UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard/Archive 22

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.

86.129.255.11

This ip address is somehow connected to another ip address 81.129.9.155, that was blocked today for vandalism/threatening admins.after removing section form talk pages and for editing other user posts, so I might advise you to watch out for this address, just in case that it starts doing drastic things, thank you Honda1996 03:01 November 2nd 2011

Considering what he did could barely be considered troublesome (and the overreaching block which I was tempted to remove), I'm pretty sure he will be fine. Also, more trouble was caused by members instigating more from the IP. elliot (talk) 04:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty much right. Can we just ignore this user if he returns? I was trying to do this in the first place after the user's first reply to his talk page. If he actually vandalizes in some way or attacks users again (i.e. Calling Gum an idiot over an old talk page discussion), then some kind of action should be taken. Until then, I think it's for the best if we just let it stop without another word if possible. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 04:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

JusticePants and Justice-Pants

At 11:28 today server time an account was created named Justice-Pants (talk/contributions). About ten minutes later at 11:37, a new user was created named JusticePants (talk/contributions). This is almost certainly the same person. As I was typing this post, this second user has created a userpage etc. So I will contact this user about the first account. Just for clarification, what is the proper action to undertake? ~ Dwarfmp 11:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Second account is confirmed to be created by the same person here, requested for the first account to be deleted. I'm not sure if and how accounts can be deleted. Yes I realize this is hardly an issue to put on the Admin Noticeboard, but I'm sure it can be useful for new admins in case of future occurences ~ Dwarfmp 12:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem - it's always worth asking. We can't delete accounts so there's nothing to do there. An accidental creation like this is probably best handled like this - using a redirect to the newer account. I also used {{Doppelganger}} just for completeness. You definitely did the right thing here: having two such similarly-named accounts running around would be very confusing and we'd have had to rename one of them, so checking with the user that the two accounts were the same person was very helpful. rpeh •T•C•E• 12:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Caching Message (on monobook.js ( or .css))

I recently noticed that on the message about how to clear (or empty) your cache when making personal script changes that Google Chrome is missing from the list, I don't know if there is a reason for this or not. I can't find the shortcut to clear the cache, the only way I could find was Options -> Under the Hood -> Clear Browsing Date then select Empty Cache on the list of check boxes. Didn't quite know who could edit the message, and neither did anyone in IRC --Kiz ^{·•· Talk ·•· Contribs ·•· Mail ·•·} 18:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It should be the same as Firefox. elliot (talk) 01:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Pirated Content

This is pretty much coming off my fingers straight onto the page so forgive me for any major errors.

Proposal: I think we should delete anything that's posted as a result of the pirated version of the game.

Very simply, we should have absolutely nothing to do with piracy. It doesn't matter if it gives us a momentary advantage over other sites covering Skyrim: I'd rather see us pull ahead through coverage of legal content due to the diligence and dedication of our editors than our ability to seek out illegal content. I know most articles have moved away from using refs but I think unless we can see a review site from which information might have come, we have to assume it's from a pirated copy of the game.

It's a week until the game comes out. We can wait until then. I don't want to see UESP profit from illegality. rpeh •T•C•E• 22:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I have been thinking about how to handle this all day and more or less came up with the same conclusion. My biggest problem is personal, as I hate promo-material so I jumped off the endless articles and videos three weeks back - so I’m a bit “behind” on what’s legal and what’s not. In any case, I agree 100% - hell, I’d even support a 7-day shutdown of the namespace if necessary. --Krusty 22:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, this is a mess, one that I don't think anyone wants to deal with right now. I think it's for the best if we require there to be a trail back to a reputable source (not cited, just obviously coming from a reputable source). Considering how quickly things went with what little legitimate information we could get, I find it hard to imagine that this will be a set back in any way. We'll have access to all the fact in little more than a week's time, surely we'll be able to make quick progress once we have access to the game ourselves (assuming that all UESP editors are steely enough to avoid stealing the game).

As a side note, the only benefit to the site that I see coming from this is the opportunity to see what people will be most interested in seeing developed. The focus seems to be on skills, werewolves, and frakking M'aiq. It might be worth prioritizing these topics come release day. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 22:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

While of course we don't want to in any way support piracy, on the other hand, I think we need to be realistic about we can do. For example, the Community Portal discussion alone has probably done more to advertise the fact that the game has been pirated than anything else that's been posted to UESP. Trying to truly enforce any prohibition on pirated content leads to a similar problem: the only way we can know for sure whether content came from an illegitimate source is to make the editor post a link to the source, which means we're effectively asking editors to further advertise the pirated content (even if we promptly delete the link, it will still be seen by multiple people).

The people posting the content are not likely to be the people who actually have pirated copies of the game (AFAIK, normal Xboxes can't play pirated copies). The editors are more likely to be getting the information from another website, or some video on youtube, and there's a good chance the editors aren't aware of where the information originally came from. Before long, the information will be getting to UESP third-hand, or fourth-hand, or tenth-hand. Do we really want to be following a long chain of websites back to the source for every tiny bread-crumb of information someone adds to the site?

I feel that all we can realistically do as a community is:

• Remove links, images, and other information that can be identified on sight as coming from a pirated copy.
• Make sure that the site's regular editors know that pirated information doesn't belong on the site (which this discussion and the CP discussion have probably already done).
• Post on pages such as Help:Skyrim Content that pirated information doesn't belong on the site.

No matter how much we want to do the right thing and help Bethesda out, it's not our responsibility to fix a problem that we didn't cause and that's outside of our power to fix. --Nephele^Talk 01:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I've pointed it out already, but you're correct. There is no practical way for us to effectively block information coming from the pirated games. However, I think I echo several other editor's thoughts when I say that not blocking all of the pirated content makes me feel a bit squicky. Trying to stop it all is, of course, going to be a losing battle. I don't have a problem with continuing to handle this the way we've been dealing with it, but it does aggravate me somewhat. I guess if there is anything to be taken from this experience, is some practice with dealing with information that will be difficult to look up, if it is possible to source it all (which will be a common problem, come release day). --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 02:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, maybe I overreacted. I suppose the cat is out of the bag and there's no way it can be put back. rpeh •T•C•E• 07:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

i really think we shouldnt host any information taken from the stolen game, also, is it possible to add a message to editing skyrim namespaces telling people not to add information from the pirated game? (Eddie The Head 07:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC))

(←) I noticed that the latest game details have been coming from Bethesda forum posts, which is a source that most editors are likely to assume is a legitimate source -- especially if the forum thread hasn't been locked or removed 1 day and 12 pages of posts later. Out of curiosity, I looked around and found this notice from Gstaff. In particular it explicitly states, Discussion of gameplay or details in the game that were garnered from watching such videos may be discussed without mention of where you found it. I think that gives us some reference point for own policy.

And in response specifically to Eddie, every time you edit a Skyrim article there's already a notice box stating "For guidelines on how to contribute to Skyrim articles, please see Skyrim Content", where AKB has added an anti-piracy statement. I don't think we can do much more (we can't post the entire contents of the help page on every edit page; even if we did, many editors still wouldn't read it). --Nephele^Talk 17:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Site Outage

