UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard/Archive 15

A UESPWiki – Sua fonte de The Elder Scrolls desde 1995
Semi Protection
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.

Semi Unprotected

I just noticed in my Watchlist that {{Archive Header}} was recently vandalized by an IP address. It's supposed to be semi-protected based on the {{Protection}} template in it. Can someone please check that? Thanks! Robin HoodTalk 15:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the protection was temporary - it ran out on 6 Feb. In any case, it should use {{TemProtect}} rather than {{Protection}}. rpeh •TCE 16:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Just a reminder, this still needs to be fixed. Robin HoodTalk 15:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ban For

He/She has made multiple personal attacks on Nephele.

And me and Timenn. Timenn just logged off so It'll be a while, we can make it for now.--Corevette789 00:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
agreed i agree!--GUM!!! 00:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Done --NepheleTalk 02:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Virus found on site

Discussion moved from User talk:GuildKnight#Virus found on site

On Tuesday the 1 June 2010, my AVG encountered a virus on the following page: http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Skyrim

AVG labeled it as "Exploit Neosploit Toolkit (Type 1109)"

I just wanted you to know ASAP! and I have no idea wehat to do or what this means. Love your work eid_broughton@yahoo.com

GK will be gone for a while and that seems unlikely, are you sure it was from that page?--Corevette789 01:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
According to a forum where a user had a similar experience:
It means YOUR computer is infected with a virus (malware specifically). You'll get this error message regardless of what site you're on. It seems to only affect Firefox users.
Which definitely sounds more likely than UESP being the source of the virus. --NepheleTalk 02:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Updates to Archived Discussions

To let everyone know, some quick feedback on assorted updates I've implemented based on old discussions:

  • Database Corruption
    • I started the refreshLinks maintenance program running last night... it's made it about 80% of the way so far. It's fixing all of the issues with bad category links, etc. But I've also been struggling with an obscure code bug that's been adding a lot of bizarre entries to wanted categories and wanted pages -- things like Special-NPCs as a wanted category. Since it only happens when pages are processed by the job queue, it's really annoying to track down; I keep thinking that I've taken care of it, and then more start appearing. So I'll be continuing to try to deal with that situation. If there's still strange stuff in places like wanted categories by the end of the week, let me know; in the meantime, assume that I'm working on it.
  • New User Group
    • Implemented. Blocker group has ability to block for up to four hours, and admins have the ability to add/remove from the group. I took the code Nx wrote and simply added it into UespCustomCode since that made the majority of the code unnecessary -- I'm assuming Nx doesn't mind, but if there is an issue, I can change the implementation.
  • Skipcatcha please
    • I did not follow through on this, pending the possible Userspace Patrollers group. That group has been given skipcatcha authority, and it's possible that membership in that group will be fairly widely available, in which case adding it to all confirmed users is probably unnecessary.

However, this probably is the end of my wikicode editing spree, short of dealing with new bugs that I may have introduced in the process.

P.S. The one caveat with everything I've been doing so far is that it's only active on content1/2. I can't make any changes on content3 yet. If I don't hear from Daveh in the next few days, I might look into figuring out how to tell the squid server to not use content3. That would allow us to start making changes that rely on the new code. Then once I hear from Daveh, content3 would be updated and put back into the system. --NepheleTalk 18:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm tentatively (cross my fingers) concluding that the bug creating all the wanted categories/pages has been fixed. It's been five hours since a buggy entry was created, and I've been throwing everything I can at the bug during that time. Nevertheless, it's still going to probably take a day for the wanted lists to get cleaned out. I'm also running a script that will make sure, eventually, to refresh any pages that have been processed strangely at any point in the last couple days. Again, it'll be about a day before it's done so in the meantime reports like the following might continue to trickle in.
One other point: some of you may have noticed the site not responding a few minutes ago (specifically content2 not responding). That was my fault, triggered by another bit of database updating I was taking care of. Basically I needed to monopolize the database for a couple of minutes for some reorganization, the upside of which is that now every time someone does a full-text search that search won't monopolize the database for a couple of seconds. In other words, 120 seconds of work now to fix a constant stream of little 2 second jobs. That should clear out one of the most common reasons why the database can be slow to respond to a request.
Other than the above-mentioned cleanup scripts that will still be running for a while, that should be the last of my server disruptions for now. --NepheleTalk 22:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
So was that why for about 15-20 minutes everything kept timing out ?--TheAlbinoOrc 22:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
TheAlbinoOrc: Yes. One of the servers became completely overloaded, to the point where I couldn't even force it to restart.
One hopefully final update: all changes have now been made live on all servers, and all the update scripts have finished running. So no more restrictions on making use of the new features. --NepheleTalk 19:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Quest links not displaying correctly

