Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Admin noticeboard/Archive 2011

I want to delete stuff

There are more or less 400 pieces of concept art to be moved around. Now that the only source of conflict regarding those moves has been solved, all links to each image are also being fixed to the moved page. It's going to create around 400 orphaned move remnant articles to be deleted. The only sysop who really takes care of that kind of thing is Tanetris, and I wouldn't like to overload him with this stuff.
So, I'm asking for temporary sysop rights so I can delete all the orphaned image move remnants as I create them, and pretty much nothing else. It's for a small purpose, but those candidates for deletion are beginning to pile up. Erasculio 22:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Mass deletion is what Wikichu is for. pling 22:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That works, too (now that poke is inactive, is there someone who knows how to operate the bot?), although Wikichu would be more useful after the fact - if we wait until all 400 image redirects have been tagged for deletion, Wikichu could delete them rather quickly, but I wouldn't like to wait until then and have so many candidates for deletion lying around. Is it possible to make the bot delete the move remnants as they are created, as opposed to making a mass deletion once they have all been tagged? Erasculio 01:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Whether they sit there or not, they shouldn't be harming the wiki. Just tag em, and they'll get deleted eventually. I don't understand what the adamant rush is. Venom20 03:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that they would flood the deletion list, making it difficult for admins to get any real deletion work done. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 05:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It's probably worth noting that, if you could provide a list of what to move where, Wikichu could presumably do the moving and have it not create redirects in the first place. Also, Poke's not all that inactive, can just give him a poke on GWW.

Asidely, I don't mind doing move remnant deletions. They're pretty quick and brainless, so sometimes it's nice to knock out a bunch and feel like I'm doing something besides just watching. - Tanetris 05:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Nice, I didn't know admin moves do not create redirects. That would be perfect, since I'm already making a list of what needs to be moved where anyway. However, what happens with the links to a file which is moved without leaving a redirect? Would the links just lead to an empty uncreated page, would they lead to something like a deleted page, or would they somehow be magically fixed so they points to the right place? Depending of how that works, it may be better to change the links before the move, instead of after as I have been doing. Erasculio 08:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

“now that poke is inactive” – where does that come from? Nevertheless, give me a list of pages and it will be done. And yes, if there is a mass move beforehand, it would probably be wise to do that with a bot too.. poke | talk 15:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and fixing the links to those pages can be done by a bot as well btw. poke | talk 15:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, you have had almost no contributions for a while : P Here's a list of images to be moved, per the discussion(s) at the concept art category. Those are not the full 400, but moving those would make renaming the rest easier (and I want to see how that works, it's good to know that Wikichu can fix the links as well). Erasculio 01:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) ...So? We have been waiting for a bit now in order to the image moving to start. Erasculio 10:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Erasculio, my notebook is broken (again), so it will take a bit longer.. poke | talk 11:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick update on this, I'll make a list tomorrow, of what I'll prepare to be done, and you can take a last look at it before I run, so you can make sure that there is no outdated stuff in there. poke | talk 22:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, this is my work list. There is one conflict with some Kodan concept art (at the bottom), what to do about that? Btw. I plan to move without leaving a redirect, is that okay? poke | talk 09:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not Eras, but: Note that the conflicting file is also one of the ones to be moved (from 07 to 05). And yes, not leaving a redirect is the main point of using Wikichu. - Tanetris 21:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Huh, I totally missed this, being busy (and kinda sick) these last days, sorry. The kodan conflict is meant to be as you are showing in your work list (image 07 would be moved to 05, leaving room so the other image could be moved to 07). The idea was to not leave redirects, but ideally the move would also change the current links so we avoid the need for redirects entirely; is that possible?

