to go accidentally blocking the wrong people. Hopefully the page protection takes care of it. Someone else can block those two, but if they are changing their IP intentionally, the page protection will stop them from editing that page. Jeancey (talk) 09:15, 7 August 2014 (GMT)
Thank you! I've been doing my best to hold down the fort (so to speak) till someone could do something about it. Lorenut (talk) 09:19, 7 August 2014 (GMT)
Okay, both have been blocked for a week. I can't decide if it's a bot or not, so hopefully this will take care of it. Thanks, guys! eshetalk 12:33, 7 August 2014 (GMT)
You're welcomeLorenut (talk) 12:52, 7 August 2014 (GMT)

Proposed Deletions

Just a note to the other admins that I'm the one who proposed all the older Proposed Deletions, so I can't delete them. Can someone else give them a look when they have a moment? Thanks! Robin Hood  (talk) 02:53, 8 August 2014 (GMT)

I knew there was something I forgot to do today! I'm about to head to bed, actually, but I will look over these in the morning if someone else doesn't get them first. Thanks for the reminder! eshetalk 02:59, 8 August 2014 (GMT)

Block Messages

Per the request of a couple of admins, I've reverted the Block messages to their previous, customizable versions. What's more, I spotted a new option with the InputBox extension, so now they'll auto-fill in the title and text for the block message. The one minor difference is that the text in the input box itself will no longer say the user/IP's name, but just the word "Blocked". I can't imagine that that ever got changed anyway. (See MediaWiki:Blockipsuccesstext.)

One question: the various blocked message boxes are very inconsistent with whether they use —~~~~ or just ~~~~. Do people have a preference whether the dash is automatic or not? And if we keep the dash, do you want an em dash (—), en-dash (–), or double regular dashes (--) like the signature button does? Robin Hood  (talk) 02:49, 11 August 2014 (GMT)

My preference is two regular dashes, as I've been doing it for years. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 02:59, 11 August 2014 (GMT)
Including the dashes in the template messages is a massive headache. I use an em-dash in my signature and "--—" looks terribly silly. If people want to use dashes, it's easy to change in your preferences, so I think keeping it as ~~~~ is the most convenient for everyone. The only time I see this being a problem is for people who make use of the signature button, which adds the "--". —Legoless (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2014 (GMT)
I have the same issue as Legoless, but figured it wasn't a big deal now that we can customize the message again. Anybody else wanna weigh in? Robin Hood  (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2014 (GMT)
Same as Legoless as well. — ABCface 20:26, 12 August 2014 (GMT)
Forgot about this till yesterday. Em dashes have been removed now. I noticed afterwards that that's also consistent with every other message at Messages. Robin Hood  (talk) 05:00, 4 September 2014 (GMT)

Legoless de-admin request

Legoless (talk+ contribs edit count logs email)

In my humble opinion, Legoless is unfit to be an administrator. He has consistently showed an out-of-touchness with the workings of the wiki, that ill-becomes an administrator, but much more serious than that, he deliberately lied to sway peoples opinions in the recent events around my warning and block.

Firstly, this comment saying "Multiple admins have contacted you privately to listen to your side of the story." is the main focus of the complaint. It implies that I had an opportunity to defend myself and refused, when I was given no such opportunity because no admins contacted me at all. It also goes against the tone of the emails I received after the block (which was some time after this post) which implies that the admins were waiting for me to contact them with my defense (a frankly ridiculous notion unless I am to guess which admins were involved).

Secondly, this comment quoting the wikipedia policy page with "Lesser personal attacks often result in a warning" is a deliberate misquotation of the policy page, avoiding whole tracts of policy on how to deal with a personal attack and taking the summation at the end of the page as the basis of the warning, despite the policy's underlying concept of seeking a non-administrative solution (especially in first-time cases), and that we have our own policy on attacks which is incompatible anyway. My point here is twofold; one, if you do not understand a policy do not accuse someone of breaking it, and two, do not misquote policies to enforce an action. Both of these actions are unacceptable from anyone, much less an administrator who should know the rules before supporting administrative action. Also within that post is the comment "Unless you are arguing for a block instead..." which is quite a provocative statement, as following my reply that had policy been implemented properly I would have been, I did get a block (which was over the top in length, and wasn't a replacement for the warning).

Lastly in connection to the warning, this post comments that "This isn't the first time The Silencer has been abrasive towards other editors". While that may certainly be the opinion of some people, its the first I've heard of it, having never been approached in public or private about being abrasive on the wiki. So in terms of the warning, this is the first offence, and an administrator should know that before saying otherwise. Another comment there about "common etiquette should be of paramount importance" can be left for another post about the value of factual information (the content if my original post for which I was warned).

Moving on to some examples that show a lack of wiki-knowledge. This one is (assuming good faith) a lack of knowledge that plural headers are a standard across the wiki, no namespace or section is exempt. Icons have been standard for around 18 months at this point, using this template (which has no other use but for the way it was used). Copyright is a serious issue, and suggesting a wiki that takes images from the web as the source of an image is as bad as suggesting google search is a source. These editing examples are of particular importance in establishing that Legoless had no place being involved in the administrative action taken against me as an involved admin, as on all three occasions it fell to me to explain how an admin was wrong and chastise him for suggesting copyright was a trivial issue. Without a reply on any of the three occasions I have to assume he had no issue for being shown to be wrong, but with these three edits coming a month before the warning, and an insinuation of being passive-aggressive in past posts, it certainly leaves space for the accusation of being biased. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 23:03, 12 August 2014 (GMT)