The files1 server suddenly went offline around 12:30 EST last night and dragged the rest of the site down with it. I've restored basic site usage for now and am looking into restoring files1 (likely a hardware failure of the RAID controller or both drives). Site will be much slower than usual, especially for logged in users, until files1 is restored. File uploads are also temporarily disabled and you will experience login/out issues when using www (you can use content1 directly to avoid if desired). There are other issues as well, like the sidebar for logged in users, likely due to various cache update issues. -- Daveh 15:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the update :) We've all been sat in IRC looking around for something to do in the Wikis absence. How long will a 'true' fix take? --Kiz ^{·•· Talk ·•· Contribs ·•· Mail ·•·} 15:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The "page" and "purge" tabs are gone too so purging won't work. Kitkat ^{•Talk•Contrib•E-mail} 15:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Once I get files1 back from the host it should be a few hours to restore (at most hopefully) and I don't know how long it will take iWeb to fix it. Worst case they'll have to replace the server which could take several hours. I would also expect they would try to repair the RAID array which could take a few hours to do. You can manually purge a page by appending ?action=purge to the article link. -- Daveh 15:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I've made a few more changes on content1/2 which should fix most of the display and speed issues. I would suggest that logged in admins/editors should use the content1.uesp.net (or content2) link to the site instead of www to avoid the "session lost" bug which cannot be avoided at the moment. Logged in users may also have to reload or purge pages to get them to display properly. -- Daveh 15:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes. The 'page' and 'user' drop downs are back, and my monobook.js now works properly :) --Kiz ^{·•· Talk ·•· Contribs ·•· Mail ·•·} 16:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I've received files1 back from the host and am rebuilding the RAID array now (2-3 hours according to status). After that it should just be a simple matter of re-enabling content1/2 to use resources from files1 again assuming there is no file damage. -- Daveh 16:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Everything should be back to "normal". Files1 is back in operation and everything appears in order but let me know if you see anything not working correctly. -- Daveh 20:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for getting that taken care of so quickly. And I'm glad this happened this weekend instead of next ;) One minor weirdness seems to have cropped up about the time you said things were back to normal: I'm having problems with scripts thinking that files are missing, even though they exist. Specifically visible in this version of the perk tree image -- the blue text all over the image is caused by the script thinking that File:White_pog.png is missing. Half-hour ago, that version of the page was fine. Furthermore, I can pull up the file on all three content servers I'm getting the same problem trying to use File:Red_pog.png, but File:Yellow_pog.png is (luckily) OK. These are all files that were uploaded yesterday. I'll keep poking about on my side, but thought I'd mention it here too.

The problem seems to be that the content servers are still accessing a local copy of the files, but changes made there aren't propagating to files.uesp.net. For example, this is the URL that the webpage is pointing to for the thumbnail: . That file doesn't exist at images.uesp.net. But it does exist on content1.uesp.net, in w/images/thumb/1/19/White_pog.png/12px-White_pog.png. So content1 is generating the thumbnail that's needed for displaying the image, but it's not ending up on images.uesp.net. Although the cases I'm playing with right now are pretty insignificant, it seems that there could be an unknown number of other thumbnails that have been generated/will be generated that will have the same problem. --Nephele^Talk 21:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've found the source and I've fixed it on content1; I'll do the other two next. Problem was w/images was still pointing to /mntcopy/uesp/wikiimages instead of /mnt/uesp/wikiimages. --Nephele^Talk 21:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as soon as I read this I knew I had forgotten to change this. Thanks. -- Daveh 21:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Strangely, despite being down for nearly 10 hours on Saturday morning we still managed a record day for traffic: some 1.3 million Wiki page views. -- Daveh 18:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

IP Block for phones or iPods ??

I'm sorry, I'm alittle lost as to if this is the correct place to post... I have a iPod type device that appeared to be blocked due to To many messages? or data? coming in. The message gave a range of similar IP adresses and that "if you feel that the message didn't pertain to you, to log in" But I was unable to log in.

I don't use this iPod to sign in or log anything; (I type not poke at screens) I mainly use it just to read.

Does anyone know what I'm referring to, is there a problem with IPods, Or just a weird Internet fluke? Also is this where I should be asking this type of question? If not redirect me for the future. Thanks Ahriman 21:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

On a quick check, I'm not seeing problems on iphone or ipad, logged in or logged out, using standard site or mobile.uesp.net. However, we just had some server problems (see the thread above this), and we're only just getting to normal operations. On the other hand, the specific message you're describing sounds like a bug we've been fighting for a while, without too much success. Do you know what IP address it said you were using and/or what IP address you were actually using? --Nephele^Talk 21:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

No unfortunately, but now it seems likely to me that it could have been both issues.

I was mostly concerned that spam could have somehow come from the iPod. I'm really unknowledgable about technology :( and I was scarred about getting booted off. Thanks, I'll keep better notes next time :) Ahriman 22:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I doubt you need to be worried about your iPod causing spam. One other minor question that just crossed my mind: did this happen within the last day or was it a few days ago? (Note to self: message sounds like a range block message, but the only recent range block was on 82.132.212.0/22 and should have expired Thursday... are there any older range blocks we've forgotten about?) --Nephele^Talk 22:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

(Sorry, can't reach the bottom of the edit screen) Happend just last nite... Like I said, I not real iPod savvy :( — Unsigned comment by Ahriman (talk • contribs) at 00:00 on 6 November 2011 (GMT)

Another Rights Change

Can we give admins and patrollers the right not to create a redirect when moving a file or page? I have no idea what right needs tweaking for this but it would be really handy. Nine times out of ten these days a redirect is caused by moving an incorrectly-named file and it's just a pain to have to wait a week for it to be deleted. The "Leave a redirect behind" option is already open to bots, and I can't see why humans shouldn't have it too. rpeh •T•C•E• 11:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes and a hundred times yes. It has always been one of my policy objectives to tweak our deletion policy so that redirects caused by moving images could just be marked for speedy deletion. These redirects are thoroughly useless, orphaned and just waiting to be deleted. I fully support this idea. --SerCenKing ^Talk 12:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Definitely supported. The redirects are a time-waster 99% of the time. --Krusty 13:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm OK with the change -- assuming it means that creating redirects is always an option when moving a page. But even so, I'd say the ability needs to be used with caution -- basically only in cases where the redirect would already qualify for speedy deletion. And just to make sure it hasn't been overlooked, our deletion policy does already say that "Redirects should be speedily deleted if they are orphaned and meet at least one of the following criteria: ... The redirect was created as a result of a typo". Otherwise, the redirect is serving a purpose. Even if the redirect is immediately put up for proposed deletion, that redirect is necessary to make sure that other editors (e.g., the editor who created the page in the first place) know that the page has been moved, and why it was moved. --Nephele^Talk 15:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

To answer Nephele specifically, yes the policy does say that. However, changing, say, OB-Lucien Lachance to OB-npc-Lucien Lachance on the grounds of a "typo" is stretching the definition of typo a little. In fact, there seems to be the assumption that image redirects must always be prodded, so I just wanted a bit more clarity in our policy. --SerCenKing ^Talk 15:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to explain the thinking behind the policy.... Speedy deletes for redirects are basically for cases where there's no chance that there are links (internal or external) to the original name. If there is a chance that someone's linking to / bookmarking the original name, then proposed deletion is necessary to give some notice that the page has been moved. Given that at one point there was a major debate over whether redirects should ever be deleted, just being able to get a compromise that they could be deleted after a week was somewhat of a compromise. Therefore, in the case of renaming an image that's been on the site for years with a given name, no, it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion -- and I also don't think it should qualify for moving without any redirect being created. --Nephele^Talk 15:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, for reference wikipedia's guidelines, where admins do automatically have the suppressredirect ability. I'm guessing the fact it hasn't been done on UESP is more of an oversight, i.e., a new feature that got added along the way and wasn't retroactively added to existing user rights. --Nephele^Talk 15:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

(←) I thought we were supposed to make sure we updated every link to the redirect ~ Dwarfmp 15:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but we can't fix external links to the redirect, and we can't change the bookmarks of every reader who has ever visited the site. It's also worth mentioning that google's "find links to this page" feature isn't terribly reliable. The biggest problem for us is that Bethesda's forums are not indexed by google, so links in our most-linked-from website will never be listed by google. --Nephele^Talk 15:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Since I had to make wiki rights changes for tboverride, I went ahead and added suppressredirect for admins. Even though the discussion is pretty new, there haven't been any objections, the lack of permissions appears to be an oversight more than an intentional decision, and by default UESP policies are the same as wikipedia's. --Nephele^Talk 19:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Nephele. rpeh •T•C•E• 09:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Allowing Mp3 files

could we allow mp3 files as I believe they would add to the articles or could we at least consider doing it----Candc4, Also known as the Man Inside the Sexy Leather Pants CT 01:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

That's like being allowed to upload the music, which we aren't. I don't think that's legal ~ Dwarfmp 02:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

We can use ogg files. That's about it. elliot (talk) 03:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

well how would i get some of dagoth urs taunts into this format----Candc4, Also known as the Man Inside the Sexy Leather Pants CT 03:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Just uploading audio files because they sound cool isn't going to be allowable for copyright reasons. At the moment we host several audio files either because they're unused due to a bug or because there's a problem with the audio. rpeh •T•C•E• 09:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Site Traffic Numbers

In case others like seeing some of the traffic numbers as much as I do:

Sunday, 6 November 2011

• Wiki Traffic: 1.9 million page views
• Squid1: Average 45 files/sec, Peak 70 files/sec, 70% cache hit rate, Server Load 10%
• Files1: Average 120 files/sec, Peak 200 files/sec, Server Load 20%
• Content1/2: Average 8 files/sec, Peak 15 files/sec, Server Load 15%
• Db1: Average 150 queries/sec, Peak 300 queries/sec, Server Load 25%
• Bandwidth: Average 13 Mbps (142 GB/day), Peak 21 Mbps
• Notes

• Highest traffic day of site so far.
• 3.6 times the traffic we were getting last fall at this time.
• Squid cache hit rate has increased from ~60% due to the number of anonymous users browsing the site.
• Traffic should be even higher next weekend with the combined Skyrim+weekend+holiday effect.
• Servers are doing fine despite the unrelated failure of files1 this weekend.

