Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Admin noticeboard

From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

The Admin noticeboard is one way through which users can notify administrators of issues needing administrative attention. While users are welcome to directly contact specific administrators (especially if they are seen to be active), posting here can be an easier and quicker way of ensuring that at least one admin will notice an issue and respond to it promptly. Remember to sign when posting an issue.

Before posting an issue here, consider the following:

  • As this is a noticeboard and not a talk page, please refrain from discussing.
  • Post only issues that require administrative action, i.e. blocking vandals, protecting pages etc.
  • Do not post issues regarding content disputes. Try discussing the edit first, and if that doesn't work, request further comment by adding a link to the discussion from the community portal.
  • Mediation requests between users should only be made if a resolution could not be reached between users.
  • For issues regarding the use of this wiki, please see our help center.

In case of vandalism, posting about it here is low priority. Revert it first, anyone can do so. If the vandal created a new page, tag it for deletion. Consider leaving a message on that user's talk page to explain the reason. Post here only if the user has made several disruptive edits and/or persists despite a warning. Always avoid a revert war with the vandal; it is far better to wait until an admin has a chance to intervene.

Creating a new request — vandals
  1. Edit the Vandal issues section.
  2. At the top of the list, use the ;{{user|IP address or username here}} template. Provide a short and neutral summary of the issue
Creating a new request — non-vandal cases (e.g. user issues, page protection/undeletion, etc.).
  1. Add a new section to the page using the "+" button at the top of the page.
  2. In the subject field, enter an appropriate title, without using links or templates.
  3. In the edit field, use the {{user|IP address or username here}} template to refer to users involved with the case. Provide a short and neutral summary of the issue.

As a sign of courtesy, also leave a message on the talk page of any involved user.

Vandal issues[edit]

Please don't report anonymous users here after only a single vandal/spam edit. There's no point to blocking an IP if they are already finished with whatever mischief they were doing.

Starting with the most recent vandals. (talkcontribslogsblock log)
Has been making multiple vandalism edits to several articles over the past two weeks, and has persisted in this even after a friendly warning left on their talk page. —Idris User Idris signature.png 05:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Whilst the quality of the edits is somewhat dubious, it doesn't really feel like straight-up vandalism. I've started a discussion section on their talk page. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 18:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC) (talkcontribslogsblock log)
Has so far spammed a long list of links to other wikis three times. --Cali (talk) 20:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Has been blocked. Thanks for keeping an eye on the RC for us, and letting us know! Greener (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
The vandal's back in business, it seems. User Incarnazeus Signature.pngtalk 11:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Arthur_Kerensa (talkcontribslogsblock log)
Has blanked almost a hundred pages in ten minutes. -- Dashface User Dashface.png 13:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Handled. poke | talk 15:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
The Budday (talkcontribslogsblock log)
Made a series of vandalism edits. --Cali (talk) 04:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Account has been blocked. Thanks. Greener (talk) 05:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
User and user talk pages have also been deleted.--Xanthipos (talk) 05:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC) (talkcontribslogsblock log)
Spambot. 05:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
No actual edits however obviously a spambot based on the abusefilter hits. Blocked 3 months. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 10:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Chieftain Alex on Legendary Imbued Shaman[edit]

Chieftain Alex (talkcontribslogsblock log)
Vandalising the Legendary Imbued Shaman page by removing sourced information and leaving it blank. Frusen (talk) 10:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Dude, that user is an admin... 11:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
So? Deleting correct info and instead leaving it blank just for the sake of making it more confusing *is* vandalism. Frusen (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I thought your research was unclear, and the linked methodology on reddit was poor, so I've documented it properly on the talkpage like I asked you to in the first place. I consider this matter resolved. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 12:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Adding my comment here because I believe no person can be their own judge and jury. Thank you for continuing the conversations appropriately on the talk page and coming to an agreement on the content. Greener (talk) 14:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
First of all separating this from the Vandal section as this is a non-vandal issue.
Chieftain Alex, in his capacity as an admin, saw a revert war (that's bad; don't revert war) and acted to stop it. On the one side was the information that has been on the article for several years based on testing from trusted users in 2015. On the other side was a much more recent reddit thread linking to an inaccessible google document with comments on the reddit thread noting the methodology had flaws. Alex took the most neutral option possible of removing either claim, noting that it is currently in dispute, and locking the article in that state until more conclusive proof could be obtained. He then went out of his way to rigorously research the matter himself, post results to the talk page where they will be available for reference to all future wiki users, and put that information in the article. While it wound up being a slight mixing of sysop and editor roles that we do generally try to avoid, there was certainly no maliciousness on Alex's part and the end result is a more thoroughly researched article.
While you should certainly bring it to other admins' attention if you believe an admin is acting inappropriately, Alex was simply trying to bring a revert war to a peaceful end. - Tanetris (talk) 16:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Game update pages - sort order issues[edit]

Admins - I added a new page for the 2019-06-03 updates tonight, but noticed that it's sorting incorrectly on Game_updates, because the 2019-05-29 and 2019-05-30 pages were originally created as 2019-5-29 and 2019-5-30. I've moved them to have the two-digit month in the page name, but am unable to delete the offending 1-digit-month pages where the redirects now exist, since I believe page deletion is reserved for admins. As such, the "5" is still sorting as newer than the "06" in the sort order; and June 3 is now in between May 28 and May 29 in the infobox on the updates page, and May 30 is also showing as the newest update on the Main Page. I believe the correct action is to delete both and; nothing links to either, and I believe retaining the redirect pages is going to cause more problems than it'll solve. --Tengauge (talk) 05:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Done. This doesn't always happen when you move pages, but you were right on this occasion. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 06:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Konig & AbuseFilter 27[edit]