Why aren't the links to the quests always being displayed correctly? When I bring up the Skingrad page, I get several lines like the following instead of quests and links.

[[{{{questpage}}}|{{{altname}}}]]: {{{description}}}

Skingrad isn't the only page like this. — Unsigned comment by (talk) on 2 June 2010

There are various updates taking place at the moment (see the previous section on this page). Oblivion:Skingrad looks fine to me, which probably means you have a caching issue. I just purged that page: try again now. Otherwise, you'll just have to wait a little while. rpeh •TCE 19:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I just checked OB:Skingrad also, it looked fine... except that the people were too far down in their section.--TheAlbinoOrc 20:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought, I was getting lots of things like this with IE8. Whats your browser?.--Corevette789 20:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Firefox.--TheAlbinoOrc 20:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I meant the anon, but it looks fine for me on that page.--Corevette789 21:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Policy: Abuse of Anonymous Editing

We've clearly had a problem, for far too long now, with editors abusing the wiki's open editing system so they can be disruptive and generally waste the community's time. Second Opinion Please is the latest example; the talk page shows it's not a new problem. Therefore, I propose adding the following section to the Vandalism policy, under UESPWiki:Vandalism#Types of Vandalism:

Abuse of Anonymous Editing
Deliberately hiding or falsifying your identity in order to make unwanted, controversial, or inappropriate comments is not tolerated. Regular UESP contributors are expected to contribute using their own account whenever participating in any community discussions. Therefore, an edit can be treated as vandalism if a site editor judges that it meets all three of the following criteria:
  • The edit is made by an anonymous IP or newly created account (one with no significant contribution history).
  • There is reason to believe that the person making the edit is familiar with UESP (e.g., person refers to community members or site policy).
  • The edit has no constructive value and/or is likely to be disruptive.

This would imply that such edits could be reverted on sight, and the anon could also be warned and blocked, if necessary. The wording is deliberately somewhat fuzzy: the targeted editors are already trying to exploit site policy, so they will inevitably try to take advantage of any loophole. As for including it on the vandalism page, as far as I'm concerned, these types of edits do far more damage to the site and its community than someone replacing a page with obscenities, so let's start dealing with them accordingly.

All community members are welcome to provide feedback; it helps if you can start your comment with Support, Oppose (or Comment, etc.) as appropriate.

Consensus: None. Votes were roughly equal. In the absence of consensus, existing policy stands. Robin Hoodtalk 03:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Policy: Prohibiting Interactions

Please note that the proposed policy has now been enacted. It can be found at UESPWiki:Interaction Ban.

I'd like to propose officially prohibiting Elliot and rpeh from interacting with each other, in any way, on the wiki. Both have been told as much, unofficially, many times. Given that past requests have failed to resolve the situation, a new approach is clearly needed. There is wikipedia precedent for the proposed restrictions, for example this motion or this finding from their arbitration committee.

A secondary proposal, if the community first agrees with the interaction prohibition, is to remove all current warnings from rpeh and Elliot's talk pages that are related to past incidents between them (or sanction any past edits that have already removed such warnings, as appropriate). The removal would not be intended as any type of statement about the correctness of the original warning. Rather, it is to help both editors feel that they are being treated equally under the new policy. Furthermore, it allows existing discussions such as Request to remove warning to be closed; otherwise, this new policy will effectively bar the complainant from making any further contribution in his appeal process.