-- Daveh 13:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Just... wow. Those are some impressive figures. It's good to see the server loads staying so low with that kind of throughput - lots of spare capacity for Friday. It'd be really interesting to see these figures plotted over time. rpeh •T•C•E• 16:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Impressive, I think a record should be kept of these over time just to see how we're doing view wise. --Kiz ^{·•· Talk ·•· Contribs ·•· Mail ·•·} 16:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thursday, 10 November 2011

• Wiki Traffic: 2.7 million page views
• Squid1: Peak 85 files/sec, 80% cache hit rate, Server Load 10%
• Files1: Average 140 files/sec, Peak 220 files/sec
• Db1: Average Average 150 queries/sec, Peak 1700 queries/sec, Server Load 20%
• Bandwidth: Average 16 Mbps (173 GB/day), Peak 24 Mbps
• Notes

• Another new record traffic day.
• Squid1 is taking most of the new traffic and is handling it without effort.
• Some strange spikes in database queries which I assume is Nephele's cslist tool. Database load remains fine.
• We should hit more than 3 million today if not more as site traffic is currently 50% more than yesterday's.

-- Daveh 13:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Friday, 11 November 2011

• Wiki Traffic: 3.9 million page views, 5900 edits
• Squid1: Average 75 files/sec, Peak 110 files/sec, 82% cache hit rate, Server Load 10%
• Files1: Average 150 files/sec, Peak 220 files/sec, Server Load 25%
• Content1&2: Average 20 files/sec, Peak 30 files/sec, Server Load 15%
• Db1: Average Average 200 queries/sec, Peak 280 queries/sec, Server Load 20%
• Bandwidth: Average 18.3 Mbps (198 GB/day), Peak 23 Mbps
• Notes

• Another new record just shy of 4 million which we should hit today by looking at the traffic this morning.

-- Daveh 13:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Saturday, 12 November 2011

• Wiki: 4.5 million page views
• Squid1: Average 100 files/sec, Peak 140 files/sec, 84% cache hit rate
• Notes

• Another record day with more than x10 the traffic we saw a year ago.
• Logged in users experienced lag and site time-outs throughout most of yesterday although anonymous users seemed largely unaffected. Servers, however, appear to be running fine with no obvious issues so we may be hitting some unknown bottleneck or issue in the system (possibly network related).
• Some things you can do to get better site performance:

• View the site logged out. Easiest way is to use two browsers with one logged in and one logged out.
• Restart your browser (FireFox wouldn't load the site at all for me this morning until restarted).

-- Daveh 13:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Sunday, 13 November 2011

• Wiki: 5.1 million page views
• Notes

• The site lag continued yesterday, possibly slightly better, with no known cause or solution yet and I'm continuing to try and narrow down the cause.

-- Daveh 13:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Monday, 14 November 2011

• Wiki: 5.1 million page views
• Notes

• Same amount of traffic as Sunday despite it being a weekday and today's numbers are looking the same so far.
• Chances are we will see similar traffic levels slowly decreasing over the next few weeks/months. After Oblivion's release, for example, the traffic level never really decreased that much.
• The lag issue persists and our service provider is (slowly) looking into it. I'm pretty sure it is something external to our six servers so adding additional servers wouldn't have any effect (none of our servers is overloaded).

-- Daveh 18:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

15-16 November 2011

• Wiki: 5 million page views/day
• Notes

• I guess a lot of people took the week off school/work as the site traffic has only decreased a little bit.
• See the updated page view graph on Statistics for a better idea on the site traffic growth.
• The service provider has (finally) duplicated and acknowledged the issue so hopefully a solution is in the near future. I've also purchased a temporary server to be placed outside of the 6-server cluster as an alternate Squid cache to try and reduce the amount of traffic within the cluster (which I assume is related to the issue). I'll be setting this up today and switching over to it when ready unless another solution by iWeb is found by then. -- Daveh 18:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Issue Update

A bit of a "duh" moment as I just heard the lag issue is being caused by a firewall limit of 10,000 connections. This appears to be an arbitrary limit based on what I've paid for and can be easily increased so it's just a matter getting the details sorted through. I wasn't previous aware of this limitation and don't have access to the firewall and you'd think they would have told us the limit had been reached. -- Daveh 19:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The hopeful fix is in the works to increase the connection limit to the firewall and should be done within the next 24 hours (probably sooner but I don't know what's involved). -- Daveh 00:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, Alexa figures should always be taken with a hefty pinch of salt, but they currently say that UESP is the 2,586th most popular site on the whole Internet. That's a quite stunning figure. rpeh •T•C•E• 11:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to mention this as well as it is amazing to be in the top 0.001% of web sites. We may actually break the the top 2000 as it is a 7 day average and we didn't hit our peak traffic until last Saturday. A perhaps more interesting number from Alexa is the average page load speed of 0.607 Seconds (88% of sites are slower) and half (or more) of that number is due to the loads of ads. -- Daveh 13:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

17-18 November 2011

• Wiki: 5 million page views/day
• Notes

• The traffic kept pretty even this week and we should see at least a small increase this weekend.
• I got tired of waiting for iWeb to fix the issue and have switched the main site to the temporary squid2 which is sitting outside of the cluster. This should reduce the load on the firewall by 50-75% and avoid the connection limit we've been hitting. If there any issues today don't hesitate to notify me.

-- Daveh 13:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Saturday, 19 November 2011

• Wiki: 7 million page views
• Squid2: Peak 200 req/sec, Hit Rate 80-85%, Skins Peak 100 req/sec, Average 10% load
• Content1/2: Peak 50 req/sec, Average 25% load
• Db1: Peak 300 queries/sec, Average 50% load
• Content3: Peak 300 queries/sec, Average 75% load
• Files1: Peak 300 files/sec, Average 50% load
• Bandwidth: Average 40 Mbps
• Overall Incoming Requests: Peak 600 req/sec
• Notes

• I switched over the main site domain to squid2 early in the morning which appears to have avoided the firewall connection overloading and resulted in a much higher site traffic.
• I also changed the skins to be loaded from squid2 instead of files1 to avoid a potential bandwidth billing issue for this month and partially to reduce the load on files1.
• I also enabled the backup database on content3 to be used as a read-only slave for content1/2 to reduce the load on db1.
• With the increased load we've been getting some random load spikes which appear to be mostly due to high database load. Getting one or more additional database servers in the near future is likely (probably a beefier server to be used for slave reads).
• Content/file servers are also beginning to get higher than desirable loads and getting additional ones are likely as well (as soon as the hosting issue is figured out anyways).

-- Daveh 12:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Sunday, 20 November 2011

• Wiki: 7.5 million page views
• Squid: Peak 240 req/sec
• Notes

• Minor load spikes but balancing db1/content3 worked well enough until a larger database server can be acquired.

-- Daveh 13:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Monday, 21 November 2011

• Wiki: 6.5 million page views
• Notes

• If you look at the 7 day Alexa stats the UESP has just passed the 1500 mark in ranked sites from the weekend traffic.