  • Oppose: This feels completely like a witchhunt and nothing else. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 23:15, 12 August 2014 (GMT)
    • Comment: I prefer to think of it as holding him responsible for his actions. Have you nothing to say in regard the lies he told or do you find that acceptable? Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 23:20, 12 August 2014 (GMT)
  • Comment: The main issue here that involves a detriment to the wiki is the bottom three. Any action for the others would be punitive, not protective. Those three, while valid concerns, are not grounds for removal of rights. I'll wait to support or oppose, though, until Legoless responds. Jeancey (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2014 (GMT)
  • Comment: (edit conflict × 3) To offhandedly address address a couple of these:
  • Both AKB and RobinHood implied that they had contacted you following the warning you received. If AKB did not, in fact, contact you via email, then I admit I was wrong on that point. Claiming that I maliciously and purposefully lied about it is unfounded.
  • I was semi-active on the wiki since December 2012 due to various personal constraints, so I was not aware of the icon issue. If it was truly such a long-standing policy, it's curious that it was only being implemented on some pages in the last month, and not even in a standardised fashion (see this).
  • Aside from contributing to the discussions following your warning and removing your patroller rights per your own request, I did not take any administrative action towards you. A clear consensus was reached among the admins, and it would be poor form for me not to support it due to my own "bias" when it comes to your sour attitude.
  • Edit: As for the copyright issue, I chose not to respond due to your overly domineering and aggressive response, not because I believed myself to be in the wrong. As it turned out, the user image in question was simply removed, but I stand by my point that trying to apply copyright law to an image macro is ridiculous.
Frankly I find this de-admin request to be a petty attempt at payback for the administrative action towards The Silencer in the past month. However, I have no problem leaving it stand, as I have full faith in the community. —Legoless (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2014 (GMT)
  • Comment: To clarify in my regard, I said I have talked to the Silencer privately in the past, it was confusingly worded so it is completely understandable that Lego thought I was currently speaking to him about the conflict at the time. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 23:27, 12 August 2014 (GMT)
Your 'apology' is not accepted. To base such a statement that had huge implications on nothing more than guesswork is just as bad as outright lying, because you did not know the situation and should not have commented on it. You commenting on the discussion as an admin is taking part in it by association, your words as an administrator carry weight in a discussion requesting administrative action. My request is based your lying and deliberately misquoting policy. It is not acceptable to make statements as an administrator in situations you do not understand, using policy you don't understand, and as such you should not be allowed to do so again (until you do understand your position, at which point you can reapply for admin). AKB, you had not commented on the topic before Legoless made that statement. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 23:40, 12 August 2014 (GMT)
(edit conflict) AKB's comment was made in private. Please don't add hypocrisy by misquoting me and continuing to accuse me of lying, it's not constructive. —Legoless (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2014 (GMT)
Please address the second lie and misquoted policy accusations before derailing this post any further. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 23:48, 12 August 2014 (GMT)
  • Oppose: In my honest opinion I feel like this is just a way for Silencer to get payback. With all the issues with Silencer the last few weeks it brings into question the real motive for this request. While some of those are legitimate claims, like Jeancey said they are not grounds for removing admin rights. Lorenut (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2014 (GMT)
  • Comment: Contrary to some peoples opinions my aim was not revenge but exposure. True the three links are involved with the 'discussion' about my warning, but had he made these anywhere else I would still have called him out on it. I cannot force the admins to take any action, but now they cannot deny the claims were brought to their attention. As seems to be the way of things, it is who made the post that is the main focus here (seriously, the first response), ignoring the serious claims in favour of counter-claiming some sort of 'revenge' and attempting to stop any sort of reasoned debate. I cannot force any sort of punishment on Legoless, that is up to the community, who should by now know what kind of person they are supporting. If you decide to leave him as an administrator, you can't complain if he does it again (which he's already done by again disparaging the seriousness of copyright). Simply put, if he hadn't lied, what would I have to complain about? Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 01:37, 13 August 2014 (GMT)
  • Oppose: I don't see any malicious intent, lack of knowledge, or really much of anything. I see several incredibly minor mistakes, if that. The only reason why I would consider supporting this would be an actual problem that is legitimately causing harm to the site. I just cannot believe these issues could cause major harm, if any, to this site. I know you're going to disagree, but I think all of the issues brought up are, like was previously said, nothing but a witchhunt. Silencer, I stayed out of all of the discussions over the last few weeks. I thought then, and still think now, that things did not have to get as far as they did. The fact that they're getting to this level is just utterly unnecessary. To wrap things up, we do not need this kind of drama here. Period. I know it's happening/has happened on another similar site and I do not want it here. •WoahBro►talk 02:00, 13 August 2014 (GMT)
  • Oppose: Many of the points above are based on misunderstandings or minor mistakes. These things happen from time to time and there's really no point to belabouring them. To my mind, there is nothing in this request that warrants de-adminship. Robin Hood  (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2014 (GMT)
  • Comment: "This is not a productive area of discussion." - Henry Kissinger's head, Futurama. Silencer, I think how you were treated was patently ridiculous. I think the community tends to overreact sometimes in matters of politeness. It's the internet, people; grow a thick skin or go offline. You're a great editor. But so is Legoless. So let's put all this in our rearview mirror and get back to what matters. Insignificant RevisionsThreatsEvidence 02:40, 13 August 2014 (GMT)
  • Oppose: Lorenut took the words right out of my mouth. The only person twisting words and lying here is YOU, Silencer. If your first action after your ban (a ban that YOU pushed for when we were content to give you a warning-see my comments on the appeal on your talk page) is to try and stir up drama for no reason, you're not in the right spot. Go to Encyclopedia Dramatica if you want to stir up drama, not here. Zul se onikaanLaan tinvaak 12:26, 13 August 2014 (GMT)
  • Comment: I wasn't going to comment at all, in the hope that this would fizzle out and we could, as ME puts it, get back to what matters. And I agree completely with everything else ME says above. However, I would like to suggest that people stop accusing others of lying. Lying is deliberately telling falsehoods. I see no lies whatsoever on the part of Silencer, just statements which others might disagree with, coupled with a bunch of inflammatory comments from all sides. I also see no deliberate lies on the part of Legoless, just a misunderstanding (regarding contact by admins) and a misinterpretation (the quote from Wikipedia, which is accurately quoted, but perhaps taken out of context). --Enodoc (talk) 13:21, 13 August 2014 (GMT)
  • Comment: Bullying other editors and slinging accusations against admins is never appropriate or justified, and while "growing thick skin" is undoubtedly good advice both for the internet and in meatspace, it fails to hold water as a defense of the aforementioned behavior. I do agree that we should all just move on, and indeed most of us have been willing to do so for the last month. There's no point drudging up more pointless squabbles over this one issue. Zul se onikaanLaan tinvaak 15:01, 13 August 2014 (GMT)
  • Comment: "Slinging accusations" is entirely justified with proof, they are not immune to scrutiny or from answering for their actions. Again, if there were no lies there would be no justification for calling for any action to be taken. You yourself are hardly immune to scrutiny, having twisted my words on more than one occasion (proof can be provided for anyone interested). I see only two people who have commented on the lies and misquoting so far, with far more scrutiny being placed on the editing issues (which are not enough on their own which is why they are examples). When you suspect an admin of telling lies against you, then you'll know how easily you can 'move on', until then you are simply preventing an admins actions being looked at for no other reason than you don't want to bother with it. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 17:47, 13 August 2014 (GMT)
Comment: Silencer the problem is that none of the legitimate evidence is enough to remove an administrators rights. As for your first couple pieces of evidence. AKB said above " I said I have talked to the Silencer privately in the past, it was confusingly worded so it is completely understandable that Lego thought I was currently speaking to him about the conflict at the time" so I think that removes your first piece of evidence. Now onto the "misquotation" I don't feel like it's a misquotation. I looked up the policy and I feel it was used under correct circumstances. Let's move on, yes this may be the first time you've been talked with about the way you speak to people, but I have noticed a lot of times where you have been rude to other editors. Once again with this request being so close to your blocking it calls into question your true motive. Lorenut (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2014 (GMT)

CLOSED. Consensus: OPPOSE. --Krusty (talk) 22:42, 20 August 2014 (GMT)



Will someone deal with this vandal already. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 23:50, 24 August 2014 (GMT)

Done. —Legoless (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2014 (GMT)

Block needed

Special:Contributions/ (spambot) --Holomay (talk) 08:53, 26 August 2014 (GMT)

... and now it has moved on to Special:Contributions/ --Holomay (talk) 09:23, 26 August 2014 (GMT)
I've done temporary blocks for both IP addresses, it's been a while since I've used my blocking privileges but there didn't seem to be any others on to take care of it so hopefully I didn't mess it up. When an admin comes online, they can deal with it further as needed. — ABCface 13:34, 26 August 2014 (GMT)
Re-blocked for 1 year. Robin Hood  (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2014 (GMT)
Thanks RH! And thanks also for the added note to the Block Notifications page... it was a nice reminder of what I'd forgotten to do! ;) — ABCface 15:54, 26 August 2014 (GMT)
LOL...I figured you'd forgotten, but then I thought: Why bother? The point is for admins to know about temporary blocks and this does just as well as adding it to the table. Robin Hood  (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2014 (GMT)

() Xanax should probably go in the filters (its already on the spam blacklist). Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 02:16, 27 August 2014 (GMT)

I meant to look at that. Thanks for the reminder! I'm amazed we didn't have that there already. Robin Hood  (talk) 03:34, 27 August 2014 (GMT)

UESPWiki:General_Disclaimer question

I got bored and was reading the legalese -- yes, I read the legalese for fun sometimes -- on my MacBook while Oblivion downloaded from Steam on another system and this particular line caught my eye and I have a question about it that strikes me as rather important and ought to be addressed, should this in fact be an issue and not a misinterpretation on my part. This is definitely something that Daveh or a legalese expert should give input on (with any edit ultimately being made ideally by Daveh himself, because it's his site at the end of the day.