I also have just changed my original list a bit, by changing a few files (I added some to the Charr architecture section and some to the armor section). Would you like me to change your work list, to change my own list back so you can just use your current work list, or something else? Erasculio 21:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Please go ahead and change my list, that way it is in a format, I can easily parse with Wikichu. Also I totally didn't notice that the conflicting one was going to be moved as well, lol :) poke | talk 22:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

With a gazillion images, it's eaasy to lose track : ) I have updated the list. There's a hole of three images at the armor concept art as I have just uploaded images under the proper name, so there is no 07, 08 or 09. That's something known, not a mistake. Erasculio 22:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the update. I'll try to get this done by tomorrow. poke | talk 23:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. poke | talk 17:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm late, I know, but I just saw some of the moves and I'm a bit confused - isn't the naming scheme "File:Official title concept art.jpg"? Why have we got things like "File:Dragon 06 concept art (The Dragon Head).jpg"? pling 18:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, poke. Must have been a lot of work to format the Wikichu task list like that, we're going to change the formatting of the "Images to be moved" section so next time you don't have to do that. I was kinda hoping that the move would also edit the links to the images; the move created quite a few red links around the wiki. Erasculio 17:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

“I was kinda hoping that the move would also edit the links to the images” – Oh, you didn't say that, so I didn't even think about it :P poke | talk 18:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Well, good to know it's not a technical limitation : P Next time hopefully we'll be able to do that. Erasculio 22:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The list of candidates for deletion...

...Is somewhat close to 100 entries, a couple of which are one month old, and all but 7 entries have been green lit; while that doesn't mean all those entries can be deleted, it would be nice if some admin could delete the unquestioned stuff there so we could finish discussing whatever remains. Erasculio 01:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Not to be blunt or anything, but chill out. The wiki about an unreleased video game isn't going to collapse under the weight of a long delete list. This isn't exactly the first section you've started on this topic. Just let it weed itself out. -Auron 03:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe Era ever lost his temper, so he can't chill out. He's simply mentioning that there are pages that need to be deleted, which is exactly what the Admin noticeboard is for. Eive 05:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Not to speak for Auron, but I believe it is in reference to more than one request to have these files deleted. I don't understand the rush personally, and as Poke has already pointed out, he's having some computer issues. Once things are up and ready I'm sure they'll get deleted. Venom20 06:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The topic at the top of the page hasn't had a comment in almost a month. The one below it, involving Era bringing up a problem that would result from re-categorizing concept art and requesting temporary sysop status, along with Poke's temporary absence later on, is an entirely different issue. No offense to the lovely awesome sysops who keep this wiki running everyday, but there is more than one. So Poke's incapacitation shouldn't stop anything. And ~100 pages doesn't seem like much to delete. Again, not trying to insult the sysops, so please don't take it that way. Eive 06:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

You do know that guild wars 2 isn't out yet, right? And it won't be until 2012 at the earliest? The delete tagged list will be pruned when the sysops delete shit. Every sysop knows where to find the candidates for deletion page. Posting on the admin noticeboard to inform us of something we already see is unnecessary. If there is a page that must be deleted to make way for a move or some other time-sensitive thing, definitely bring it to our attention - but a broad "the candidates for deletion page has stuff to delete" is entirely unnecessary. It was unnecessary the first time he did it, but since it was the first time, I didn't comment. This is now the third time he's brought it up, and it's every bit as unnecessary as it was the first time, so I'm now commenting on it.

The chill out is not implying he's angry. Erasculio and I have edited long enough to understand that. The chill out simply means "stop bringing it up, we know" or possibly "shut up, thanks" without being rude. -Auron 09:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah c'mon, it isn't the third time I do this : P The section at the top of this page was to finally settle discussion on some old candidates for deletion that had not been deleted since there was no consensus to keep them or not, and the other section was about the concept art images issue (which is a different problem, and it's what we're waiting poke for since he's the only one who knows how to use the bot). It may be too OCD by my part to want to keep the candidates for deletion list nearly empty, but helps me to take away things from my "wiki stuff to do" list. Don't worry, I won't mention this again. Erasculio 11:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

So I heard Tane took care of some of them. Maybe. ;P - Infinite - talk 12:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Activity Levels

As much as I hate seeing more red in the admin list, I would like to bring up the fact that Gares and Aiiane have both been inactive for several months now. And I would also like to bring up the fact that if Poke is experiencing technical difficulties, then I doubt Wikichu will be active at all anytime soon. So I would suggest that Gares, Aiiane and Wikichu all be re-categorized as inactive for the time being. (It's not really a pressing matter, just thought I would bring it up.) Aqua (T|C) 23:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