-- Daveh 13:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, just incredible. Congratulations on fixing the load problems, and thank you for all the effort you put in to do it. rpeh •T•C•E• 13:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Another thing to consider is that we may now be one of the larger private MediaWikis in the world (i.e., not counting any Wikia or Wikipedia site). Last I checked the largest one was WikiHow. From what I can tell they get around twice the unique visitors but lately we've been serving twice the number of pages. Although we're still a small site compared to some: the english Wikipedia gets 50x the traffic we do. -- Daveh 13:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Account Creation Problems

It looks like no new accounts can be created at the moment and an errormessage "titleblacklist-otherns" is given. That was reported by a user on irc and verified by me trying to create a second account. As can seen by viewing the user creation log, no new user was created after MediaWiki:Titleblacklist was changed yesterday. --Alfwyn 16:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the problem. I've removed the lines that are causing the problem for now, and I'll look into a proper fix. --Nephele^Talk 17:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I've added a new option (nonewaccount) to the titleblacklist which should prevent those limits from being checked when creating a new account. --Nephele^Talk 17:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I went back and made one more tweak to the code; since the latest change was put in place, we've had two new users. I've also confirmed that even after my tweaks, the limits on new page creation are still working. There's a remote possibility that I've weakened some of the limits on new user account names (I had to disable a secondary check that appears to be redundant, but I might be missing something). But even if that's the case, my feeling is that right now those limits are a lower priority than the new-creation-limits and ensuring that new accounts can be created. --Nephele^Talk 19:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense Bots

It seems we're getting a helluva lot of them recently. Keep your eyes out for any edits that leave edit summaries with gibberish edit summaries, or that add weird comments like "Thanks for the info!", or that remove content from pages. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 03:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Category Deletion Request

I attempted to create a category for Dwarven ruins in Skyrim, only to both screw up the naming scheme and not realize that a category already existed. If someone can get rid of [[:Category:Skyrim-Dwarven_Ruins|Category:Skyrim-Dwarven_Ruins]] for me I'd appreciate it. -Technogeek 03:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

For future reference, he standard way of making a request is to put a tag such as {{Speedydeletion}} or {{Proposeddeletion}} on the page -- see Deletion Policy for more info. In any case, I'll go ahead and delete the page. --Nephele^Talk 03:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I knew there was something like that, I just couldn't remember what it was. Thanks. -Technogeek 05:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Appeal Block for User:Elliot

Elliot has asked to appeal the 3 month block which Nephele enforced last night. The following comment, which was directed towards Nephele, was posted by Elliot on his talk page:

"I appeal this block, because not only are you involved in the matter, but you only did because I called you out on your bullshit (which makes you further involved). Also, you tried to bypass wiki policy of consensus, and you abused your administrative authority by making a Skyrim policy on the spot. So let's see: you destroyed any possible discussion, personally attacked me, abused privileges, and blocked someone you had issues with. If anything, you should be blocked. elliot (talk)"

As the UESPWiki:Blocking_Policy states, Elliot is entitled to have his appeal moved to the Administator Noticeboard, and he has requested that I move it here for him. Kitkat ^{•Talk•Contrib•E-mail} 14:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if this can really be called an appeal at all. Swearing at the admin who made the block, accusing her of all kinds of crimes, and refusing to admit even the possibility of any wrongdoing on his own part doesn't really fit with what's required of an appeal by the blocking policy. rpeh •T•C•E• 17:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. We've all been down this road before, his edits since Skyrim has been released hardly have been constructive, and no one has time for this. I don't see Elliot is going to change the attitude he has been warned about this time around: Appeal denied. --Timenn-<talk> 17:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Despite him being insulting to me on his talk page, I think 3 months is a bit harsh, maybe a 3 week ban or something like that. That way he can edit once all the essential stuff has been done and all that is left is info from the game about npcs, quests etc.RIM 22:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

copied from User talk:Elliot --GK^talk2me 15:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

"I think a more logical solution would be to place me on a 1RR. I can undo vandalism and other edits one time per page, per editor, per day. Obviously I want to help, but I just got a tad too focused on the templates. You can also restrict my template editing. Prevent me from editing them and require me to propose any changes I might think are necessary. If I break those restrictions, then reblock me. But I assure you I won't. If I don't get in a habit of slowing down while editing, then it won't really happen after three months. Restrict my editing; as a senior member of this site, I would think that I deserve something along those lines. elliot (talk) 09:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)"

I don't see why being around for a long time should mean that you get second, third, fourth (and so on) chances. We've gone through this too many times, and I see no sign that things have changed or ever will. We, as a community, cannot take any actions that would make it appear that we condone the type of behavior Elliot displays on a regular basis. My vote is also to deny the appeal. --GK^talk2me 15:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

If the opinion is that Elliot can never change, then we may as well make the block indefinite right now, and remove talk page and email access too to avoid the inevitable comments.

Elliot's offer to go on 1RR has merits. On the other hand, he was already on 3RR (as everyone is) and broke that. I'm also concerned about the continual sniping at other users. Edit summaries like "don't waste my time", "removing garbage", and "redirecting, please stop breaking policy Nephele" aren't acceptable, and talk page content such as the "appeal" quoted above have been even worse. Elliot often describes himself as a senior editor, but all I see is someone determined to get his own way every time at any cost.

I suggest we reduce the block to one week, and take up the offer of a 1RR coupled with a zero-tolerance policy on impoliteness - not just personal attacks. Those last two are to last indefinitely until a further discussion on this page not earlier than one year from now, and any violation of either condition is to be punished with a block of at least six months - the current three plus another three for wasting our time. rpeh •T•C•E• 22:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that Rpeh's suggested action is the fairest solution we could realistically give. I can't see a possible way to be fairer given past history. So Support for rpeh's suggestion. --Kiz ^{·•· Talk ·•· Contribs ·•· Mail ·•·} 11:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like to agree with reph, but I dislike how elliot did his appeal because of how he worded it. He personally attacked Nephele in it, which is unacceptable, and yes I know that my view of the situation is biased because of my past history with elliot, but I'm just using the facts within this section to make my decision, which is to deny his appeal Honda1996 11:28 29 November 2011 (UTC)

copied from User talk:Elliot - rpeh •T•C•E• 06:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I accept the conditions of rpeh's latest recommendation. elliot (talk) 4:08 am, Today (UTC+0)

Actually, I've got a better idea.

Step 1: Add up the block times and the normal punishments.

Step 2: Figure out if any of those punishments/block times conflict.

Step 3 (Optional): Combine any of the conflicting punishments/block times.

Step 4: Apply the added up punishments and block times.

That is my idea.--I a m g o o f b a l l--Need Something? Drop by on my Talk Page. What I've done for this site. 03:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not here to vote on this particular issue. I'm a newcomer and should stick to spectating. But I feel the need to reiterate what GK said and what most of you already know: elliot will never change. Whether it is in one week, three weeks, or three months, the sooner his block ends, the sooner you admins will have to begin dealing with the periodic outbursts, nearly constant inflammatory or rude commentary, and frequent edit wars. I don't know some of the finer points, and to my recollection elliot and I have never even communicated directly, but I've taken the time to familiarize myslef with elliot, these various "trials" going back to 2009, and much of his work here, the good and the bad. He will continue to be as uncompromising, abrasive and crass as he thinks you will let him get away with. He harbors a feeling of ownership over some parts of the wiki that give him a sense of entitlement, and he revels in "drama" like this without compunction. He's never been able to come to terms with the level of inclusiveness and accommodation necessary for the wiki to function. Elliot's choices will bring you back here, again and again. It's a foregone conclusion. That should be kept in mind when determining if leniency is the way to go here. Minor Edits 05:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

(←) copied from User talk:Elliot rpeh •T•C•E• 11:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Now, this is in regards to Minor Edits. In the same breathe, you say you don't really know the finer points yet you say I will never change. Familiarizing oneself by reading old edits will hardly give an accurate understanding of the nature of the wiki at a certain point in time, and generating a "foregone conclusion" on something such as this is rather ill-conceived. I am a human; I am not some random name that types letters into a computer. Of course I can change. I have changed a lot here on the wiki; whether each change has been bad or good is debatable. But to say you should cast me out based on past actions is unfair, if not imperious.

Am I arrogant at times? Well, I would be a idiot to say that I am not under certain circumstances. Is it something I have been working on for years? Definitely. I'm not trying to make excuses for myself, but the drama in which you believe I revel in annoys me to the point where my blood boils. I want to build a wiki that is efficient; I want to build a wiki where people can get any question answered about the Elder Scrolls series. I'm not much of a content editor, because I can't really focus long enough to contribute in that manner too often. But I try to help out where I can. Categories, templates, fixing inconsistencies, and answering questions where it is needed. To say I am completely incapable of helping the wiki out is foolish, really.

