PvXwiki:Admin noticeboard

The Admin noticeboard

There are a number of issues that can only be solved by an Administrator. The Admin noticeboard is one of the means through which users can contact Administrators in order to identify a problem that needs Administrative attention. Although editors are welcome to directly contact particular Administrators, posting on this page instead may be an easier way to let the entire Administrative group know of the issue (which may be particularly helpful since it increases the odds that at least one Administrator will see, and thus be able to respond to, the issue promptly).

There are only a limited number of things for which this page should be used. Many problems can be solved without Administrative intervention, and, thus, this page should be restricted to those issues that actually require an Administrator. Those are: blocking vandals, (un)deleting pages, (un)protecting pages, removing votes (either as per Real Vetting or because the build has been substantially edited), and mediation (only if the situation demands it).

Even in cases of vandalism, posting on this page needn't be the first step (and indeed should not be the first step). If you see vandalism, just go ahead and revert it, anyone has the power to do so. If it's a new article with no safe version to revert back to, tag it for deletion. In both cases you should leave a message in the talk page of that user to make him/her aware of why that kind of edit is unacceptable on PvXwiki. Only post here if that user persists in his/her actions, ignoring the warnings or if the content requires immediate Administrative attention (eg. if the material on the page is so offensive that should be immediately deleted).

(Be careful in case that user repeatedly insists on vandalizing, avoid a revert war; it's far better to temporarily leave the vandalized version of the page up until an admin has a chance to intervene.)

To create a new request: add an item to the bottom of the list below, providing a brief, neutral summary of the issue. As a sign of courtesy, also leave a message on the talk page of any other involved users so they are aware of this discussion. If you are alerting an admin of a vandal, use the {{IP}} template, with the first parameter being the vandal's IP or username. If you are requesting that vote(s) be removed, please use the {{Build}} template, with the first parameter being the build's name.

Note that this is not a talk page and that the respective moderators of each section reserve the right to remove non-administrative comments without discussion.

Please place new requests at the bottom of the corresponding issues heading.

General Issues

General problems, such as user conduct, vandalism, and bans. Also, suggestions can be posted here. All can be resolved by an Administrator. See resolved General Issues here.

If you're having troubles with your Authentication E-Mail see here and here

User:Baklvon

Not reporting myself =P, I just have been encountering issues creating pages in my own userspace. halp? b@klvon 21:30, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

can you be more specific? (as a general "cover all" solution check our New User Guide) ~ PheNaxKian talk 22:02, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Every time I try to create a page in my sandbox, it gives me this message: "You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason: You are not allowed to execute the action you have requested." No idea why. b@klvon 05:47, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

It will let me edit it. Does this have anything to do with Autoconfirmed usergroup? (Email is valid and activated) Juze 08:05, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

no, auto confirmed doesn't prevent you editing unless an admin protects it as such.

that's odd....I can quite happily create pages, and I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to...I'd suggest contacting Wikia (via Special:Contact). Chances are they'll know what the hell is going on =s. ~ PheNaxKian talk 09:53, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

And on a more pertinent note to this section thread... User:Phenaxkian deleted my sandbox at User:Baklvon/Sandbox. So..... I'm a little PO'd. b@klvon 17:57, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

huh? I don't remember doing that >>. Restored, sorry about that. ~ PheNaxKian talk 18:03, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

=D its okay, thanks for giving my whiny not mattering-ness some thought. b@klvon 20:11, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Kjthoma23 (talk · contribs · logs · check user · block user · block log)

Constantly vandalizing the wiki, posting dupes, naming the builds as "hat", making builds use 206/200 attributes, making builds have 8 elite skills, not using preview button at all, breaks everything... etc etc. This guy is very weird. Juze 07:43, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Resolved. Half that shit shouldnt be on the noticeboard though. Life Guardian 08:18, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Build-Specific Issues

Build-Specific refers to any issue pertaining to the removal of votes, usually resolved by an Administrator. See resolved issues here.

If you wish to dispute another user's vote, it is advised to do so on the build's talk page. This section of the noticeboard is intended to notify Admins of issues that can be speedily resolved (e.g. factually incorrect votes) or issues in need of mediation. Avoid debating builds or votes here.