While Aii may not be visibly contributing, she can still be reached when needed, which I think qualifies well enough for semi-active. No clue about Gares, but I'd try poking his talk page before jumping to conclusions. - Tanetris 00:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I was just basing it on what I see. Notably for Gares: there is a 4 month gap since his last edit. I'll check it out though. Aqua (T|C) 03:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't really get how my personal technical limitations have anything to do with Wikichu's displayed activity level.. As long as I am not inactive (which I'm really not, just quiet), Wikichu is available as well. poke | talk 22:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it was based on the belief that your computer was broken. Obviously it was incorrect. Eive 10:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

There's been a recent technology advance called the internet whereby people can access the wiki from virtually any computer! I think they have it in Europe too. 16:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Only in Iceland, due to the sheer concentration of debts around the world. It just claimed it. - Infinite - talk 16:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It stemmed from the fact that Poke has said Wikichu was unavailable due to some technical problem. Aqua (T|C) 01:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for taking so long to respond. I fell out of my chair.

I do get poked when a post is made on my talk page and check my email daily-ish. Some admins can notify me instantly should the need arise. However, until I can break away from my temporary absence, I do consider myself inactive. Hope that helps. — Gares 23:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Dth666dlr's Suggestion

← moved to User_talk:Dth666dlr

other

If the vandalism does not cease, is there a way to prohibit non logged in accounts from making any edits? At least for a few days? --Moto Saxon 05:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, doubt anyone will do it though. Either way, my opinion on not allowing IPs to edit mainspace remains the same. 05:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

No one should do it, because that precludes people who for whatever reason do not have an account to not be able to contribute. Should we presume, like on GW Wiki, that all people WITH accounts have no interest other than just making sure their vision of the wiki comes through because a few do? Not likely. It is not right to punish all without an account because some are vandals. Once someone is found to be a vandal, then block that person. 69.183.22.23 15:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Equally, the good IPs could just register. - Infinite - talk 15:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a dueling laziness argument. IPs are too lazy to create accounts and admins are sick of having to tip-toe around IPs just to be sure they're only blocking the bad ones. Mind you, as seen often on GW1W, vandals do create accounts just to vandalize. However, I'm of the opinion that the safety of the wiki is a higher priority than appeasing lazy, self-centered IPs. If they're too lazy to create accounts to ensure a safer, easier wiki then they don't have to edit. "Safety, first!" Teddy Dan 18:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I use a complicated password that I pretty much have to copy and paste because I can't be botherered remembering it (so yes, in a way I am lazy :D ). So when I want to make edits on a work computer, I do it as an IP. As long as it's only the mainspace that's locked from IP editing, and not the discussion pages, I'm all for it. --Xu Davella 203.46.11.172 01:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm against a blanket ban on IPs. As an admin, I'm not "sick of having to tip-toe around IPs". A vandalising IP results in no (or negligible) net loss; blanket-banning an IP who wants to make an edit but for whatever reason doesn't register or sign in results in a net loss of his contributions. pling 19:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking of range-banning and how it has proven detrimental to innocent IPs in the past. You either lose potentially legitimate contributions or risk continued vandalism. On another note, my main argument here was whose laziness is more significant than another's? Is convenience more important than safety? I'm not trying to stir ____ up, I just want to know where the collective view stands. I'm not a fan of wasting my time by raising valid points that nobody cares about. Teddy Dan 19:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a particular side on the issue, but vandalism can always be undone. Curious, though, can selective IPs be exempted from such a blanket-ban? --ஸ Kyoshi 00:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't think admins are lazy about blocking vandals - it's a pretty quick and easy thing to do, and it keeps us on our toeses. Also, a fair amount of people (users and admins) like doing the "RC patrol" when they're bored. Overall, vandalism is a relatively easy thing to deal with. pling 13:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