Restriction Enforcement

Under this proposal, the next time either Elliot or rpeh violates the restriction prohibiting any interaction, the violator gets an official warning. After the warning, any further violations by the same editor will result in the editor being blocked for a week. The editor will continue to be blocked for a week at a time, as many times as necessary.

As long as the other editor does not respond or do anything to violate the restriction, the other editor will receive no warning and won't be blocked -- this policy will result in no black marks on your record if you comply with the policy.

The primary purpose of the block is to enforce a time-out/cool-down period, and thus prevent the typical rapidly escalating back-and-forth edits. The warning/block is also critical to make it clear to the other editor that he does not need to take any action in response to the violation. Therefore, it's important that we (the administrators) intercede whenever there is a clear violation, even if it's relatively minor (especially given the hope that this policy will reduce the fallout produced by a violation). Furthermore, if other community members notice a violation that has not been addressed by an admin, they should report it here (a simple link to the questionable edit is sufficient; any type of additional explanation is likely to cause extra problems).

Personally, I don't think a pre-warning or advance notification of the new policy is necessary for either editor, given that it's clear that both editors monitor the Administrator Noticeboard. But it others feel differently, someone could post an unofficial notice on each editor's talk page as soon as this policy is considered official.

Restriction Details

Prohibited actions under the proposed restrictions would include:

  • Making comments about the other editor, indirectly or directly, on articles, on discussion pages, or in edit summaries. Substitutes for names (e.g., "you know who") would count as making an indirect comment.
  • Making any edit to the other editor's user page, user talk page, or user subpages.
  • Undoing any edit made by the other editor.
  • If these rules are violated to the point where one editor gets warned or blocked, then the other editor is also prohibited from making any references to that warning/block. Any type of comment seems likely to be interpreted as gloating or otherwise exacerbate future arguments. I want to stop this cycle, not create new ways to perpetuate it.


  • Elliot and rpeh must do everything possible to avoid derailing other community discussions with their conflicts. So if, for example, rpeh has already contributed to a discussion, Elliot needs to (a) think carefully about whether any contribution is appropriate (e.g., is the information new and important to the discussion) (b) wait long enough (e.g., 24 hours or more) before responding so that it's clear to everyone the comments are not being made hastily or emotionally (c) make absolutely sure that the comments are on topic and do not violate any of the above prohibitions. The same recommendations apply to rpeh if Elliot has already contributed to a discussion.
  • Elliot and rpeh can edit an article previously edited by the other editor, but only if at least 24 hours has passed -- and even then, cannot simply undo the other's edit(s). This condition is to ensure that the restrictions don't effectively make every article on the site off-limits for editing, given both editors' extensive contribution history.

Finally, for this to have a realistic chance of working, I think some form of the above proposal to prevent disruptive edits by anonymous editors needs to be in place. We need to be able to remove and prevent any external provocations that could possibly be interpreted as either editor trying to circumvent the restriction.

Discussion of Proposal

Before wrapping up, I'd like to suggest if rpeh or Elliot wish to respond to this discussion, that they limit themselves to constructive comments that are strictly on the topic of this proposal. I doubt it's necessary to discuss or even make any further reference to the events that have led up to this point. Regardless of who was right or wrong in the past, I believe the community primarily wants to prevent future incidents -- or, if that's not possible, allow clear action to be taken against the person truly responsible.

Again, all community members are welcome to provide feedback; it helps if you can start your comment with Support, Oppose (or Comment, etc.) as appropriate.