The proposal I put forth (and followed up by rpeh) is something you often see on Wikipedia. They work when followed, and are helpful for certain users who "struggle" with some aspects of editing. Rpeh has been through every single thing in regards to me (and it has gotten heated at times), and he is willing to take a chance with the 1RR. It's rather odd how the wiki is so quick to slam bans on users without any real form of mediation or arbitration. At times, the administration on the wiki can mirror that of despotism. Now, don't take that pejoratively; I couldn't think of a better word.

So, if you want me to propose some changes or ideas, here are some. I want to consolidate Skyrim:Arniel's Endeavor in a streamlined article. I played through the quest and found the guides here to be confusing at best. I want to utilize the File:SR-qico-Daedric.png et al quest icons because I like them, and I think they give the pages a "Skyrim flair". I want to finish up the Template_talk:Skyrim discussion. I want to clean up the Skyrim:Easter Eggs because it gives me a headache. Plus, there's a whole lot of formatting errors I wish to fix. There are some template I want to tweak, but I can stay away from those if that is what is desired.

I typically (read as never) don't write responses this long, because brevity is the soul of wit. However, I felt it was necessary in this situation. There's not much more I can say, but if you can see where I am coming from, then there isn't much else I can do. elliot (talk) 07:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind seeing Elliot editing again, under the restrictions he and rpeh have proposed. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 16:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

To elliot: Yes, it would be foolish to say that you are incapable of helping the wiki. But I never said that. In fact, I implied just the opposite by mentioning that you make good contributions while also saying that you'll never change. I actively tried to be fair to you in every aspect of that message; acknowledging that my observations have not been totally comprehensive and that everything I know is derived from "reading old edits" were parts of my attempt to be fair. But there are plenty of people here with a better understanding than I; they can judge for themselves whether I'm off-base.

As for my thoughts about your joy of "drama", your checkered past is the first thing you mention on your user page. You do so ostensibly to reject that past, but a much better way to do so is to not mention that past at all. You keep a page collecting your warnings and block messages like they're mementos and trophies. I don't think I've ever seen you show remorse for your transgressions (which I thought was genuine, at least). And most importantly, you're here again, in the same position you've been in so many times before. I don't think you're stupid; I think you've been here long enough to know pretty well what conduct is going to get you in trouble, and all too often you have done it anyways. It all adds up to the conclusion that you're happier being the center of attention here than a pig in mud. True or not, it's the impression you engender.

I know what you want out of the wiki; like I said, I've read the discussions. I think most of your response was tailored to sidestep much of the substance of my assertions: that you will continue to push things as much as you think you can get away with, occasionally skirting over the line and ending up back here. That you will continue to be uncompromising, abrasive and crass on the wiki. That you think your work here entitles you to preferential treatment. That you have not accepted, and likely never will, that your goals of efficiency and sophistication must bow in many instances to keeping people here and contributing in whatever manner they can. I think it is in your best interest to stop throwing straw men at me and address these concerns.

One last straw man: I never said they should cast you out. I actively disclaimed having the perspective necessary to decide how to deal with you. But your history of recidivism is definitely relevant to this discussion, and my concern is that some think it's appropriate to ignore that history out of some sense of fairness in this specific matter. I don't think fairness demands that they ignore your past; to the contrary, I think to treat you fairly your past must be considered. Your entire past, good and bad. So I merely stated my ongoing belief and basic reasoning based on my observations. If you don't like the conclusion I came to, present me and others with a new reality. Minor Edits 19:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Copied from User Talk:Elliot--Kiz ^{·•· Talk ·•· Contribs ·•· Mail ·•·} 20:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

This is in regards to Minor Edits. I find it extremely troubling that you would think I would keep warnings and ban notices as trophies as a memento. In UESPWiki:Blocking Policy it states, "Deletion of official messages is only acceptable after receiving permission from the administrators. Such permission is only granted at the discretion of the administrators...." Other users have it as well. So, I wish you would retract that misleading statement.

If you want me to address the further concerns you proposed, then I will. The only thing I am in a position to do, currently, is to say that it won't happen again. It's not really an argument for or against me, which is why I avoided the statement.

Considering the parameters of the appeal I proposed, and considering the fact that I can just simply be blocked if it continues, I am confused as to why I haven't been given such a chance. elliot (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Retracted, with apologies. Minor Edits 20:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I request that mention of me in eliiot's post be removed, because is it offensive to me, thank you Honda1996 11:284 December 2011

Copied from User Talk:Elliot rpeh •T•C•E• 17:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

No, pages like that are there to be referenced, not ignored. elliot (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed - there's no reason to remove that post. It's not offensive in the least.

As for the appeal, it's been a week and there really doesn't seem to be any kind of consensus to unblock. It's Nephele's call as the original blocking admin, and I'm certainly not going to close it myself. Last call for any other opinions. rpeh •T•C•E• 17:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

In short, although I don't think that Elliot's proposal is likely to help UESP, I don't feel strongly enough either way. If there was a clear consensus in favour of Elliot's proposal, I'd go along with it. At the moment, however, there are roughly as many opinions against the proposal as in favour of it.

In more detail, I do think people can change, and I do think that Elliot has changed since he first joined the site. Therefore, an indefinite block doesn't seem appropriate. On the other hand, I don't think that this is a good time for UESP to be indulging in psychology / behaviour modification experiments. If anything, waiting until January would seem to make more sense.

Beyond that, when I try to look for mitigating circumstances or reasons to give Elliot the benefit of the doubt, I have a hard time finding any. Over the last three months, all of his constructive edits together took less time than what I alone have had to put into responding to arguments/debates started by Elliot. By his own admission, he does not have any spare time to help UESP. He hasn't apologized or shown any clear recognition that his actions have been inappropriate. On the contrary, his statements, such as his insistence that as a "senior editor" he "deserves" special treatment, show (in my opinion) a continued lack of respect for the rest of the community. I worry about our ability to realistically enforce a zero tolerance policy on impoliteness, and I haven't seen anything from Elliot suggesting that he understands what we're really asking for. I don't see a serious commitment to slowing down his editing, given how quickly he's been responding to comments, even when they're made on other wiki pages. --Nephele^Talk 19:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

on the contrary, elliot's behavior on this site has been well, lets say below acceptable, he has been warned multiple times and blocked 3 times, this shows that A. He has a problem following the rules B. Has trouble with self control and C. He is prone to edit war on things that have been decided on and tries to act like he has control over everything,so frankly all of these are personal problems that he needs to sort out and then if he proves that he has "changed" once again, the admins unblock him, but other then that by no mean should he be able to mess with this site, I do not mean this to be portrayed as a personal attack on elliot, but it needs to be said Honda1996 20:11 5 December 2011

(←) I guess I should chime in here as well; I have given this way too much thought in the past week, and what frustrates me the most is that, deep down inside, I know Elliot as a really good and helpful editor, the type of person willing to jump in and do an awful lot of useful work if needed, tweaks and turns, even for hours and hours – a ‘gift’ (for lack of a better word), I myself don’t possess. That being said, I’m SO puzzled why he occasionally changes his entire online persona without warning – and at the most inappropriate times. The whole thing with the Dragon Shout template was so ridiculous I couldn’t even begin to understand it when I read through it.

Elliot, the list of past mistakes is long and dull, and, while I’m more than willing to forgive and forget, there are a few basic rules I’d like to bring up. They’re so incredibly simple that the entire community has managed to live by them: 1) Be friendly and have fun. 2) Respect the work of other editors, especially when they’re trying to achieve something that takes a bit of time 3) Feel free to snap lightly, but turn off your computer, take the famous deep breath and apologize on the next day, just for the hell of it, and 4) Never EVER think that the community can’t figure out how to communicate through e-mail/IRC/phone/whatever if something (or someone) bothers them and lessens the amount of fun they’re having. If you can accept and understand these simple rules, I’m willing to give this one more chance. If not, or if I see (or hear about) another misstep or another patronizing edit summaryfor no apparent reason, you will be facing an indefinite block. Your choice. --Krusty 20:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Copied from Elliot's talk page. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 03:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

And yes, I do understand what is being asked of me. I will slow down the editing, reign in any type of sarcasm, reign in any off the wall comments, and focus on bettering the wiki. However, I don't like being slammed for "responding quickly". I come home, hop on the computer for a bit, and get off. If I don't respond, then I will most likely forget anything I was planning on saying. Anyway, most of my replies are short, so they are easy to type up. (Yay ADD!)

