GuildWiki:Admin noticeboard

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

The Admin noticeboard is intended as a way to alert administrators of issues which need their attention.

This page is intended to assist in policy enforcement, and to provide a centralized location for protection, unprotection and undeletion requests.

To create a new request, add a new subheading and provide a neutral, concise, and signed summary of the issue. It is suggested that any other users involved in an issue should be informed of its discussion here. New sections go on the bottom.

Resolved issues are archived here: 1, 2, 3.

Vandals and Visigoths
this IP seems to vandalize in series. Latest activity was a little while ago. I leave it to the admins to decide on appropriate action. (Please let me know if there's a better spot to highlight this or if it's even necessary.)  &mdash; Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 09:15, September 26, 2009 (UTC)
 * Gone for 2 weeks - that should work alright, we can't really block for long periods of time for dynamic IP addresses, which this user may be. That sort of vandalism isn't much of a problem, as it only requires a click on the "revert" button, just annoying really Random Time  09:21, September 26, 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool. I figured a 3-day ban would slow this particular series. (I wonder if it's a completely random IP, as the past contributions a few months ago were similar in tone, style, content.) Anyhow, thanks for taking care of them, however temporary it turns out to be.  &mdash; Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 09:28, September 26, 2009 (UTC)

Riddle me this contributor and these changes. &mdash; Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 08:42, November 5, 2009 (UTC)
 * That almost looked like sandboxing. O_o RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 10:52, November 5, 2009 (UTC)
 * Sandboxing on the main page, though? Dunno about that.  But yeah, we've seen vandals like this before, some of them being much more obvious (included cursing/slander of Anet etc.), and they usually stop after a single vandalism/revert like that.  No clue why they revert themselves, but at least that's less work for us to do.  And no need for a block unless they do it again.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 14:27, November 5, 2009 (UTC)
 * Saw an edit link on the main page, decided to vandalize, then noticed it didn't actually affect the mainpage, is my guess. -- ◄mendel► 14:49, November 5, 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, didn't think of that. Doesn't explain the other self-reverting vandals, though, since the majority of them weren't on the main page.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 15:13, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

Nothing but vandalism from this IP: Special:Contributions/70.126.131.177 -- Kirbman 14:53, November 5, 2009 (UTC)
 * True, but he seems to have left after those edits, so there's no need to block right now (i.e. we don't need to stop him since he stopped himself). &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 15:13, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

We don't play wii on this site?
This page appears to be another type of vandalism (at least one I hadn't seen before). A quick google search finds at least a half-dozen links with identical or near identical text posted to forums and wikis. (Apparently Wii Ombouwen means Wii conversion or Wii convert.) Eaglemut marked the page for deletion. &mdash; Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 19:20, November 5, 2009 (UTC)
 * This kinda stuff's recurring, ("I just joined the site" spam), seemingly meaningless but could be used to find out inactive pages that then can be spammed more. I'd suggest that when you see a page like this being created, you blank it and put a delete tag on it  Random  Time   21:38, November 5, 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer you don't blank it. It's annoying to have to look in the history if the page is useful/should be retained elsewhere if that step can also be skipped by not blanking pages randomly in the first place (don't we ban for that?). --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG]] -- (contribs) &emsp;(talk)  21:42, November 5, 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, standard operating procedure is to not blank pages when you're putting a delete tag on them. Remember these pages aren't linked anyplace, except the "new and improved" Community widget, unfortunately: maybe we need to develop a procedure to move them out of Mainspace, e.g. from name to GuildWiki:Spam/name ? That would immediately remove them from exposure, and any editor can do that. If we didn't actually delete them then (maybe blank them and put a tag on), the pages would remain in the spammer's list of contributions. Opinions? -- ◄mendel► 07:31, November 6, 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's a good idea to move the page into a quarantined space so ordinary contribs don't have to wait for a sysop to delete. Plus: it's easy. Afterwards... what's the advantage of leaving spam articles in the contribution lists? And would we want to do the same thing to IPs (that can get re-used by legitimate anons)?  &mdash; Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 07:42, November 6, 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain there is an advantage, except when we're dealing with repeat offenders: pulling up their contribs and seeing contribs in the spam space would make their machinations obvious. (Admins can look up deleted contributions, though.) -- ◄mendel► 08:13, November 6, 2009 (UTC)


 * Since admins are the ones who will make the block, and since they can see deleted contributions, I don't see any reason to not delete spam. I don't understand the rationale for moving spam out of mainspace, though - even if it gets spammed more, it all goes *poof* once the page is deleted (i.e. disappears from RC and editor(s)'s contribs), so what's the problem?  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 14:24, November 6, 2009 (UTC)
 * Monaco users (i.e. all anonymous readers) see a widget on the sidebar that lists recent mainspace edits, and by moving the page out of mainspace, its exposure is immediately reduced considerably. -- ◄mendel► 22:40, November 6, 2009 (UTC)


 * Particularly since there are now frequent periods lasting hours without a single mainspace edit.  &mdash; Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 01:10, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