When they're bored? Oh... :< But yes, I RC patrol most of the day and there's always admins on IRC for me to report to if it's serious. Vandalism doesn't really stand a chance (as long as I have no life)! - Infinite - talk 13:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) yes, but what about when the vandal has no life, and vandalizes everything and constantly changes their IP just so they can't be IP banned? Is it possible to track the user's MAC address and MAC ban them? This recent vandalism issue is more than just a minor annoyance as per usual... ~~ Kiomadoushi 00:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Banning IP's completely would make things so much simpler and easier for everyone. If you're too lazy to take 60 seconds out of your life to register I would question your right to be on the internet, much less be dicking with the mainspace. Regardless, an IP ban is the most efficient way to take care of IP vandals. --Briar AHOY! 04:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Given the more recent outbreak, I'm inclined to agree that an IP ban, at least temporarily, would be beneficial. If nothing else it would slow down the interval of vandalism by that 60 seconds. I think it would be better if we just got a good captcha or something, but I assume that's something more on ANet's end. --ஸ Kyoshi 04:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh god ANet please no captcha. Captcha makes internets suck. --Briar AHOY! 04:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

There's at least that simple math calculation thing on the login, which could possibly be used for anon IP editors. IMO mainspace should be protected from IP edits, like Xu suggested (I think it was a suggestion?). The game isn't even out yet, and I don't think there will be an awful lot of information suddenly leaking from anywhere either. Protecting mainspace would also encourage registering... The bots are not easy to predict and sometimes it feels like there's 5 people patrolling RC at the same time which wastes the time of everyone else except the one who actually reverted the vandalism (at least I feel like this about 2/3 of the time, dunno about you).Mediggo 06:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if this is a silly question, my knowledge of these things is limited. But is it possible to either add one of those random word image generaters to posting, to stop bots? Or is there some way all posts could be set up to require veting first? I know the latter is a bit extreme and time consuming, so probably not the greatest idea, but thought I'd put the idea there to see if either is possible. The problem with vandal bots is they can change IP and the person who initiated it can just leave it running, so it's not like the bot will get bored. Sorry if they're silly suggestions, I'm just trying to think of a way to prevent this from happening in the future. Rin Aki 08:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

"random word image generaters" I think you mean captchas, which I believe is ANet's domain. I don't think vetting is practical given the number of minor edits that go on and (even if we ignore minor edits) the number of edits that would have to be sorted through by a certain number of people for an amount of time every day (not to mention the timeliness of a comment being nullified by the gap between vetting). That would get really tiresome really quickly.

I think easy math problems would be fine for anon edits. Whatever it is, even if it's just one-time for a user creation or whatever, either that or captchas would definitely help. I'm personally in favor of either (a) math for anon edits or (b) no anon edits and captcha at user creation. --ஸ Kyoshi 18:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Math and Captcha for user creation, IP ban. And given that you don't even have to confirm the account with a real email address (I've used made up ones before) I don't think its too much to ask that people put in a RaNdOmNaMe2212 in order to post. Normally I'd say "My vote goes for this" But seeing as that would probably spark yet another discussion about what is or isn't consensus, I will end with saying This will is guaranteed to stop the IP vandals. guaranteed. --Briar AHOY! 04:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

We just installed AbuseFilter, and it seems to be catching the bulk of these vandal bots and disallowing their actions - see Special:AbuseLog. I think only a few IPs have gotten around it, but maybe the filters can be improved; even if they can't, they're not disruptive enough to require a full IP ban. pling 16:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Works for me. --ஸ Kyoshi 16:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

{{delete}} and bot-/vandal-generated articles

This has been bugging me for a while now, so I suppose I'd rather just leave a comment on it here.
I recall admins inform users of the protocol that, when tagging bot/vandalism articles for deletion, contributors are to leave the original content on the article and simply slapping a deletion tag onto it. However, a quick glance at the recent changes definitely implies otherwise.
My question is therefore quite simple: What do the admins prefer the community to do when dealing with deletion regarding these type of articles?
Should the original content remain untouched and preceded by a speedy deletion tag or should the content be replaced by a speedy deletion tag? - Infinite - talk 19:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

If the page title alone is reason enough for the deletion, you may as well replace it. Otherwise please keep the content on the page, so the admins can quickly see what is actually being deleted (and why). poke | talk 20:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I prefer leaving the content on the page and just putting a tag at the top. I check the history anyway, but it's still helpful. pling 16:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I've recently cleared content below delete tags, due to what Poke said above. I'd never do it to a (allegedly) redundant article or anything, but if the page is titled "hurr durr dating websites", then why would you need to see the content? I daresay all current Sysops can glance at it and quickly come to a decision on if it should be deleted.