Krusty: And that is something I will work towards. I have put too much work into this wiki to simply blow it off and throw it in the trash. The rules you provided will be my own guidance, and it is something that will be done because it must be done. It's an easy choice for me. elliot (talk) 04:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, time to close this. I’ve desperately been trying to count the yay and nay-votes, but it’s basically too confusing as this entire thing is a mess due to Elliot trying to communicate on his talk, his replies transferred here and back and forth. Overall consensus seems to be that he is allowed back on the site under the 1RR rule, so that’s what happens now. Welcome back, Elliot. Please try and live up to your latest post and everything will be fine. :) --Krusty 23:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Since it was appealed, do you want me to keep the block notice on my Warnings page? Or just remove it? elliot (talk) 05:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep it, official notices aren't to be removed. Welcome back friend, let us continue to improve the site in peace ~ Dwarfmp 22:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Can I please have no captchas? I am part robot.

I have a lot of trouble with captchas from google. Both because I normally block scripts from untrusted sites and because of other personal reasons. If there's any way to disable them for a user, could you please add me to the list? It would be appreciated thanks. Lukish_ Tlk Cnt 04:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The skipcaptcha right is only available for user patrollers and up. You're currently nominated to become a Patroller, which will also give you this right if completed succesfully. If you want, I can add you to the user patroller group for now, as you meet the requirements, but you'll be getting this right in a few days anyway assuming your nomination goes well. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 19:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, Nephele ended your nomination in your favor, giving you the rights. So you shouldn't be getting captchas anymore. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 21:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Zero-items

Just in case anyone wants to update exploitable glitches section - zero-weight items. Poisoned apple cost is 300 gold and it is I assume the only zero-weight item that is not quest and has value, so if you make 250 poisoned apples with arrows that is around 60k value having zero weight. :-) I don't pick up daedric items anymore.

external links in the stub template

The link to edit the page in the stub template is considered a external link, whenever i add the stub template, i have to pass the spam test thingy. (Eddie The Head 16:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC))

Odd - the site is excluded. What URL are you editing? Ie, what's in your browser's address bar? rpeh •T•C•E• 18:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I can confirm that adding this template requires entering a captcha. I just put it on one of my Sandbox pages. The edit link is a full page url (and I think it has to be). I'm not sure why the exclusion wouldn't be working. Chris3145 21:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem was that the whitelist said "www.uesp.net" was allowed, but not just "uesp.net". I've now added "uesp.net", and confirmed with a few tests that the stub template no longer triggers the captcha, even if editing directly on one of our servers, such as content1.uesp.net. --Nephele^Talk 22:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

testing by rpeh.

Yeah that's gonna need tweaking... I'm not sure which version of regex syntax MW supports for this kind of thing though. In other words, Nephele can you tweak that? It's not like you're doing anything else at the moment :) rpeh •T•C•E• 23:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

In all honesty, if someone were to register a fake domain name just to be able to get past our spam blocker, I think I'd be so impressed that the spam blocker failure wouldn't really bother me. Nevertheless, I've tweaked the whitelist one more time. I'm sure the "\buesp" looks like a mistake to everyone else, but it's valid regexp to match "uesp" either at the start of a URL, or following any non-alphabetic character (such as "."). It's not 100% foolproof, for example "this-is-not-uesp.net" would get past the whitelist. However, two other regexps that I tried didn't work, so I think I'm declaring this good enough for now. --Nephele^Talk 04:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Notification of range block

I've just blocked 67.159.0.0/16 for three hours for repeatedly harassing users. For those unaccustomed to range blocks, it means every IP starting with 67.159 is blocked. If you receive any messages about problems accessing the site from those IPs, this will be the reason.

We've never instigated a policy WRT rangeblocks because they're so infrequent. In this case, any (temp) admin should free to remove the block without consulting me, but keep an eye on edits from that range as they might be problematic. The block is only a short-term one in any case. rpeh •T•C•E• 23:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Port 81

I apologize if I'm putting this in the wrong place, but you recently started sharing all your css and javascript over port 81. My and many other companies block non-standard ports, so basically your wiki looks horrible to me... I assume you've done this for some sort of performance reasons, but is there no other solution? It bad enough that I'm considering giving up and braving wikia... Vilhazarog 21:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't even realized we'd made that change, let alone that it was causing a problem, but looking back through the site's upgrade history I can find where it was done. I've switched our servers back to the original settings for the CSS/javascript as a temporary fix, at least. Daveh may want to change things further (for example, by making it so that skins2.uesp.net can serve the content over port 80 instead of port 81), but that's beyond my capabilities. --Nephele^Talk 20:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Just FYI: I had switched it to reduce some load on skins1 and on the firewall when we were having issues just after Skyrim's release. It "should" be fine to revert now but I'll keep an eye on it. I had to use port 81 as "skins2" is the same server as "squid2" and Squid is using port 80. -- Daveh 20:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hurray, thanks so much, the site is much better again... Vilhazarog 23:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

User:94.62.3.45

This IP address has made multiple nonsense edits to the Skyrim:Console page, and has also reverted the edits of those undoing the nonsense. S/he has also re-added information after being told it was incorrect. This behaviour warrants a block, since Alfwyn has already given a warning. Kitkat ^{•Talk•Contrib•E-mail} 22:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked them for three hours. We should keep a close eye on the IP, and if it acts up again we could increase the block to a few days. --Legoless 23:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Extremely long username

I noticed this in the recent changes:

(User creation log); 00:56 . . His Grace, Jon Targaryen, the first of his name, King of the Andals, of the Rhoynar, and of the First Men. He who is the Prince That Was Promised, and Azor Ahai reborn (Talk | contribs) New user account

Is a user name this long allowed? I doubt there's a rule on the length, but isn't this a tad ridiculous? ~ Dwarfmp 01:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's see if he does anything. It's bloody silly, that's for sure. rpeh •T•C•E• 06:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Advertisements with sound

It seems that some time during the last 24 hours the advertisement provider has switched to ads that have sound (almost exclusively). I don't know if we have the luxury of ditching any ads we don't like, but these can be pretty bad. Even muting the ad doesn't help - once it finishes, another ad loads and unmutes the player. Chris3145 08:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Use Ad Block Plus for Firefox. I didn't even know this site had ads. Minor Edits 09:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

For whatever reason, it is worse now. Even the "Mark as Patrolled" confirmation page has to load a gigantic add before I can hit the back button and move on. We need to get it fixed asap - waiting for big, noisy adds to load definitely belongs in the "-we-don't-have-time-for-this"-category. --Krusty 16:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Please let me know what ads have sound or anything else not appropriate to the site. We have changed ad providers (at least temporarily) and I do have it set to *not* display audio ads and other inappropriate features. If the ad provider is breaking this filter I need to know about it. If you copy the link information in the top right corner of the ad I should be able to easily track it. -- Daveh 16:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if that is helpful, but http: //media.fastclick.net/w/get.media?sid=64120&m=6&tp=8&d=s&c=1&vcm_acv=1.1 wanted me to install a plugin, probably a sound one. And I see no link information for the ads. --Alfwyn 17:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

And a scantly clad lady ad had the following url's attached

http: //content.yieldmanager.edgesuite.net/atoms/49/b4/04/fa/49b404fa6331bfc75540915ae4d2e7ea.jpg

http: //media.fastclick.net/w/click.here?sid=64120&m=6&c=1" target="_blank"

http: //media.fastclick.net/w/get.media?sid=64120&m=6&tp=8&d=s&ac=1&vcm_acv=1.1"

--Alfwyn 17:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, although it seems you're getting all the "interesting" ads. All I see are ads for Bell, the Hilton and Clorox Bleach. -- Daveh 17:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I got some video ad related to Natalie Portman over and over and over. A few hours later, I got a Mucinex ad on every single page. I don't have any urls right now (browsing from a phone), but I can post them as I see them. Chris3145 23:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Natalie Portman? Are you a Diablo player too? --Brf 23:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll assume this isn't still an issue since I haven't heard anything more about it. I did finally figure out the new advertising filtering/selection interface which is less than user friendly. This resulted in "bad ads" coming through despite it looking like they weren't. There will be more changes in the months to come so just let me know if/when anything inappropriate starts showing up. -- Daveh 01:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Werdur: new page in Oblivion