Consensus: Oppose. There was, however, general support for a permanent change in policy rather than a one-time interaction ban. Robin Hoodtalk 03:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Timmeh's Alternative Proposal

We could just give them a month to shape up or get out, with the punishment for not doing so is a 3 month block or something. It's not the nicest option, but honestly it's gotten to the point where a block for either/both of them may be better for the wiki in the long term. If I were to see them not at each others throats for a month, maybe my opinion might change. --Tim Talk 03:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Consensus: None. Votes were even (based on an assumption of support from Timmeh himself). In the absence of consensus, existing policy stands. Robin Hoodtalk 03:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Modification to Original Proposal

In response to the above feedback, I've posted the proposed text for a new, more general policy at User:Nephele/Sandbox/6.

I'm guessing the most likely issue with the new text is whether it's sufficient to have two administrators agree. So I've highlighted that phrase in green as a semi-placeholder. Basically, I think that for it to be useful as an official policy, it has to be possible to enact the policy without a full community consensus -- otherwise we're effectively re-introducing the policy every time we try to use it, which defeats the purpose of creating a general policy in the first place. Two administrators seemed like a reasonable minimum requirement. However, that requirement can easily be changed without invalidating the rest of the proposal, so if the primary issue is that requirement, could we still get consensus on the rest of the text, and then spend more time refining the details?

I think that what I've posted is about as general as we can get and yet still have a policy that will help in the current situation. The fundamental problem here, as I see it, is that the Elliot-rpeh incidents always start with actions that are acceptable under wiki rules. That's basically why it's been so hard to take action in any of the past incidents. Any type of general solution, that affects all editors, will either be too vague to make a difference or else will prevent other editors from making necessary edits. Imagine, for example, trying to come up with a specific, enforceable set of rules about when it is acceptable to undo another editor's edit -- for any rule you could come up with a dozen exceptions when the rule should be broken. In normal situations, we need to give editors some latitude to judge what is best.

As a result, I think any proposal to deal with this situation has to acknowledge that it is not typical -- it has to place restrictions solely on Elliot and/or rpeh that do not apply to other editors. If we want to stop the incidents, we need some non-subjective way to say "this edit is going to provoke an incident" -- only then we can say the edit isn't allowed, and take action if someone breaks the rule. The most obvious way to identify a problematic edit is "if this edit involves both Elliot and rpeh".

My primary objective with this proposal is to find some way to make the next incident not be a repeat of the last few dozen incidents -- I'm not hoping for a universal solution. If I'm correctly understanding what's been said so far, everybody agrees that there is a problem here, and everyone agrees that the problem is likely to happen again unless something is done. But at the moment, nothing really has changed, and as long as that's the case I can't help but assume that this will keep happening over and over again. If anyone thinks that further policy changes, for example, to the Etiquette page would be helpful, those suggestions can still be brought forward. Or if a future proposal makes this non-interaction restriction obsolete, we can revoke it. But we need to start somewhere.

--NepheleTalk 20:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of Modification

To help us make some forward progress, could contributors explicitly state their opinions on the following points:

  1. Overall: Do you support/oppose the overall intent of the proposed policy?
  2. Requirements: Do you support/oppose the specific requirements necessary before this policy can be enacted, in other words, is it enough for two administrators to agree that a pair of editors need this restriction? If not, what is the minimum requirement that you think should be necessary?
  3. Apply now: Do you support/oppose applying this policy to rpeh and Elliot?

I think that increases the chances of being able to get this policy in place to handle our one current situation, after which we can spend more time refining the details of when/how it might next be needed.

Consensus: Support.
Consensus: Support.
Apply Now:
Consensus: None. In the end, this weighed slightly in favor of Oppose, but not enough to call it a clear Oppose consensus.
Consensus: Support. I interpret the above to mean that the policy is good and should be put into place. However, there is ambiguity as to whether this should be immediately enforced in regards to Elliot and rpeh. As such, no immediate action should be taken against either party, however any future interaction concerns between the two would fall under the new policy. Robin Hoodtalk 04:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Policy: Administrator Re-elections

This discussion has been closed by rpeh - see WP:SNOWBALL. Please do not modify it.

I think the time has come to put into effect a mechanism that ensures administrators continue to enjoy the support of the community.

