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)