I edited the page
http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion:Chorrol
to contain a link to a new page, link title: "More Pictures"
When click onto the link, I get the usual Message 'page does not exist - you can create it'
BUT I cannot create the new page; the system says: ... creation is limited in Skyrim namespace ...
Could someone help me to create the page in Oblivion namespace?
Thanks from Werdur.Weitwald 10:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

This is undone, I don't know why the oblivion namespace was blocked for you, but that message you got also told you that UESPWiki:New_Page_Requests is the place to ask. Anyway, I don't see this page as needed, and unless you have a dozen beautiful properly formatted screencaps, just add one or two to the existing page if you think it looks good. Lukish_ Tlk Cnt 18:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Merging spell pages

I just wanted to notify an admin that a consensus is forming to merge the Skyrim Spell pages with their respective skill pages and just add in the tables to the page. The tables themselves have been established as not being very large and it seems to be a preference to the users. Didn't know what to do so I just wanted to give a heads-up. His Immortal Majesty, Eric Snowmane 19:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

And even if it ends up looking cluttered the tables could be collapsed. His Immortal Majesty, Eric Snowmane 20:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

This isn't really an admin issue -- if you wanted to bring it to the community's attention, the Community Portal would have been a more appropriate place. It would also help if you'd provide a link to the place where the actual discussion is taking place, so that any one who wants to contribute to the discussion knows where to do so. In the absence of such a link, though, let me just say here that if anything, the pages should simply be transcluded instead of deleting/moving the existing pages. --Nephele^Talk 21:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, Nephele. And the discussion was at Skyrim_talk:Destruction His Immortal Majesty, Eric Snowmane 21:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Status/Planned Maintenance

Just a note to visit the Status page to keep informed of any known site issues as well as any planned maintenance. For example, tonight around 8pm EST the wiki/forums will be temporarily set to read-only more while switching database servers. I'm trying to keep the status page up to date as much as possible. -- Daveh 17:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Quick Site Status Update

Just a quick review of current status and future changes given how busy things have been for everyone lately:

• Traffic numbers dropped a little bit from their initial peak but are still at 5-6 million page views/day.
• We're running on a slightly beefier database server now (db2 for lack of a better name). db1 is offline for maintenance but will be back as the primary write database eventually with db2 handling all of the reads and content3 as a backup as needed.
• Monthly bandwidth increased from 10TB to 20TB/month to avoid any high overage charges. Note that 30TB/month is essentially a fully utilized 100Mbps connection.
• All Wiki traffic is still going through squid2 which is outside our little 7 server cluster. The firewall issue still isn't fixed due to some licensing issue with Cisco so we'd run into the original Skyrim release issue if we put it back inside.
• All other servers are doing fine load wise though we're close to the point of needing more (files1 server in particular).
• Our Alexa site rating is around a rank of 2000 for the past month which is rather amazing.

-- Daveh 01:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Occupants or NPCs living here?

They seem mutually exclusive, which one should be used? — Unsigned comment by Themendios (talk • contribs) at 09:35 on 18 December 2011

To be honest, I think *People" is the best solution, as we use it on an awful lot of OB pages. Use whatever you want, though, as it is really easy to make consistent when we get around to it. In time, we will probably end up with templates for inns and stores (with the proprietor mentioned in the Place Summary and all guests mentioned as "People" in a nifty table), so for now it's all about getting something on the pages. --Krusty 11:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Vandal: IP 70.114.139.125

This user has made several profane vandalism edits, and has continued after a warning was posted. Just a heads up. ThuumofReason 19:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not true. They made two edits, I warned them after I reverted the first, and then I noticed their second edit. They haven't done anything since I gave them a warning. Wolok gro-Barok 19:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I just noticed that. I was going to undo. Sorry, my bad. ThuumofReason 19:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Edit conflict, Wolok beat me to it. An IP has to vandalise two more times after receiving a warning to be eligible for a block. This IP hasn't edited since the warning was posted. --Legoless 19:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Good to know. I was going to undo the section, but he beat me to it too. ThuumofReason 20:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Skyrim Talk Pages

Just a quick follow-up question to the Skyrim policy discussion: what are we doing about talk page edits? Are they similarly under the "patrol it and move on unless it's vandalism" policy, or are we still following the normal policy of not patrolling unless the question has been addressed (or it's an answer to the question, etc.)? – Robin Hood↝talk 22:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm unsure as well, so I've been following the normal patrolling policy. Maybe now that the initial flood of edits has calmed somewhat, this policy could remain. --Legoless 22:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if anything, unpatrolled talk page edits are on the rise. :) I only took a very quick statistic, but asking for 30 days, I maxed out the limit of 5000 changes in Skyrim talk space before I hit the 30 days (I got about 27 days). Using the 25 whole days as a baseline, we averaged 190 unpatrolled edits/day. In the last 7 whole days, the average was 235/day. – Robin Hood↝talk 23:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

By all means, just patrol them, unless they're forum-like or completely useless. Until this calms down, I'm afraid our talkpages are as open as chatrooms, and there's absolutely nothing we can do about it at the moment. If it cheers anybody up, I have seen good stuff come out of the chatroom discussions once or twice. :D --Krusty 01:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

ES is Eric Snowmane

I just wanted to leave a little courtesy note for any admins who would be interested that I am the maker of the ES account and redirected it to my page, because ES is what I use for my signature and I wanted to preemptively avoid any confusion shold someone else do want the name, etc. ES^T•E•C 06:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

As you've probably noticed, we have a template set up for that, which I just added beneath both of the redirects. – Robin Hood↝talk 07:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Registration

Hi, sorry for bothering everyone so close to the holidays, but I am having a lot of trouble registering on the forums. I put my e-mail in about three days ago and have gotten no activation email. My email address is evbe1@comcast.net if that helps. I really would need this before the Christmas because I am trying to finally get a friend on the forums for part of his present. Thanks for everyone that could help, and thanks for everyone who tries to help. Dragonsoul17 11:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I just tried registering and it worked fine, try going to login, then click resend activation email see if that works (Eddie The Head 11:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC))

Some email addresses don't like the UESP emails, I can't remember which providers - but some don't let our emails come through. Other than switching provider I don't know a solution (there might be one in the earlier discussions) --Kiz ^{·•· Talk ·•· Contribs ·•· Mail ·•·} 12:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Vandal: IP 67.189.61.37

Unless someone can track down a Breton named "Manrod Lubrication", this guy's a vandal. He added it as a Breton name, then ignored Legoless' warning and did it again. A block seems appropriate. Minor Edits 03:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm already keeping an eye on him. Unless he makes another edit, I'm assuming the warning was sufficient (it's possible he didn't read the warning until after his second edit). There's no point in blocking if a warning did the job. --Nephele^Talk 03:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

71.64.150.106

After a warning for vandalism, reverted it back and placed a warning on the warner's page. Needs a block. Lukish_ Tlk Cnt 01:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Three hour block has been given, pending Admin action. – Robin Hood↝talk 01:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocking

I'm requesting Blockuser status, since I'm on a lot and seem to have need of it at times. Lukish_ Tlk Cnt 02:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I've given you temporary permanent blocker rights. I know that sounds stupid, but what I mean is that I have no problem with your request and that if another admin adds his or her name here then you get 'em full time. If not, I'll remove them again in a few days. rpeh •T•C•E• 15:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Unblocking Issue?

A user I unblocked is reporting in this section that he or she still can't edit. I unsure of what could be wrong, as the block log shows that I lifted it, and the only other time I've used the unblock feature I knew the account could edit immeaditelly afterwords (as it was my Doppelgänger account). Any ideas, anyone? --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 21:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The IP address was auto-blocked along with the user account, but the block on the IP address was not correspondingly lifted. Special:BlockList allows you to see exactly what IPs and user accounts are currently affected by active blocks. One of the entries there was the IP address block, and clicking on "unblock" allowed me to remove it. --Nephele^Talk 21:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

So if an account tries to edit from a blocked IP address, the account can't edit? I was entirely unaware of this fact. I will make note of this in case an account ever needs to be unblocked again, thanks. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 21:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It all depends upon the settings used when the block is done. The IP address auto-block for a user account is only done if this option is selected: "Automatically block the last IP address used by this user, and any subsequent IPs they try to edit from". That auto-block apparently affects both logged-in and non-logged-in users. Standard IP address blocks by default do not affect logged-in users, but that can be changed if "Block anonymous users only" is de-selected. --Nephele^Talk 21:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Notice

I've undone a revision by 81.98.249.200 for putting "lol" after some parts of Skyrim Mining Page which you can see in the pages history. I beleve this was minor vandilism and appropriate action should be taken by admin.