First paragraph, second sentence... "The UESP is an entirely non-profit site and currently maintains no monetary value."

I am not a legalese expert, but as it stands, Dave Humphrey is technically an employee of UESP, which implies that he's drawing his salary, either in part or in whole, from the operation of the UESP domain. What does the term "non-profit" mean in terms of websites, how does this term relate to the operation of the site in terms of Daveh's "employment", and what amendments, if any, should be made to the disclaimer page and any pages where this is information is applicable? -damon  talkcontribs 01:31, 4 September 2014 (GMT)

Non-profits often (most if not all of the large ones) employ their administrators and some of the staff. A non-profit simply means that the organization uses any surplus revenue to further its goals rather than paying out to investors or to the owner's pockets. Dave does this by using any excess to buy additional server space or bandwidth and other things like that. TLDR; non-profit doesn't mean you can't pay a salaried employee. Jeancey (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2014 (GMT)
Yes, the difference between a nonprofit and a for profit organization is that all profit goes towards the service, ultimately. It we started selling stock and handing out dividends, then we'd have to amend that, but as it is, I believe we fully meet the criteria still. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 03:41, 4 September 2014 (GMT)

Request for user account name change

I've had my user name, Voraxith, for over two years now, and if it's not too much trouble, I would like to request that it be changed to Grimnir, as that is the name of my main character in Skyrim, and I've developed a bit of a presence on Facebook using that name. I checked the list of registered user names, and I did not find the name Grimnir there. Thank you for your time and consideration. Voraxith (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2014 (GMT)

There is a user GrimNir, but they haven't post``ed anything since 2007. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 23:25, 8 September 2014 (GMT)
Ah. Well then to avoid confusion and possible conflict should that user ever return to the site, might I request Grimnir OneEye then, as that is my Xbox Live account name. Voraxith (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2014 (GMT)
Done! Robin Hood  (talk) 00:32, 9 September 2014 (GMT)
Thank you! Grimnir OneEye (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2014 (GMT)

Proposed Deletion (Images)

We've had Proposed Deletion (Images) as a separate category from Proposed Deletion for years now. Personally, I don't find it particularly helpful. Yes, you can see the pretty little thumbnails, but you lose the ability to see at a glance when it was deleted. The latter is much more useful to me in a deletion category than the former. How do other admins feel? Would anybody object if I removed that coding from {{Proposeddeletion}} and just let images sort with everything else, like we do for speedy deletions? Robin Hood  (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2014 (GMT)

If there are no objections before then, I'll implement this change tomorrow. Robin Hood  (talk) 00:12, 22 September 2014 (GMT)

Block Needed (2)

This ip has been spamming talk pages all morning. Block please. --AN|L (talk) 13:35, 23 September 2014 (GMT)

Temp. blocked for now, until an admin gets on to deal with it. — ABCface 13:55, 23 September 2014 (GMT)
Also, someone should take a look at User:Hunny. It doesn't appear to be a spambot, but the only contribution made was creating their userpage that looked rather spammy. I didn't really know what to do, so I just blanked the page. •WoahBro►talk 15:18, 23 September 2014 (GMT)
This IP and this IP both need blocks (AKB already got them). Seeing as they are very near the same IP blocked above earlier today, I think a range block is needed. •WoahBro►talk 02:41, 24 September 2014 (GMT)

Block Needed (3)

this ip needs blocking as well Lorenut (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2014 (GMT)

I issued a warning for this, as I'm on the fence about whether it's truly spam or just nonsense. The pattern has continued after the warning, so could we please get a block in place? The ip is reverting my reverts as well. Zul se onikaanLaan tinvaak 15:57, 23 September 2014 (GMT)

Nonsense Bot

Currently we seem to be getting a bit of traffic from a Ukranian nonsense bot. Most of the current addresses reside within the and range, so a block could currently be performed there if we get much more noise from those addresses, although I would recommend against doing so due to the combined size of the ranges. That range block would block over 100k addresses, with the block range being the built in maximum that Mediawiki will allow you to block. Furthermore, a few of the other addresses come from outside of those ranges, so it won't even necessarily be effective. Further thoughts are welcome, but waiting it out may be the best option right now. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 20:00, 24 September 2014 (GMT)

I've added "valium" and "adderall" to the abuse filter words list, which should take care of most of them. Robin Hood  (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2014 (GMT)
I'm quite regularly online within a timeframe that's sparsely populated - morning until noon CET. Some of the recent bot attacks happened during that time, and vandalism will likely keep happening around the clock, so if no one minds, I'd like to apply for blockuser rights. --Holomay (talk) 08:39, 25 September 2014 (GMT)
I've granted you the requested rights. As a reminder to all patrollers, a simple request for blocker rights is required for you to get them. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 11:36, 25 September 2014 (GMT)
A couple of people suggested on my talk page that I should request for blocker rights, so I guess this is me requesting blocker rights. •WoahBro►talk 11:59, 25 September 2014 (GMT)
Alright, I've given you the rights as well. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 13:01, 25 September 2014 (GMT)

My VIUD Project

If you were wondering where I've disappeared to lately, I've been knee deep in my VIUD project (Virtually Indestructible USB Drive, of trying to create the world's toughest USB drive. After 2 years of design and testing I think I'm finally on track to get a KickStarter campaign going for it this month. Now, I'd love to use the UESP to my advantage in promoting the VIUD a bit, specifically in terms of a main page news article (now and when the KS is opened) as well as the site's social media but since it is not ES related I wanted to run it by the rest of the site admins/editors for feedback.

Note that I'm perfectly fine if the consensus is "no"...I'm totally not going to accidentally reset anyone's password...;)

Forgot to mention that if you'd like to see a few videos of me check out the VIUD's YouTube channel. -- Daveh (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2014 (GMT)

I can see ways to wrangle a mention of it on the social media, but not on the main wiki. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 21:45, 2 October 2014 (GMT)
I'd have no problem with it being on your user page, since almost anything is fair game there, but otherwise, I'd say it should stay off the wiki, since it's not significantly game-related. I suppose having it randomly appear as an ad like any other could work, but you wouldn't want to cut into the ad revenue significantly, I assume, so there's that to think about as well. Robin Hood  (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2014 (GMT)
I have to agree with Robin on this one. I think it would be better suited on your user page since it is pretty much for anything about you. Plus like you said Daveh it's not ES related and probably shouldn't be on any page outside of your user page. I don't know how you could use UESP's twitter (or any other social site we have), but if you can find a way then go for it. Lorenut (talk) 23:34, 2 October 2014 (GMT)
Unretired long enough to challenge Dave on the password resets - and because your VIUD FB posts are cool ;) In all seriousness, it's not strictly TES-related, so it would be out of place to advertise on-site, but at the end of the day, you own the website, you pay the bills, and it's your choice to share the project with your built-in advertising base if you chose to do so. -damon  talkcontribs 23:44, 2 October 2014 (GMT)