Currently, UESP has ten administrators. Of these, three (Endareth, Garrett and Wrye) were never elected. One (Nephele) was elected with the votes of only two users, neither of whom are active any more. Two (Ratwar and TheRealLurlock) had only one vote from a currently-active member - somebody who just returned after a nine month break. The other four are more recent, but even in these cases, Eshe's support only contains three still-active users out of eight votes; less than 50% is not impressive.

Since the mandate for an administrator role is given by users, it is essential to ensure that the mandate is kept up to date and renewed when necessary. This offers both an easy way for an admin to step down, and for the community to remove them where necessary. It's clearly not acceptable that somebody retains the extra powers and responsibilities if the community no longer supports them.

To this end, I propose that each admin be automatically re-nominated on the anniversary of his or her election and a re-election vote is held using the same rules as for new admins. If he or she is no longer interested in holding the role, simply declining the renomination would be enough to close the election.


What should be done with scorpio? Hes using bad language deleting pages removing warnings but I dont want to be hash so what else can be done to him other than a block (warnings have no effect on him) --Arny 19:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Just give things time to cool down. If he's willing to stop a block is not needed. Mike/|\ 19:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


Hey I just wanted to ask that when you search for something why does the search show you the script of the page? Why doesnt it show you the text that is on the page instead? Arny 10:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

By script, I'm assuming that you mean the page source and wikitext. How's how the MediaWiki search engine works. I personally prefer wikitext being used in the searches, since links tend to be piped (eg. [[link|text]]). This sort of search also makes it easier to find and view external links. --Michaeldsuarez (Talk) (Deeds) 13:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
An additional problem is that it can give problems if you start parsing an article in the middle, instead of the beginning. Imagine having to create a table from only the middle section, you need the whole of it to show the correct layout. --Timenn-<talk> 14:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Adjustments to template subsections

After some experiments (and a few mistakes) I've found out that editing a section of a page with a template directly edits the template's original page. The effects can be described as followed: Lore:Places_A#Anvil is divided into a section (County Anvil} which is divided into a sub-section (The City of Anvil) which is further divided into sub sub-sections (the districts). Editing just regular Anvil brings up the template, while editing the section County Anvil brings up its section text. Editing the City of Anvil allows one to edit its section and sub-section. This causes obvious problems as if someone wanted to add namespace specific info to Oblivion, it will also affect the Lore Anvil and any page that uses template Anvil. Basically, it shouldn't be possible to edit a template's subsections besides on its template page, as this could lead to a big mess. Is it somewhat possible to integrate an almost __NOEDITSECTION__ into a template, so that only a temp's sections can be edited on the temp's page? Or, is it possible to merge all sections to a template, taking the option of editing it away? I probably sound confusing, so if anyone needs it I'll be happy to clarify -- Jplatinum16 03:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

That wouldn't fix the "problem". Even if you add __NOEDITSECTION__ to the article, users could still edit articles in the "Lore" namespaces (by simply editing the Lore namespace articles). In addition, we have RecentChanges patrollers who could find problems within the Lore namespace. Also, namespace-specific data and templates aren't really things new users know about, so I can't see inexperienced users causing such a problem. I don't see any reason to change anything. --Michaeldsuarez (Talk) (Deeds) 12:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
The problem is not allowing editors to edit the Lore section; the problem is that editing a template section on one page will edit the template's orginal page. If I make an edit on one page, save, and end up on another, that seems like a problem. This problem can affect inexperienced and experienced users, cause I doubt most (if any) users know this. True, our trusty patrollers are always on the lookout for namespace specific info, but this affects:
  1. A template's page
  2. A page's (with the template) info
  3. A potentially useful namespace specific edit

Example: I want to add under the Oblivion Leyawiin Chapel District section that "the Best Goods and Guarantees general store can be found here, next to The Dividing Line". I click [edit] for that section, edit it accordingly, and then save. I am now on the Lore:Leyawiin page, instead of the Oblivion one. Now, Lore:Leyawiin has Oblivion specific info. A patroller sees this, and reverts it, saying it's not lore specific. Now, the Oblivion:Leyawiin page doesn't have that info. All of this could have been avoided if a template's sections weren't editable on other pages. May not be the biggest problem, but it's one nonetheless. -- Jplatinum16 00:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