Note: If applicable, please identify specific votes to improve admin response time.

N/A_Contagion_Bomber (talk · rate)

I suggest a vote wipe considering the vast majority of votes have extremely poor to no reasoning. This shows extreme inconsistency in pvx vetting policy enforcement. There has also been alot of drama related to the build, people who vote 5-5-x have been passionately bashing those of us (like myself) who voted slightly lower yet actually provided reasoning. Imo enforcing that people explain their vote's effectiveness and universality rating would be a good source of admin intervention in the problem. Smity 00:25, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

It's a meta build so it doesn't really matter.--TahiriVeila 00:31, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Provide the pvx policy which states that meta builds are exempt from regular vetting policy. Smity 00:35, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

PvX:VETTING. It states that HA/GvG builds don't even need to be vetted, but once a lower-end build has been vetted and placed in Meta, voting is really no longer necessary. Call it admin discretion or whatever if you like. The point is, the build is meta in JQ (and this is easily confirmed), so it doesn't matter whether we vet it good or great. ToraenTheJanitor 00:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

(EC)As I already explained, the votes were from before the enforcement of reasoning in ratings, and we made a decision to not retroactively remove votes that didn't provide sufficient reasoning. There is no benefit from a vote wipe since it is already in Good-Meta anyway (and it will just end up there again). Relyk (the one primarily bashing you) voted good on the build as well, not 5-5-x. ToraenTheJanitor 00:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Relyk hates me because he hates himself, but he is not the person I am refering to. See the last several talk sections on the build page and also my talk page. There IS a reason to do a vote wipe since it will end the debate over votes on the bomber. Also, you can thank KJ for this coming to the AN. Smity 00:43, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

No, it won't. Also, vote wipes aren't supposed to be used for getting rid of some votes a user takes issue with. They're for clearing votes on heavily modified builds since the old votes would be invalid. ToraenTheJanitor 01:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

PvXwiki:Real_Vetting. No where in here do I see anything which would exemplify the bomber's votes from removal because a build is meta/old. Infact, it provides a list of rules applying to votes, and uses the verb "must" in relation to these rules being followed. You have not provided any grounds for the bomber's votes to be exempt from these policies; a vote wipe, or simply a mass removal of unacceptable votes is in order. Smity Smitington 01:26, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to PvX, where we do not adhere to policies strictly even when it would be harmful/pointless. The policies are also poorly written as a result of being cobbled together with different parts over time, so we apply common sense to our actions. There was what amounts to an executive decision a while back where we realized a lot of people where providing little to no reasoning in votes. The decision was to enforce the policy on votes after that, but not retroactively throw every build on the site back into testing (I've said this three times now, what part of that did you not understand?). I'll go through and remove votes that lack reasoning on the bomber, since there's enough left over to leave it vetted in Good. Note that this is the category it is currently in. Hence why I have viewed this entire debacle as a huge waste of time. ToraenTheJanitor 01:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Team - PvE Hexes (talk · rate)

Aside from the fact that everything besides maybe the rit bar is utterly cut-and-paste, non-innovative, and easy enough for anyone to put together, the build is pretty decent. But it's so simple (and it's not even the best you can run), I don't see the point of it being here. - Jai.

Remove vote, his vote lacks any logic comparing a build to a "cut and paste" team, along with calling it non-innovative. Remove his vote seeing he lacks any reason to even vett on it whatsoever besides the innovative factor whereas only a single person added innovation in there vote. Vincent Evan [Air Henchman] 21:13, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Done and done. Karate Jesus 21:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Team - 2 Man Physical Support (talk · rate)

The first voter lacks the mandatory amount of edits to vote. Remove. Vincent Evan [Air Henchman] 21:14, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

It's a matter of both edits and time, and he's been here since 2009. Should be considerably long enough to know how to vote. Give a more appropriate reason for removal. Karate Jesus 21:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

General Coding Issues

Please use The Wikia Noticeboard. Old resolved issues can be found here.

PvXcode Issues

Please use The Wikia Noticeboard. Old resolved issues can be found here.