() I'd say I'm fine with this, since no one would likely have questioned it if you didn't ask. It wouldn't be the first off-subject news piece we'd have hosted either (Zenimax acquiring id, a new Beth podcast, Oscar nominations for voice actors that were used for the game even though the nomination wasn't for their work on the game, an announcement of Bethesda's anniversary). Plus, I'd like to have a news piece this year that was not related to ESO (something that has yet to happen!). --AKB Talk Cont Mail 00:05, 3 October 2014 (GMT)

I don't see any harm with mentioning it on the main page, it's not going to be in anyone's face if they aren't interested. We don't have a huge number of news items anyway, so it's not bumping anything important. --AN|L (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2014 (GMT)
It may not be TES-related, but it's related to the owner of the site. If written the right way, it could make sense to be on the main page ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 10:59, 3 October 2014 (GMT)
No worries...thanks for the feedback. I won't write anything myself then other than on my user page. -- Daveh (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2014 (GMT)

Warning / blocking

A little while ago, I warned an IP after it had added spam to a page. When Dwarfmp blocked the IP, he quite appropriately remarked that bots don't get warnings. After a short exchange on his talk page, he recommended to bring it up on the AN, which I'm doing here. I know that it is common practice not to warn spammers/bots before a block. The reason why I warned the IP after adding the speedy deletion template to the vandalized page was that I wanted to put myself in a position that allowed me to temporarily block the IP in case of continued spamming. I wanted to prevent excessive cluttering of the RC like in recent cases of bot attacks, and I was ready to put a temporary block on the IP right after its second spam edit - that's why I warned the IP. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but if I want to block a user or an IP without exceeding my authorities as a blocker, a warning has to be given before. The Blocking Policy states that "administrators have the authority to bypass one or more steps at their discretion". If blockers should also be allowed to bypass step 1 (warn) of the normal procedure, I think the policy needs to be reworded accordingly. --Holomay (talk) 05:28, 5 October 2014 (GMT)

I'd support rewording the policy to allow Blockers to block when it's reasonable to assume that it's a bot. Robin Hood  (talk) 08:30, 5 October 2014 (GMT)
Can I also request a change to the blocking reasons? The Spamming blocking reason specifically states spamming links to external sites, but 90% of the spam we get is simply text and not actual links (since those are blocked by the filter). Can we removing the part about links to external sites and just say that all spam is the reason for blocking? That covers any links that get through, and applies to the most common situations. Jeancey (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2014 (GMT)
As I've said on my page, spammers usually don't go on a spam spree, unless that is from different IPs. Though I would agree that in certain situations, blockers too should be able to just use their head and block straight away when necessary. As to Jeancey's concern, it says "link or other types", which covers both, I don't really feel like that's a problem. I actually wanted to have a different message for IPs than accounts, as most spam is actually done by IPs these days, and having to change the message manually is a drag ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2014 (GMT)
Actually, the block message says link or other types, the edit summary on the block itself simply says external links. That's what I am proposing the change for. The talk page message is fine. Jeancey (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2014 (GMT)
I just changed the dropdown. I've been thinking of that for a while, myself, but never got around to it (mostly because they give these pages the most arcane names which I can never remember and have to Google for). Robin Hood  (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2014 (GMT)
"In extreme cases Blockers may also use their discretion to bypass a warning and immediately block an editor/IP. Misuse of this exception may result in removal of the Blockers rights and a warning." Add that to the policy under the admin discretion. I never took notice of such restrictions when it came to spammers, but still waited for at least 3 edits to be made (but not made at the same time). Always be prepared to explain your actions though if you block. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 11:06, 6 October 2014 (GMT)

() Okay, since there are no objections to the change, I've gone ahead and made it, per Silencer's suggested wording. Robin Hood  (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2014 (GMT)

Whoops, that went faster than I expected. I thought that there'd be a few more comments after the little detour about the wording of the block message. I don’t want to object to the change to the blocking policy, but I’m afraid it might not be helpful in all scenarios. It’s fine in situations like the ones above (Block needed, Block needed (2), Block needed (3)): When blockers log on and find the RC clogged by an IP’s spam edits, with no admin around, they are faced with an extreme situation and can now immediately put a temp block on the IP. However, there’s the other scenario: A blocker logs on, and after a while there’s an IP’s first spam edit. There’s no way to tell when an admin will be around again. When does the situation become “extreme”? After the third spam edit by that IP, or the tenth? According to the old and the new version of the policy, I can warn the IP after the first spam edit, which allows me to block it after its second spam edit. That’s what I’d still rather do instead of sitting there and wait for the situation to become extreme. The sequence Spam 1 – Warning – Spam 2 – Temp Block is a clear and simple pattern, whereas “extreme situation” is an ambiguous definition.
If a warning for spammers should be avoided, I'd suggest to give blockusers the authority to put a temp block on them after their second spam edit. In many cases, an IP or a user that spams a second time will also continue spamming for a while. Please don't get me wrong: I am not trigger happy, and I am not in search for more power. I simply want blockers to be able to support admins and patrollers by dealing with spam in a time-saving, efficient and effective way, and being backed by an unambiguous policy. --Holomay (talk) 06:49, 16 October 2014 (GMT)
The wording allows for discretion, an arbitrary number doesn't work in this scenario. If someone thinks you acted inappropriately they'll let you know and ask you to explain your decision. For an example I would typically have only blocked after a third spam edit spaced far enough apart to know they were separate 'attempts' by the bot, as some bots have a modus operandi of 3 edits within 10 minutes (as our first abuse filter was made to thwart). Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 17:54, 16 October 2014 (GMT)

Account Creation Broken

A user came into chat to ask about an issue with account creation, and after checking on a few possible issues, and then consulting the account creation log, it appears that account creation is not possible as the Asirra extension does not seem to be working. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 23:38, 12 October 2014 (GMT)

Robin mentioned that on Jeancey's talk page, I thought he would have switched it back to the default captcha so people can still work on the site. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 23:59, 12 October 2014 (GMT)
I sent a message to Dave to see if he had a preference for what to do, but haven't heard back from him. It's Thanksgiving weekend here, so he may be away. In the absence of input, I'll go ahead and reset to the older Captcha for the time being. Sorry about not dealing with it before, but I was too out of it last night to deal with it and I wasn't even sure we still had the necessary info for the older Captcha in any event. I just found a copy of the old info, though, so I'll get to work on resetting it now. Be prepared for the possibility of more user creations and maybe a small uptick in spam, though I expect most of it will be caught by the abuse filter. Robin Hood  (talk) 03:26, 13 October 2014 (GMT)
Okay, it's done. Our mobile servers were actually still using the older method and had captchas for external links turned off (relying on the abuse filter to pick it up), so I made everything the same, following that standard. Let me know if there are any problems. Robin Hood  (talk) 03:50, 13 October 2014 (GMT)
That was a total bust. In the 14 hours since I made the change, our abuse filter took 1200 hits, where before, it averaged a few a day. (Why, oh why, did MS shut down Asirra?!?) I've switched to another Captcha method, QuestyCaptcha, which asks the user a randomized question. We'll see how that goes. Right now, I'm using a verbatim copy from a blog post, which has probably been cracked, but variations on that method can be used to customize it to our site and hopefully significantly reduce the spam once again. For now, I want to see how the existing one does, then, if necessary, I'll get to work on modifying it. Robin Hood  (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2014 (GMT)
A customized version of it has been running for 1.5 hours with no hits to our abuse log whatsoever, so I'm calling it good enough for the time being. If, at some point, a bot figures out how to solve the question reliably, or if people just find the current question style too confusing, we can always change it. Robin Hood  (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2014 (GMT)
Sounds interesting if you are suggesting it can be customised to have questions relevant to the site (ie Elder Scrolls based questions). Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 20:52, 13 October 2014 (GMT)
Yes, it could be, though it's recommended that we stick with answers that change, even with what's nominally the same question. Static questions/answers are easily remembered by bots, whereas something they have to create a special program for will generally be deemed "not worth it" except for insanely large sites like Wikipedia. Robin Hood  (talk) 21:17, 13 October 2014 (GMT)