Mike484 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

We currently appear to have a vandal at work. Would an administrator please block him as soon as possible. Thanks! Robin Hoodtalk 23:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, while undoing the vandalism, I accidentally patrolled this edit which makes major changes to a paragraph in a Morrowind article, and I have no ready way to confirm. Can someone double-check it and take appropriate action, please? Thanks! Robin Hoodtalk 23:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Yep it's fine (far better than the one it changed) the only thing I need to change is that the ebony dart only appears at higher levels.--TheAlbinoOrcGot_a_question? 23:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
i was going to put one of these please blok him--GUM!!! 00:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the confirmation, TAO. Robin Hoodtalk 01:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if just adding the template works but I tried to full-protect the warning since he was vandalizing it.--TheAlbinoOrcGot_a_question? 01:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah that doesn't work (It'd be darn useful though) by the way thanks for blocking him Nephele.--Arch-Mage MattTalk 01:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Policy Discussions

The various policy discussions currently on the page have been languishing, as near as I can tell because they're a mess of inter-related proposals and it's difficult to separate them. In the interests of moving forward, I'm about to do my best to call consensus (or lack thereof) on the various discussions. If further action is warranted, I will indicate what I believe the appropriate action to be based on the discussions. Even so, it may be best to wait a day or two in case there are objections to my interpretations of what to do.

As I said, this is a mess, so I won't take it hard if anybody thinks my interpretation of consensus or the actions to be taken are incorrect. Robin Hoodtalk 03:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, all done, I think. There were two discussions that I simply archived as old, but the second one may need further action:
  1. Request for Block of Rpeh lacked support, nor was it a formal vote. Since it's entirely an Admin decision in any event, I saw no point in providing a consensus to it.
  2. Request to remove warning was slightly in favour of removing Corevette's warning from Elliot's talk page (the other warning and block would remain since they were from an unrelated incident), but there was very little input overall and it was implied that there may have been a behind-the-scenes discussion amongst some of the Admins to let it stand. Other comments in the various related discussions were also mixed as to what should be done, but there was an overall feeling that both parties shared the blame to some degree. Since there is no warning on rpeh's page, I suggest that Corevette's warning also be removed from Elliot's, but clearly, there are divided feelings and I'm not about to take action under these circumstances. I'd recommend the Admins hash it out, but in the absence of action or an agreement at that level, it lacks a clear consensus from the community, so existing policy of leaving the warning would prevail.
Robin Hoodtalk 04:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Block Needed


Obviously, Mike needs another blocking and I suspect he's not done. --Arch-Mage MattTalk 03:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

If ChampionQQ needs to be blocked, then how come he hasn't been given a warning? The blocking policy is pretty clear about warning users before blocking them. When I'm checking the site from my iPhone (as I am right now) it is very inconvenient to do extra research into whether this is one of the few exceptions where blocking without warning is appropriate. --NepheleTalk 03:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
But not if he has A.) Vandalized many pages or B.) Doesn't seem to be stopping or C.) Has made personal attacks. --Arch-Mage MattTalk 03:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
What I'm primarily trying to say is that if you think someone needs to be blocked, the most useful course of action is to warn the user rather than post an unnecessary message here. It would take me 30 minutes or more right now to check your A, B, or C conditions -- but only a minute to see that the user has been warned. --NepheleTalk 03:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Since the nature of the edits makes it clear that ChampionQQ is the same person as mike484 (who is permanently blocked), isn't the warning stage unnecessary? Furthermore, shouldn't the new account receive the same permanent block as the initial account? Dlarsh(T,C) 04:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That may be my fault, since I set a bad example and took steps out of order yesterday — I asked for a block a couple of minutes before realizing that nobody had yet issued a warning.
Also, on that note, I've verified that all recent edits have been reverted and patrolled any that were unpatrolled. I also moved the offending file to a new location to make patrolling...I'd say "easier", but it's more like making it "not a nightmare". Robin Hoodtalk 04:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Innappropriate Username?