Urgent request: delete original image
Image:1751058.JPG The original version of this includes information that should not be displayed on the wiki. The original contributor replaced that version with a less risky version, so I don't want to tag for deletion. Is there any way to delete just the original? Thanks! (If all works, I imagine the last link will become a redlink.)  &mdash; Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 17:47, December 20, 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG]] -- (contribs) &emsp;(talk)  18:32, December 20, 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks!  &mdash; Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 20:53, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

It's Wintersday!
So Happy Holidays, all! A F K When  Needed  15:07, December 25, 2009 (UTC)


 * Because the best place to wish everyone a joyful Christmas isn't the Community Portal, but the Admin noticeboard, huh :P
 * Happy holy days (again to AFK, iirc), regardless :) --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG]] -- (contribs) &emsp;(talk)  15:10, December 25, 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I recognise that :P
 * I just thought I'd remember you lot on this special day, and well... I don't really know the community per se. So... yeah. A_F_K_sig_2.jpg A F K When  Needed  17:09, December 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * Emergency request to wish everyone happy and merry." ←← Mebbe that's why it's good to post on the admin noticeboard?  &mdash; Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 18:00, December 25, 2009 (UTC)

Monaco issues
I received an email from a user saying they had difficulty seeing the wiki, as the monaco sidebar had moved itself to the content area. This issue started on Jan 1 I'm not seeing the error, can anyone else see it, either logged in - or logged out?  Random Time   10:17, January 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Lcawte on #wikia confirms this for logged out users, default monaco - not for logged in uses  Random  Time   10:33, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

Logged out user issues.
This is Gigathrash. I logged out to see if I could recreate the above problem, and I couldn't. HOWEVER this was because my skin became an odd combination between monaco and monobook, using the monaco recent changes, and monobook everything else. But the real problem is that any page content not only pushes the side bar to all the way down below it (it is still to the left, but below the page) AND the log in page is blank. So I can't log back in. Also, all content is centered.--174.23.201.120 10:42, January 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it isn't just content. Everything besides the navbar is centered.--174.23.201.120 10:43, January 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Try using monobook to log back in - this just keeps getting worse, and on top of it all, wikia keeps hanging, preventing my edits.  Random  Time   11:16, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

Not all pages are affected, just ones with recent edits. Navigation bar is overlapping main content. Text is centered in main content boxes. When logged in moving from an ok page to an affected page logs you out.Thorn17 14:19, January 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * I had an add overlapping the main nav bar, and everything was centered. A friend has a screen that looks just like the one on the screenshot. When logged in everything is fine Lยкץ๒๏ץ talk  14:22, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

Both these issues were caused by a missing tag in the site notice. I've fixed it. &mdash;Dr Ishmael 15:58, January 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hell, I'm sorry guys, should have been more careful when coding the notice (I hate it when these things are my fault)  Random  Time   20:35, January 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Eh, easy mistake, I've done the same thing numerous times (not in a place where it would affect the whole site, but still). I wasn't pointing any fingers, but since you went and apologized, I guess we'll forgive you. :P  &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 20:42, January 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * hmm i'm still seeing the issue with the nav bar overlapping with the content, going into history and then into discussion and then to article tab fixes it. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.5.11 (contribs).
 * As will purging the page, it's wikia's cache that hasn't been updated yet that's causing the problem  Random  Time   10:24, January 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Gigathrash, if you log out you need to clear your cookies, or close your browser and restart, because the wikia servers will still track your HTML session and remember your old skin settings partially. -- ◄mendel► 10:05, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

freenode irc channel
To keep the #GuildWiki IRC channel on freenode (the alternative is setting up #wikia-guildwars, but I'd rather not have a freenode channel at all than that one), we need to do a |group registration to comply with freenode policy. For that, we need to name a primary contact. I would ask you all to approve that I am our primary contact in irc matters, or to suggest somebody else. (This does not concern the gamesurge #gwiki channel). Please respond even if you don't care about irc. -- ◄mendel► 11:57, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I comply  Random  Time   12:03, January 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * I only frequent the gamesurge one, but I see no harm in making you the contact for the other one.--[[Image:El Nazgir sig.png|Talkpage]]El_Nazgir 15:45, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Good choice. :) RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 01:38, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate image?
moved to File talk:Motivator526d870f2edeb713fe9e67d2943cc230402d8013.jpg by ◄mendel► 01:52, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

Clean-up Suggestion
My suggestion is that we remove the category pages for explorable areas, ie Kessex Peak, as they do not seem to have any function (correct me if I'm wrong).