Request for Adminship: Jeancey

Our Request for Adminship (RfA) process is based on Wikipedia's policy. An editor, when nominated, accepts and answers questions, which can be asked by any registered editor. Votes and comments can also be left by any registered editor. Daveh makes the call, based upon the community's consensus, after about a week.
Consensus: Support. Moved to User:Jeancey/RfA per completion of nomination. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 02:47, 24 October 2014 (GMT)

Lost User Password

Sedrethi has contacted me through IRC to inform me that he has lost access to his wiki account due to a hard drive crash that lost his cache of browser passwords. Unfortunately, he also failed to set an email to recover the account with. Judging from his hostname and the IP he edited from on the wiki, I believe that this is truly him. He has given me an email address to contact him with a reset password, but I don't have the ability to reset his password myself. Can someone who can assist me with helping him? I figure only Robin or Daveh could, if anyone. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 01:12, 25 October 2014 (GMT)

Yup, either of us can take care of that. Just give me a few minutes to refresh my memory on the exact procedure, cuz I've only done it once before, and I'll send you an e-mail. Robin Hood  (talk) 01:19, 25 October 2014 (GMT)
Sedrethi here. Thanks to the both of you for all the assistance! Apologies for any inconveniences caused at all. Just glad to be back into the UESP community with my account and precious watchlist back. :) Sedrethi (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2014 (GMT)
That was an amazing response time Robin, great job :) No problem Sedrethi, just make sure you set an email address for your account, since we would appreciate not having to do this twice :p --AKB Talk Cont Mail 01:39, 25 October 2014 (GMT)
AKB: That was sheer luck, really. I'd just gotten back upstairs when you posted. A few minutes later, I would've been in Skyrim.
Sedrethi: No problem, that's what we're here for. Plus what AKB said. :Þ Robin Hood  (talk) 01:53, 25 October 2014 (GMT)

Help with the account

Hey, I would like to have my account renamed. But the situation is a bit complicated.

In August, I created an account under the name "Vordur Steel-Hammer". Soon after I logged out by accident and could not remember my password. Because I foolishly hadn't set the e-mail address, there was no way to get into my account and I created another - "Vordur Steel-Hammer2".

Would it be possible to delete "Vordur Steel-Hammer" and rename my current account from "Vordur Steel-Hammer2" to "Vordur Steel-Hammer"? I know that's much fuss for removing a single "2", but it's been annoying me to no end. The problem is that I don't know if I'm able to prove that both accounts are mine, since my IP seems to be dynamic.

Could you at least tell me if it is possible? Thanks in advance. -Vordur Steel-Hammer2 (talk) 12:22, 25 October 2014 (GMT)

The dynamic IP isn't a big issue, since we can tell that you're using the same network as the original Vordur Steel-Hammer and that there's no overlap in usage, which makes it reasonably likely that you're the same person. The larger issue is that we can't actually delete accounts, only rename them. So, we'd have to rename the original to something else like "Vordur Steel-Hammer (Abandoned)" or whatever makes sense to you, then rename the second account to the original. Let me know if you'd like to go ahead with that. Robin Hood  (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2014 (GMT)
RH, can't you (if I remember the name right) usurp the account like you did with Snowmane/Damon? I have no idea if these are similar cases or what, but it seems like this would be a tad easier. •WoahBro►talk 18:26, 25 October 2014 (GMT)
That's what usurpation is. :) You rename the usurped account to something else, then rename the requested account to the usurped account (see here). Robin Hood  (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2014 (GMT)
Alright, I'd like to go ahead with that. Thanks for your help! -Vordur Steel-Hammer2 (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2014 (GMT)
Okay, your account has been renamed. I named the old one Vordur Steel-Hammer (Usurped) to keep our naming consistent. You may have to log out and back in again for the changes to take effect. Robin Hood  (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2014 (GMT)
Thanks again! -Vordur Steel-Hammer (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2014 (GMT)

Legoless Interaction Ban

I am making a simple request that interaction between me and Legoless is banned. He has shown once again that he has an agenda against me, something I find abhorrent. There is nothing in his repeated attempts to force another warning or block that can be justified by any right-thinking editor. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 15:15, 27 October 2014 (GMT)

I'd like to support this, although it may prove problematic on a small wiki. —Legoless (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2014 (GMT)
While the policy says two or more administrators must agree, I think we can safely ignore that in this case, since both people are in agreement. Also, the way the policy is laid out, it doesn't seem too problematic, since you can both edit the same article (With restrictions). ~ Ad intellige (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2014 (GMT)
I wrote a really long post before these comments came in stating that an interaction ban was unnecessary, and that Silencer's been on a witchhunt since his banning in August. However, my browser crashed, and that page's worth of arguments is gone (and, it turns out there's an app that keeps your last handful of clipboard saves... Guess who's on the Mac App Store now?). I suppose it's not relevant anyway, considering the two users have agreed to an interaction ban without additional drama.
Just so that it's on the record for the future, I want to look at the discussions here, here, and here, and look at the fact that Silencer was the sole opposition vote against Jeancey in his RfA, which he placed shortly after disagreeing with him on an argument. I hate to be the bad guy and stoke the flames, but I don't think that an interaction ban is sufficient, and looking at how he's acted the last many months, starting from immediately before his last blocking, I believe that he should receive a proper punishment.
Despite all the good contributions he offers, he's without a doubt a handful, and his comments like "If the insults are so hidden for you..." and "Some editors simply can't stand the truth being told, and have repeatedly tried to stop discussion when they come under scrutiny (I'm looking at you Legoless, trying to hype up a situation to where telling the truth becomes a blockable offense)", in reply to comments to prove his accusations (both from here), have done nothing but suggest he's going to not let this go and will continue to be a problem.
I hate blocking people, I hate drama, I hate all this stuff that's going on, and I'd like everyone to forgive and forget, but I see nothing to suggest it would happen, so I have to put forward the belief that more serious action than an interaction ban be taken. Enforcing an interaction ban on Silencer's request after these acting outs, in my opinion, does nothing but suggest that he can disagree, start and argument, and then take a ban that attaches no consequences to his blatant misbehaviours. Allowing this ban to go forward could set a bad precedent, in my opinion. -damon  talkcontribs 16:24, 27 October 2014 (GMT)
Why is asking for the truth such a difficult concept that it leads to attempts to block me? My block included a blatant lie from Legoless that he admitted to, something no amount of rewriting history will change, and I think that allows me to feel aggrieved at the actions taken based partly on that lie. The fact that in the following discussion where he was held accountable, the community agreed that lying was not enough to remove his administrative rights does not remove the fact that he did lie. The drama is entirely coming from Legoless, who has shown a clear lack of neutrality in his messages to me, including a post that basically suggested that if I continued to speak the truth I would be blocked. I really don't see where I deserve the kind of sickening attitude from an administrator, or the patrollers who seek to back him up merely because they dislike me. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 17:04, 27 October 2014 (GMT)
With the block, I'll call this issue closed, unless Silencer successfully appeals to Dave or another administrator to overturn it. Robin Hood  (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2014 (GMT)
Sorry, Robin, I was already commenting when you posted that.
(edit conflict) Based on what just happened, I'm wondering which direction this witchhunt is really pointing. So many people seem to have it in for Silencer that it's no wonder he is overly defensive. I don't deny that his civility is at times questionable, I'd just prefer that we could all help him through it and ensure his side of the events are adequately considered.
The self-imposed interaction ban may have been sufficient, but I think there has been a bit of a knee-jerk overreaction to go straight for a long ban. --Enodoc (talk) 14:37, 27 October 2014 (EDT)