Would AssEater9000 be an unacceptable username? Because someone has signed up with that name. --ModderElGrandeTalk Contribs 17:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Based on the discussion on policy here that would depend on their contributions. The user that was pointed out had a username of about the same potential unacceptability but made a valid contribution; since the username wasn't prohibited by law, harassing, spam, or gibberish, there was no reason to block them. I think that that applies here also.--TheAlbinoOrcGot_a_question? 18:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
TAO; while those things are all true, with some good references I might add, it is blatant profanity for the sake of being profane. This user has no contributions either, so a block or a forced username change would be in order in my opinion.--Corevette789 01:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
While it's profanity, it's not harassment toward any person or group of people and doesn't make any type of explicit or implicit threat (unlike the username that was recently blocked), so I don't think any action is necessary. --GKtalk2me 02:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
(Edit Conflict) All true- potentially. But I'd still prefer to ask them to accept a namechange; after all as long as they don't do anything except on their talk page it doesn't hurt anything.--TheAlbinoOrcGot_a_question? 02:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Block Needed 2

User:Demons fiery needs a block not only has he ignored a warning, made personal attacks he has said that he is the same person as a known vandal.--TheAlbinoOrcGot_a_question? 23:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

He has been blocked for a while now.--Corevette789 23:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Braska (Dragon Age:Origins there. Elven swearing.). I didn't realize that. Sorry for putting this up here.--TheAlbinoOrcGot_a_question? 22:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Block Appeal: User:Ranger / User:Scorpio

Ranger had the following to say:

I believe it is fair enough to keep the block however instead of a month could you shorten the block to one week (Ranger 16:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC))
oh and if possible could you delete scorpio i would like a fresh start on this account thanks (Ranger 16:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC))

It should be noted that Ranger is the same user as Scorpio, but the user wishes to continue as User:Ranger instead of User:Scorpio. I've swapped the indefinite block for Ranger with the current month block of Scorpio.

I'm neutral on this one, and I'll leave it others to decide. --Timenn-<talk> 09:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

from the looks of it seems that they want to restart. so i suport his blok removel. but i would keep a eye on him ;)--GUM!!! 13:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I would tend to agree here- his contributions to the wiki since the whole thing with Scorpio (at least the ones I've seen) have been mostly apologies. I personally don't see why Ranger was blocked in the first place.--TheAlbinoOrcGot_a_question? 19:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
ranger was bolcked for being a sock puppet--GUM!!! 19:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
No, Ranger was blocked for using an alternate account to circumvent a block, which is different from sockpuppetry. Given that Ranger's first edit admitted a connection with Scorpio, another edit a few minutes later also admitted a connection and a third confirms it, there's no concern that this was an attempt to create an alter ego. Ditto his other account. It looks to me as if the user has had a chance to calm down, as I asked, and I would support an unblock given edits such as [1], [2], [3] and [4], which seem to indicate a more measured approach to editing. Obviously, any return to the sort of editing that caused the warnings and blocks should immediately warrant at least the full month block that is currently in effect. rpeh •TCE 21:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I oppose complete removal of the block, but I do think it should be shortened to about a week, maybe slightly less. But after what he did as Scorpio and what he did as Scorpi0 I think a complete removal of the block is too lenient. --ModderElGrandeTalk Contribs 20:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

From what I've seen, changing the block to one week seems appropriate in this situation. --GKtalk2me 18:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I think we can abort this appeal. Seeing the actions of Popopopo yesterday, an identified alternate account of Ranger, made it clear this user hasn't given up yet on harassing other editors, and vandalizing the site. --Timenn-<talk> 16:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're right. So much for giving him the benefit of the doubt. rpeh •TCE 17:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Prev: Archive 14 Up: Administrator Noticeboard Next: Archive 16