On a completely different note, why can't we do an in-wiki link to category pages? -- Kirbman 18:51, January 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * If you try to do a regular link to a category page, it will put the page in the category instead. To make a wikified link to a category or file, put a colon before the link name inside the brackets like such  to get Category:Kessex Peak --Gimmethegepgun 18:57, January 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * You see that there are pages in those categories, why do you say that they have no function? You use them to "tag" NPCs with the locations they're in, and that information can be used better than the list on the page. -- ◄mendel► 21:48, January 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * I've always wondered how the list on Kessex Peak is worse than the cat. Unlike the cat, you get levels (well, depends), categorisation by 'faction', a list of bosses and profession. What does the cat give? An alphabetical list of monsters. Do explain, Mendel :) --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG]] -- (contribs) &emsp;(talk)  22:29, January 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Blah blah category tree is the best wiki navigation etc, also it's the "index" of this "encyclopedia". [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 03:47, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just off the top of my head: the category system is something that automata can work with (none of that fuzzy "free text" stuff); it provides a level of redundancy to those other lists that can be used to check for errors and omissions, at very little extra cost. -- ◄mendel► 01:31, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

Delete war
User:Dr ishmael re-reverted a deletion [ here], ignoring my attempt to discuss the issue; I've moved the page to my userspace as a compromise for now.

The admin noticeboard isn't the place to discuss whether the pages should be kept or not; User_talk:M.mendel/Zaishen_Challenge_Quest/archive is. What I want to have discussed here is whether this was proper operating procedure. Personally, I think it wasn't, but I'm afraid to take admin action myself because of this - I expect I'd come across as pursuing a personal issue, maybe dismissed as going overboard, and thus I'd like wider comment on it.

Feel free to say something on the issue, regradless of your status on the wiki! -- ◄mendel► 22:12, February 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to me a bit like an issue with 1RV. Content was disputed, should have been discussed after the revert. --JonTheMon 23:19, February 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * "regradless"? What, so you aren't letting people that have dropped out of college and come back? Or does that mean no one who's graduated twice (4 years then grad school)? Stop discriminating, man! --Gimmethegepgun 01:19, February 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * There already was an on-going discussion at Talk:Zaishen Challenge Quest where I stated that I had "completely removed the manually-updated history tables" after deleting that page. The consensus (among everyone who had bothered to participate in the discussion) was that there was no worthwhile reason for keeping that archive.  If mendel didn't agree with that consensus, he should have joined the discussion before I deleted the page - I thought it was pretty clear from the beginning that my intent was to get rid of all the extraneous archive/forecast subpages.  Since consensus had already been established without mendel making any comment whatsoever on the issue, I felt that he was the one acting out-of-line by reverting the consensus-supported delete.
 * And yes, this does seem to be turning in to a personal issue. This is at least the third time in the past two months that mendel has directly overruled my administrative actions before opening discussing on the issue.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 03:36, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think pointing out that page on the second delete would have sufficiently calmed things down. Or even on the first edit, for folks like me who weren't following the initial conversation. --JonTheMon 05:43, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * umad? - Auron 18:12, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * I would ask that if an administrative action is the result of a consensus, that you point to the location of the discussion in the summary of your edit. This is the second time that this has confused me. Thank you. -- ◄mendel► 22:10, February 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well excuse me for expecting people to check RC to see if there might be an ongoing discussion pertaining to the deletion. Or is our bureaucrat too busy with more important things to pay attention to what's actually happening on the wiki?  Do you just check the deletion log to see what I've deleted that you can revert to irritate me?  Because that's exactly what it feels like you're doing, and yes, it's working.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 00:45, February 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * I should also probably mention that Ishy is a trusted editor, so he should have had a reason to delete the page, which you, mendel, could have asked for. --JonTheMon 14:05, February 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * I started a discussion on the talk page, the standard practice is "revert and discuss", it's not a highly exposed place where a bad revert might hurt, either. Dr Ishmael gave a reason on the deletion - how am I supposed to know that there's more? Is it standard practice to check all pages something is transcluded on (when it isn't any more) or places that might reference it (in the case before, a user's talk page)? I am trying, with my limited time, to review what happens to some important pages, and I glance at every admin action if I can, not just Dr Ishmael's. If I was going to just trust you all, I probably should do nothing and wait for my talkpage to ping - however, sometimes I do spot problems or errors that nobody else has seen, so I don't want to get that comfy just yet. -- ◄mendel► 22:59, February 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean like this "trusted editor" blooper? :P RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 02:32, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to be rude, but... doesn't "and I glance at every admin action if I can" slightly undermine the whole RfA system GuildWiki has in place?
 * We trust you enough to... not trust you at all. A_F_K_sig_2.jpg A F K When Needed 11:56, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Getting a little edgy there, Ishy, try not to let it get personal. No real personal opinion on this myself, though I would like to point out that this is rather similar to, say, us keeping skill histories around. Those, however, do serve a bit of a use, though, in that someone might have said something about a skill in the past that makes NO sense now, you look at the history, and see what it was when they said it. Though ofc that doesn't stop people (mainly IPs) from commenting on 4 year old comments for skills that are completely different from what they used to be --Gimmethegepgun 19:10, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

tl;dr You remember those times when you reminded me how you don't check RC (anymore?), mendel? Yeah, about that. I'd have to say that falls under as reasonable, if not more so, an editor expectation as linking to a relevant discussion(s) in one's edit summary. (Which, you're probably aware, very few people ever do.) "There is truth in both sides of the argument." (T/C) 10:02, February 25, 2010 (UTC)