() The comment wasn't directed at you or anyone else. My intent was simply to prevent further drama and close the topic.

As for a witchhunt, while The Silencer seems to think otherwise, I have nothing against him or any other user. Our duty as administrators is to keep the wiki functioning and reduce drama as much as possible. His behaviour was out of line, and has demonstrably been out of line on several occasions. When asked to moderate it, he failed to do so and was blocked on those grounds. If he wants to appeal his block, I'm open to the possibility, but at least as far as I'm concerned, it will have to be on the grounds of "This has gotten out of hand. How can we fix it?" rather than "Here's why everyone else but me is wrong, lying, or covering things up." The latter is not a productive way of engaging on a wiki. Robin Hood  (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2014 (GMT)

And I'd also like to point out that while things have escalated today, it's been brewing for a while now. --AN|L (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2014 (GMT)
Those are again examples of Silencer being defensive as a result of someone else's actions. Actions which were perhaps unnecessarily more hypocritical and provocational than they intended to be, when the events that led to them are taken into account.
I don't want to drag this out further, for the sake of everyone involved, but I think future interactions with Silencer should be tailored to avoid such conflicts. --Enodoc (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2014 (GMT)

Uploading Arena Saves

I'm not exactly sure where this goes, but the page on uploading Arena saves says to contact the staff, so I figured that meant the admins, and, seeing as how this is the 'Administrator Noticeboard', and considering that I'm not particular about which admin takes care of this, so I also figured that this would be the best place to do such.

At any rate . . .

I would like to contribute my save-games from Arena to the wiki so that other players can enjoy the characters I've created. I was curious as to how to do that, with a couple of specific questions in mind:

1.) Which files, specifically, do I need to provide? The aforementioned page simply states that the *.0n files need to be provided, but not which specific ones, as there are several different files with those extensions contained in the ARENA file-folder.
2.) Does my character need to meet any special conditions (e.g.: escape Imperial Dungeons, reach lv. 10, etc.) before the file can be uploaded?

Any and all help is appreciated! --Gandoril The Spell-Binder (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2014 (GMT)

Based on the three listed on the page already, the required files are all type .02, and include AUTOMAP, CITYDATA, IN806, LOG, SAVEENGN, SAVEGAME, SPELLS, STATES, WILD001, WILD002, WILD003 and WILD004. RE14 seems to be optional but maybe include that one as well. Is there any particular reason you'd like to share your character? —Legoless (talk) 20:19, 30 October 2014 (GMT)
In addition to what Legoless said, that page is out of date. Back when it was created, I believe ZIP files were disallowed as uploads unless you were an administrator (or maybe even only the site owner). They're now enabled for everyone, so administrator intervention isn't needed anymore. You should be able to just create a zip file and upload it yourself, then update the Saved Games page to include your file along with a description of what makes it notable/useful to others. Robin Hood  (talk) 21:19, 30 October 2014 (GMT)
Since this is an active discussion related to the page, this is a courtesy note that I've filed a deletion review for this page. My arguments against the page's existence can be found there, and whoever is registered and wants to argue for or against the page's existence can cast a vote there. -damon  talkcontribs 23:10, 30 October 2014 (GMT)
Well, I'm going to wait until a decision has be made on the above deletion review page before I upload anything. Also, I believe that the *.02 files are strictly files related to whichever save is in the third slot down on Arena's save/load menus. I'm using the top-most slot, so I would need to upload a *.zip file containing all of the *.00 files. Again, I'll just wait for a decision on whether or not that page should remain. Oh, and, Legoless, I want to upload my saves so that others can enjoy them. I think some people might have trouble with selecting classes/races, and all modern versions of the game come with the original Player's Guide, which uses old Dungeons & Dragons formulae to explain how health is calculated. Most new players are unfamiliar with algebra (and old D&D mechanics) and would have no idea that, say, d12 would mean 'between 1 and 12'. Even I didn't understand this at first (and I just graduated high-school at the beginning of June of this year), until I came across UESP's Arena articles. However, I now have a very thorough understanding of Arena's mechanics (at least during character creation), and am patient enough to wait for the game to generate stats that I'm happy with; however, most newer players probably aren't, so I'm taking a major load off of their shoulders. Also, I have learned the game's naming conventions of the various races and genders, and have created names that fit with the chosen race and gender. In addition, I think I'll wait to escape the Imperial Dungeons, properly outfit my characters, and level-up a bit before uploading. If anyone wants to start right off from the very beginning (or at any other point), I will have back-up saves from that point, and you can request for saves from a specific milestone (e.g. specific levels, progress points, etc.).
P.S.: I hope that last bit didn't sound like an advertisement . . . --Gandoril The Spell-Binder (talk) 02:57, 31 October 2014 (GMT)

Need admin help again

I need help with two files I once uploaded, File:Ayleid ruins.jpg and File:LO-map-Dwemer Ruins.jpg. The early versions of these files use a scan Anthology map of Tamriel which I took from TIL. After uploading them, it occured to me that I probably shouldn't have used that scan, so I posted a question about it on the help page. Because the question seemed to have gone unnoticed, I uploaded new versions of these files which did not contain the questionable scan. However, the old versions can still be reached via the file history, and I think they should be deleted altogether (am I right?). Can it be done without deleting the newer versions?

In the worst case, the files could be totally deleted, because nobody has decided to use them yet (they're used only on my userpage and two talk pages), and these maps still need to be perfected anyway.