On articles, I think it's right to show the content unless consensus is against doing so (by deleting the page). However, on obvious spam which makes the wiki look bad and unprofessional, there's no reason to show their advertisements and / or gibberish.

Note: Not an admin, just my $0.02 A F K When Needed 04:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I make a note of deleting content on pages where there are links to potentially harmful websites. If necessary, I can just remove the links instead, and leave the guts of the content on the page. --Xu Davella 08:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm slightly towards the idea of leaving the content, but also realize that it looks less professional. For clear vandalism pages, it can be nice to see if there's a trend in the vandalism w/o having to go to the history. But, either way is fine for me. --JonTheMon 14:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Auron requested me on my talkpage to leave the content in place, for the same reasons as Pling said. I'm fine with it on either way. -- Cyan 14:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

In general I'd prefer to have the content unaltered, except in cases of illicit links or graphic erotica. 20:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Running along those lines, for more offensive material, would it be possible to place a tag that hides page content, and is not revealable for someone who isn't signed into a wiki account? Therefore offensive/malicious material can be blocked from the general public's view, but still revealable (and thus revertible if necessary) by logged-in wiki users, thus giving such a page a more professional look with minimal effort on the part of contributors? Darke 02:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

@Darke: You essentially summed up what deletion is; sysops can still view deleted pages in the event they need to be restored. Aqua (T|C) 02:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

@Aqua I realize that, it'd be a lower level deletion, if you will, for the more grey-area cases. In short, ability to hide content before it is deleted/sustained by sysops, instead of relying on their presence when offensive content is created. Increase potential workload for the user majority (contributors), buy potential time for the user minority (administration). True, the staff here are excellent, but reviewing trigger happy delete sprees should be a task that can be set aside if necessary without leaving such content easily exposed to minors/those susceptible to offense. Darke 04:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

What you suggest is effectively the same thing as letting any registered user delete something. The reason we have a separate admin group at all is because we can't trust all registered users with administrative tools like deletion. pling 18:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

In extreme cases of offensive content you could use the tags <!-- {content} --> to visually hide the article's content. That would be extreme cases, not general use and definitely not protocol. When editing you can read my comment to see what the tags do right here. - Infinite - talk 20:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh, many thanks Infinite, I'd neglected that. One quick question; is there a particular piece of text which denotes fair use of such a tag? One thing that bugs me about wikis in general is the lack of documentation on exactly what classifies as "extreme nature". Relevance to the wiki's subject is always the guideline I've used for this sort of thing, but that doesn't really cover gross misappropriation of content or some rants I've seen in the past about particular profession releases, for example. Forgive me if I seem pedantic, I'd just rather have solid reference now than be a part of revert wars later. Thanks again Darke 21:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Seeing how this wiki documents a Rated-T game, I assume anything that is surpassing this rating would be a good indicator (think sexual topics, as T-rating isn't excluding much else) for the use of a tag. I do agree that it would be nice to have a solid reference, but there is no such reference in place yet. In general, tagging it for deletion will suffice in almost any case. I understand the worry, though. - Infinite - talk 22:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

what to do?

User:XDoriaKiddq is clearly a bot and advertiser but the information is located on it's userpage so what is the right way to handle this? --The Holy Dragons 11:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Same as if it was anywhere else. Deleted and blocked. - Tanetris 13:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

ok I'll know for later now, Thanks Tane. --The Holy Dragons 14:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Admins - responding to vandal reports

Even if you saw the vandal in RC or whatever, you've probably still got this page on your watchlist, so it should be updated when you block a reported vandal. pling 15:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I spent some time updating the list with various mafia-themed replies, but I ran out of ideas and the list got really long. 17:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)