Um, actually you didn't - I did. Kitkat ^{•Talk•Contrib•E-mail} 20:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Pardon, I thought I did... you clicked first. Cole1 21:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The page is now semi-protected because of heavy traffic - and various odd edits, like the one mentioned. It will be unlocked when we have all the facts from the CK. --Krusty 21:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

For future reference, the appropriate action for a first occurrence of minor vandalism is to put a warning on their talk page, which any user can do. Admins and Blockers don't need to do anything unless the vandalism is widespread or if if continues to occur after a warning has been issued. Typically, we wait until the second edit after a warning, since it's possible the vandal didn't see the warning on their first subsequent edit. – Robin Hood↝talk 21:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel that edit even warrants a warning - it's silly, yes, but it appears to be the first instance of vandalism, and it wasn't offensive or threatening. Kitkat ^{•Talk•Contrib•E-mail} 21:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Because of the fact that we usually wait for two more edits (for a total of three), I tend to issue warnings even after the first edit, as long as it was clearly vandalism. Even if the vandalism was minor, it was still vandalism — that's why we have different warnings for nonsense and obscenities. We all have different standards, though. As long as the vandalism gets stopped before it really gets out of hand, it's really a matter of personal preference as to when you place the warning, I think. – Robin Hood↝talk 21:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh gosh, I'm sorry, I didn't even realise a warning had been given - that wasn't meant to sound like a personal criticism against you giving a warning =( Kitkat ^{•Talk•Contrib•E-mail} 21:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

(←) It wasn't taken as one at all! I only added it a few minutes before you posted. I didn't assume you'd even seen it yet. – Robin Hood↝talk 21:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Double Standards?

About a week ago, Editor A made a clear personal attack on Editor B (me). After giving tempers time to cool, I confronted Editor A about it earlier today. His response was to make further personal attacks, and accept no responsibility for or admittance of his conduct, instead trying to change the subject back to the edit that caused him to fly off the handle in the first place.
Ad Hominem and Name Calling are the very bottom two layers of the "civility pyramid", and Editor A has resorted to both. If any other editor behaved this way, the first attack would have resulted in a polite warning on their Talk page; and the second attack a much sterner one, reminding them that Personal attacks are grounds for an immediate block - the wiki's emphasis, not mine. But Editor A is an Administrator, so instead he is free to be as abusive as he wants, with no regrets, no repercussions, and not even a raised eyebrow. We all have bad days, but Editor A shows not even the tiniest hint of remorse a week later, and on the contrary has opted to continue making personal attacks instead.
If this behavior is considered acceptable, the policy and etiquette pages should be updated to make it clear that the rule is "Do as I say, not as I do"; and that editors should avoid any sort of interaction with administrators, because far from being "expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others", even the site's most fundamental policies simply do not apply to them. Aliana 00:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Uh, could we skip with this Editor A and B stuff and see (some links and names to) the actual issue you want to discuss? There are still too many edits per day for any uninvolved admin to go through to understand what you are referring to. --Timenn-<talk> 00:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That’s all very good, but please understand that we’re trying to deal with incredibly complicated material these days; we have tens of thousands of unpatrolled edits, several tons of bad articles, templates to figure out, a map that the entire world screams for – so nitpicking and repeated arguments about “right” or “wrong” in what must be considered a “small matter” easily lands in the “we don’t have time for this” category. This can mean one of two things – if you meet an extremely tired administrator/patroller, you are likely to be cut off. If you keep on going, you’re bound to receive angry replies. If you wait for one week, THEN keep on going again, people will lose their temper. Please, just let it pass – find something else to work on, and let’s pick up the subject later on, when we have more control with things. This is basically the most polite answer you will get right now, but believe me when I say: We don’t have time for this. --Krusty 00:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Just @ Timenn - pretty sure she meant this. Kitkat ^{•Talk•Contrib•E-mail} 00:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to be frank. I read through the aforementioned discussion not long ago, and can say that ridiculously petty squabbles such as these will not be tolerated. We have a suffocating amount of useful edits to patrol as it is without you going around spouting nonsense and refusing to leave well enough alone. We do not have to tolerate this kind of behaviour. Period.--Kalis Agea^{Yes? Contrib E-mail} 00:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For the record "Editor A" would be rpeh, I assume. Aliana is most likely referring to this discussion (thank you for making me have to dig these up). Having read through this, I second Krusty's reasoning.I have found myself more than once writing a comment, message, edit summary, etc., that would get me blocked and stripped of my position in calmer times. The point is, we're all basically overworked at this point, and tempers are quite high. For the record, I have come across more than a few edits that would earn an editor a stern warning or even a blocking under calmer times, but causing arguments that can be simply avoided by dropping the issue until a better time or blocking positive contributors is not helpful to the site in any way. It's often better to drop an issue before it escalates to ridiculous proportions than seeing it through. Even if you're sure you're right, the issue can wait. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 01:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback all. I didn't name rpeh because I wanted responses based solely on what the behavior was (ie calling someone an asshole, etc) rather than who was doing it, to avoid biases since rpeh has both ardent fans and vocal detractors. I'm a bit confused as to why some people seem to think it's about the Disease edit, when I don't think I could make it any clearer that has nothing to do with the issue at hand, but anyway: the consensus is "Yes, personal attacks are acceptable right now, deal with it". Fair enough. Aliana 02:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you instigated the attacks, which is why people are basically saying it was unsurprising. The name calling was a little much, but you pushed him there (and then complained when he did!). elliot (talk) 02:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

(←) I don't understand why everyone is either unanimously in favor of rpeh's handling of the situation or indifferent to it. For all I can see Aliana did everything right, except maybe for calling the first anonymous revert vandalism. They respectfully started a debate, came up with good reasons and evidence (and in the end appeared to be right), and even waited a bit when things got heated. rpeh, on the other hand, had not much to say on the matter. The name-calling which rpeh resorted to was in my opinion unfounded, as I can't see any comment made by Aliana which might have sparked such a reaction. Now I know everyone is busy with Skyrim these days, but that's no reason to let things like this slide. We've had a similar situation here, which in the end was resolved peacefully. Wolok gro-Barok 16:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not the first time Aliana has pulled this kind of stunt and I doubt it'll be the last, and that contributed to the short shrift I gave here. I don't know how you can claim she acted correctly though - calling the first edit vandalism fails AGF, then posting on my talk page (making comments like "You must not have had your coffee yet") instead of the article talk page is not the right way to go.

Her next post brings in a load of utterly irrelevant stuff from other sites. Consensus is defined by what happens here. During this time she was, by any definition, edit warring. Two different editors had removed her post and only Aliana was adding it - despite claiming consensus was on her side. Posting - again, on my talk page - that she "expect[s] it to stay there until that consensus changes" is totally out of order and while my advice that she should stop being an asshole might not have been entirely polite, it was entirely justified. How well do you think the wiki would work if everybody was able to lock articles based on their own opinion and a Google search?

Bringing this matter up - on my talk page - after a week is nothing but trouble-making. I suppose it's all my own fault for not blocking Aliana permanently after the last hissy fit. rpeh •T•C•E• 17:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know of any previous hassles you two have had (although I suspected as much). Posting on the article's talk page is indeed the way to go, but it's not uncommon to address an issue on someone talk page. I've seen it happen many times before, and as far as I know it is not wrong either. The comment about coffee was uncalled for, but definitely not a personal attack, more like something to break the ice. However, having read through it again, I can definitely see your side of the argument, even though you still overreacted. Wolok gro-Barok 17:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm quickly approaching the indifferent attitude. I don't see anything wrong to post on someone's talk page, and name calling is clearly wrong. But then again personal attacks seem to have started with "... is enough for your actions to be wrong" - it suddenly wasn't any longer about facts, but about being right or wrong. And I see a tendency here too to formulate for maximal effect rather than trying to settle something in a calm and objective matter ("double standards", "If ... the policy and etiquette pages should be updated ..."). The question for me is, what is the purpose of this discussion? --Alfwyn 18:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Prev: Archive 21

Up: Administrator Noticeboard

Next: Archive 23