Thanks in advance. --Vordur Steel-Hammer (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2014 (GMT)

I've deleted the old versions for you. —Legoless (talk) 03:10, 1 November 2014 (GMT)
Wow, that was quick. Thank you very much. By the way, could I post a request on the image request page so we can get our own scan of this map? --Vordur Steel-Hammer (talk) 03:15, 1 November 2014 (GMT)
Might be an idea. —Legoless (talk) 03:18, 1 November 2014 (GMT)

Arena 1.06/07 Releases Questions

I was doing research for a user who came in asking about help with the 1.07 patch for Arena that we link to off our site. I did some looking around, and I realise that Bethesda has released on the Elder Scrolls website the 1.06 (floppy disc) release for free, and that's what we link to there. The 1.07 CD release, which we link to off an unofficial site, is a later release that BethSoft has, whether intentionally or unintentionally, not released to free download off their site. Is it right for us to link to this later 1.07 release? Does Bethesda approve the release of later versions that weren't explicitly released by them or should we assume that there is a reason the latest release version wasn't released? Does one version going free mean we can assume a later version is also approved to be released and distributed at will? Am I missing something in my research, or is this a grey area, and should we remove this link until we can determine exactly what the situation is? -damon  talkcontribs 19:33, 2 November 2014 (GMT)

The patches were released for free anyway, so there's no reason 1.07 wouldn't be public domain. All good. —Legoless (talk) 19:42, 2 November 2014 (GMT)

Sable Marsh Software and Slek Developers Use of UESP's Name

A user on the forums pointed out that their are apps on the Google Play Store that feature "UESP" in their name. Specifically, I'm referring to this and this from Slek Developers and this and this from Sable Marsh Software. As cases of other groups just taking the UESP's name and slapping it on their productions are thankfully rare, I was unfortunately a bit loss on what to do. I'm especially worried that Sable Marsh Software is offering in-app purchases. As I have my other things I should focus on, I'd thought I'd bring this to the rest of the administration's attention, at the least. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 09:34, 3 November 2014 (GMT)

It's not just the name; it seems the two Oblivion ones are actually using our maps as well. The Morrowind ones are harder to check as they're just the basic maps, but those Oblivion ones are almost definitely ours. Sable Marsh Software's in-app purchases apparently "remove ads and get more maps". --Enodoc (talk) 10:10, 3 November 2014 (GMT)
I don't know much about legal mumbo jumbo, but this seems like it could be breaking some licensing laws or something. Personally i would contact whoever is in charge and see about doing something with it. Lorenut (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2014 (GMT)
I'd say it's something Dave should be told about. Hopefully, he's done some research into things like this, considering he has a brand to protect, and as the owner of the domain and his "brand", he'd probably be the one who would have to put up a complaint against this, if he chose to go that route. -damon  talkcontribs 16:19, 3 November 2014 (GMT)
I did a bit more digging and saw that both developers' Skyrim maps app (which neither use the UESP name) are both identical to the map found on GameBanshee's site (which we have linked here on UESP). I don't know if someone wants to contact them and let them know as a courtesy. Also, are any of our maps (or the one's these guys are ripping off) copyrighted? If so, a legal Cease and Desist might be in order. Don't take my word for it though, I'm no expert on law by any means. •WoahBro►talk 16:45, 3 November 2014 (GMT)
Thanks for noticing this and bringing it up. Their Morrowind maps seem to be just scans of the game map, but the use of the UESP name and the copying of our maps without proper attribution is definitely a no-no. I'll try contacting the developer and if that fails look into contacting Google. If you notice any other similar apps/websites let me know.
It also brings up the need to have an "official" UESP map/app, or at least making the existing maps more mobile friendly. The apps in question just seem to be zoomable images...we can do way better than that! -- Daveh (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2014 (GMT)
Concerning a mobile app, there was a discussion some time ago, but it seems unknown if there will be any results... -- SarthesArai Talk 21:25, 3 November 2014 (GMT)

() As an idea in re to Dave's thought of an official map, perhaps a map that, with a cellphone connection or wifi connection, can just access our maps as is, with thumbnails that can be pulled up to go to our article pages, as it is on the maps? Then, you can take your cell phone, view the map, then pull up our articles directly off it? There are apps that read that Google Maps stuff and pull up reviews on restaurants, WP pages, etc, so it's hopefully not hard to do? Although, I have no cell phone and no code experience, so maybe it is hard. -damon  talkcontribs 16:33, 4 November 2014 (GMT)

Maybe we could post a news article recruiting any users with app-making know-how/experience to volunteer for this project? I say volunteer because I have a feeling that UESP doesn't really have money to spend on a project like this. I don't know, just a thought. •WoahBro►talk 16:41, 4 November 2014 (GMT)
I was mainly just thinking of making the existing maps more mobile friendly as well as the mobile version of the wiki, but really anything is possible depending on the need for it. -- Daveh (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2014 (GMT)


An IP address in France has recently requested a password change for three different users with various levels of elevated rights. I've blocked that IP from editing (under any account), but please reply to this post if anyone else gets messages about similar attempts so that administrators can block them. Thanks! Robin Hood  (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2014 (GMT)

Is this just someone making use of the "forgotten password" function, or has anything actually been compromised? —Legoless (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2014 (GMT)
It appears to be just someone making use of the forgotten password function. There's probably no danger from it, really, unless they can get into your e-mail, but I get a bit concerned when two different admins and a user patroller are the ones targetted. I figure it's better to be safe than sorry. Robin Hood  (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2014 (GMT)
Are these users being notified with password requests coming through the email registered on the wiki? Just making sure, I usually don't check that email anymore, but I did just to be safe and didn't see anything. •WoahBro►talk 17:22, 8 November 2014 (GMT)
Yes, they are. That was how I noticed it. Robin Hood  (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2014 (GMT)
I got one too, a few hours ago, from a separate address. Unfortunately, blocking the address (actually, including the one you already blocked) does little good as it is just a Tor exit node. Since the person is using Tor, there isn't much we can do to stop this from continuing besides blocking all Tor nodes. Jeancey (talk) 07:50, 9 November 2014 (GMT)
Over the past 24 hours, the Tor user has requested password reminders for about a dozen more editors with elevated rights. The number of Tor edits we've had in the wiki's history is vanishingly small, so I've disabled even logged-in users from editing with Tor. Unfortunately, this doesn't prevent the password reminders from being requested, but even if someone does somehow get in, they'll find they can do little else. In the event that we get a contributor who genuinely needs it (e.g., to overcome the great firewall of China), a group of exceptions can be set up as needed. I'll also work on preventing even the password reminders from Tor accounts. I don't think it'll be too difficult, so that'll probably go up later this afternoon. Robin Hood  (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2014 (GMT)
The fix is up. Hopefully, that should be the end of Tor-based password resets. Robin Hood  (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2014 (GMT)

De-Adminship for Inactive Admins?

I got one of those password-reset emails recently. Glad to see you all are addressing it. However, it brings to mind that several admins (including myself), have been inactive for a long time. It may be time to re-visit (semi?) automatic retirement (de-adminship).

Pro: Primary concern is security. At the very least, admins have access to IP info, and can cause trouble that ordinary users cannot. If an admin's account is breached, then access can be abused.

Con: Semi-retired admins can provide more experienced voices to discussions, and can help to balance off problems with current admins. However, there's a distinction here between "semi-retired" and "fully retired." E.g. (not a full listing):

Note: There are a many additional pro/con arguments in these past discussions.