Konig Des Todes (talkcontribslogsblock log)

Given his recent attempt to instigate a revert war with me, I would like to request the reinstatement of Special:AbuseFilter/27. I believe it was an effective technical measure to discourage Konig's "revert first, ask questions later" mentality on any articles that he considers "his". Santax (talk · contribs) 09:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

In order to keep you informed: The request has been noted and is currently being discussed. Greener (talk) 00:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the update. Is it typical for discussions of matters like this one to happen off-wiki? Santax (talk · contribs) 14:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Just dropping in to leave a link to this discussion I'm having with Santax; he brought up the possibility that both he and Konig could start adhering to a zero-revert policy during conflicts with each other, which I think is a good idea, and one I think Konig is capable of following, as he's been making a point to avoid further antagonising Santax since he was called out over the Mordremoth article. —Idris User Idris signature.png 15:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I was actually thinking a blanket zero-revert policy between Konig and all other editors, i.e. he cannot revert anything except obvious vandalism. I am not the only editor who has had these issues with Konig - there are years worth of editors who have reasonably decided that they'd rather stop contributing to the wiki than deal with Konig's belligerence.
This would effectively be enforced by AbuseFilter 27 in the case of disputes between him and myself; the downside of this approach would be that it would limit the ability to add and enhance on one another's edits while following the principle of preserving information and viewpoints. Santax (talk · contribs) 19:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

The wiki community is a family of people who are doing their best to get along. We don't always do it well, we have disagreements, and we can frustrate ourselves to no end. But what we've been able to build over these years is a testament that working together can accomplish something great.

We, the admin team, understand the desire to have a filter implemented to separate editors; it seems clean and easy. We've reviewed the history of the filter and by our assessment it has failed in two ways. First, it has many false-positives, edits made in good faith which were stopped. Second, it removed the responsibility of collaboration away from two editors and imposed the belief that it cannot be done. We disagree with the latter.

Each edit the two of you have made over your years in the wiki community are valuable as they have helped the us take steps forward in our imperfect understanding of Tyria. And our understanding is imperfect. We need the perspectives that the two of you hold, even if they disagree. They help us shed light on hidden topics or point out possible connections between disparate happenings. And as to where the topics are grey or in dispute, we ask you to discuss the issue with each other rather than raise an argument.

A zero-revert stance is an achievable goal, one we hope both editors acknowledge and respect. If this plan fails, the admin team will take appropriate steps including but not limited to the implementation of a filter. Greener (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Konig has asked me to post a response on his behalf because he's on the road and has spotty internet. He would like to try the zero-reverts policy, but he thinks that the rules on what constitutes a "revert" should be laid out explicitly, since sometimes he and Santax will write over the other instead of literally reverting. In his words:
"How would I or he go about seeing an obvious error and fixing it. Especially if "changing aspects of the article he had written" is a revert (I would argue that it isn't since it isn't reverting to the previous state). If "changing something he changed" is considered a revert - either by just him or by externals - then that is no different than the filter. We just can't leave it at "don't revert each other" if something likr the DSD article changes is considered a revert."
Idris User Idris signature.png 19:12, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
We could look to the well-tested example of the Wikipedia community for a definition. According to Wikipedia:Edit warring, "The zero-revert rule means a complete prohibition on reverts (as defined for the purpose of the three-revert rule) and is imposed on editors", where a "revert" as defined for the purpose of the three-revert rule is "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert". I think the DSD article changes would, under this definition, be considered a revert, and that the way to settle the dispute would be to either discuss first and agree on an approach, or edit the article in a way that accommodates both viewpoints rather than editing it in such a way to establish the supremacy of one viewpoint over another. Santax (talk · contribs) 19:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Konig asked me not to respond to this one on his behalf, so just a heads up that it may be a couple of days before he's able to get back to you. —Idris User Idris signature.png 21:20, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Let me start by apologizing for what started this. It was a very bad month for me in general, and the 19th to 21st was the worst of it and it affected my reaction to things. How I responded to being called out as reverting was most definitely too hasty and the reaction too greatly influenced by my mood.
I am more than willing to try to work with Santax, and believe I already have. Both Elder race and Talk:Kryta#Splitting the article can attest to such. Counter to some views that I cannot work with anyone on lore articles, I’ve had no issues with User:Kossage, even despite some disagreements in methods. So long as Santax remains willing, I see no reason why I cannot work with him or anyone else as well.
However, given the above and User talk:Santax discussions, I am doubtful that Santax is also willing. The suggestion of "a blanket zero-revert policy between Konig and all other editors", defining reverts as "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part", effectively means that I would be unable to edit any content on the wiki that was ever edited by another user. Or as he put it "he cannot revert anything except obvious vandalism". I cannot consent to Santax’s request, as it feels like he’s not-so-subtly telling me to gtfo. In truth, I’m unsure the zero-revert policy with the Wikipedia definitions would be any different than the filter that, as User:Greener said, is flawed.
In a general sense I’m fine with a zero-revert policy between Santax and myself, but I believe people would grow tired if we came to others just to fix a small typo, add a source for {{citation needed}} tags, or other simple maintenance edits that don’t alter the context of the sentence. As such, something less restrictive than the Wikipedia definitions is more ideal. Konig (talk) 02:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I think you're misinterpreting the definition of a revert. Maintenance edits aren't reverts - they're expanding and building on the work of others. Santax (talk · contribs) 08:50, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Insecure connection[edit]

When attempting to visit the wiki at work, I get an insecure connection error. On the site information drop down (Firefox), under Connection info, I see that the "Connection Is Not Secure". This is a new issue, as I was able to use the wiki up until about a week ago. SigShaneTalk 13:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)