Consider: Wikipedia policy:

--Wrye (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2014 (GMT)

Now there's a ghost from UESP's past! Nice to see you again, Wrye.
Wrye makes a number of good points here, and I don't have a strong feeling either way, but I would agree to de-adminning inactive admins. I think Wikipedia's guideline of a year makes sense in terms of what constitutes "inactive", though I'd change it slightly to a year since any significant activity.
That said, I think re-adminning them should either be automatic on request, or at least a relatively quick process (perhaps after a month or so of activity). While there's a certain amount of re-familiarization necessary so the returning admin can get used to any procedural changes, deleting spam or blocking vandals really doesn't tend to change, and even an admin who hasn't been on in a few years can help out with that sort of thing while (re-)familiarizing themselves with things like our specific deletion policies. As I said, I don't feel strongly about this, and consensus in the past has been to not de-admin, but with the recent hacking attempts, I think we should at least have the discussion again. Robin Hood  (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2014 (GMT)
(edit conflict) This seems like a good discussion to revisit. First of all I think it's important to distinguish the sheer scale of Wikipedia's inactive admin problem, versus our own list of 15 admins total. We've also seen a number of inactive admins return to the site for periods of time and be very helpful. For example, Eshe, who was mentioned in the discussion above back in 2008 for potential de-adminship, was around just a few months ago and actively using admin rights. I don't think we should discourage that. Of course, we run the potential danger of an old admin coming back and being out of touch with the current community/staff, but I see that as more of a problem for the individual than for the wiki. As for security issues, the recent password reset thing isn't really a problem unless the user's email has already been breached. The risk of an inactive admin account being taken over and doing any kind of permanent damage to the site seems low, in my mind.
Of course, an admin can always step down. Perhaps the best option is to simply encourage inactive admins to consider it if they don't see themselves coming back. Personally I don't see a pressing need to strip anyone of the rights currently. —Legoless (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2014 (GMT)
While ideal circumstances would dictate never de-admining inactive users for no reason, since this is currently a potential security risk to the site, I am also in favour of a de-privileging of inactive administrator/bureaucrat accounts, while leaving a talk page notice citing the password resets and noting that the administrator can request their rights back if they wish to rejoin in the future.
However, I am ambivalent about whether or not it becomes a procedural thing to regularly check inactive admins to de-rights them, because as Legoless points out, unless the email address has been compromised, there's no way to reset the password and gain access to the account. And, from a test that I conducted myself, the Reset page doesn't say "A message has been sent to <email>", and in my experience, I've never been able to know a user's email, even with the "Email User" function, unless I received an email from them, in which case the long address comes back from the email provider. Therefore, it is actually unlikely that you can discover the user's email through the site without being told or replied to from an email, unless I'm missing something somewhere.
Therefore, the password resets, at least IMO, can probably be considered an annoyance more than a problem, but it's certainly not necessarily a bad thing to completely eliminate the security risk from the inactive admins. -damon  talkcontribs 00:44, 10 November 2014 (GMT)
I would agree that going forward there's probably no sense in removal of admin rights for inactivity, though automatic restoration upon request is a possibility. Even so, I've been known to take wiki breaks myself (I'm actually in the middle of one right now, but the UESP monkey on my back's a-screamin'), and it would be kind of off-putting to see that my rights had been removed. An easily solved problem, to be sure, but it could be prevented in the first place with little risk (I hope). Zul se onikaanLaan tinvaak 01:41, 10 November 2014 (GMT)
Hi RH. :) Yeah, it's been a while!
I think that Thuum's point is a good one -- one hates to lose the rank that recognizes one's work. Though, perhaps an unofficial rank of "Admin/Patroller/etc. Emeritus" to indicate "retired/paused/vacation in good standing". That, combined with an easy/fast re-admining.
Random thoughts: If it's done, then there should definitely be emails beforehand. The period before de-admining might be made very long (e.g. 4 years).
Wrye (talk) 02:37, 10 November 2014 (GMT)
Personally i don't see a need to de-admin anyone. I can see why you would want to, but i really wouldn't worry about their accounts being hacked by anyone. Like Damon said above me, i haven't seen any way to get someones email on UESP in the time i've been here.
  1. Hacking an account doesn't seem possible (it could be through unknown means to me) since you can't see any users email. If by some chance a account is hacked i think it would be an easy enough fix. Daveh is a bureaucrat and he could deal with the issue relatively fast.
  2. An admin going off the deep end and turning into a vandal doesn't happen often. So i really don't think they should have their admin rights removed because of that small risk.
  3. They earned their position and they shouldn't have that position stripped away at any time unless that is the only way to stop something. The hacking attempt seems to have been stopped by Robin and so i really don't think this is needed.
If it is decided to remove inactive admins rights then like a few people above me stated, they should get it back upon request. They should also get a courtesy notice that their rights are being removed. Lorenut (talk) 03:35, 10 November 2014 (GMT)

() Personally, I think that all types of user rights should be lost after a given amount of time inactive. My reasoning is pretty simple too: by having people who are out of touch with the community leading it, we, in my opinion, are far more likely to run into trouble. After all, looking at world history, the worst leaders are the ones who are out of touch. When it comes to the removal of rights I think it should take a long time and be a rather long process. First, they should be inactive (No edits of any sort) for at least 6 months. Then a talk page post should be made informing them their rights will be removed due to inactivity. Should they not respond to that, an email should be sent to them. Only then should their rights be removed. I think this would weed out the users who no longer have an interest in the site, along with keeping our "leaders" from losing touch with us. If they decide to return after losing their rights, I think they should have a period (A couple of weeks) of being active and then be granted their rights again without any discussion. At this point, I had a large amount of text, but then I realized it isn't relevant to this discussion :P ~ Ad intellige (talk) 04:40, 10 November 2014 (GMT)

If there was a consensus on de-admin timelines, I'd feel that 6 months is a little on the short side. It's not exactly uncommon for our users to have to take extended breaks for university or school or whatever, and then return in full swing. I'd be more comfortable with a range of 1-2 years, personally. -damon  talkcontribs 05:53, 10 November 2014 (GMT)
Certainly, there would have to be efforts to contact them by email, and I should think a 2-year period of inactivity at least, but I would still rather it not happen at all. What's really the harm of leaving the rights in place? If they don't come back, they don't use the rights anyway, so what's the point of removing them? If they do come back, they'll want those rights to remain. One or two details of a policy may change over a period of inactivity, but not to the degree that the actual policy itself would change at a fundamental level. I've seen similar situations happen, and it's usually as simple as informing the person of the new policy by linking to the discussion that led to a change. Anyone who's responsible enough to be elected an admin will understand and adapt accordingly. Zul se onikaanLaan tinvaak 15:19, 10 November 2014 (GMT)
Because I don't really have a whole lot of time to read through every comment of every discussion, I'm going to be pretty quick. From what I've seen here, the only reason why a user should have their rights removed due to inactivity is, like Dom said, because they're out of touch with the community and also editing. However, it's not that difficult to get back in the swing of things.
So, I think that after a year of minimal to zero activity, a talk page message should let the user know that if their inactivity continues, they'll have their rights removed. After 1-3 months without a reply, the user should have their rights removed and a courtesy message be left on their talk page. If the user does respond to the initial notification, it should be either saying "I'm still around/plan to be back soon" or "Go ahead and take my rights away".
In the event that a user does come back from inactivity, I think that after a week or so of editing they should simply request their rights back with no major hoops to jump through. Okay, I think that's all I've got (look at me, saying I'll be quick and typing a novella...) •WoahBro►talk 16:23, 10 November 2014 (GMT)
Well, there doesn't seem to be strong consensus here either way. Seems to fall into, "Makes some sense, but risks associated with not doing it are not very high, and people (understandably) would prefer to keep the rank that they've earned."
So, I won't worry about it. Now, back to hanging out at the Hot Springs! :) --Wrye (talk) 03:38, 13 November 2014 (GMT)

Request for archive semi-protection

For Skyrim talk:Easter Eggs/Archive 17. Thanks! Zul se onikaanLaan tinvaak 20:00, 25 November 2014 (GMT)

The bot's on it. Robin Hood  (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2014 (GMT)

Prev: Archive 34 Up: Administrator Noticeboard Next: Archive 36