UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard/Archive 14

This is an archive of past UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page, except for maintenance such as updating links.

Warnings Policy

As mentioned under Section Protection, our policy forbids the alteration of official warning messages. In the short term, this makes plenty of sense, but should we have a policy that allows for removal after x-period of good behaviour? We don't want to drive off good-faith editors by forcing them to retain a warning on their talk page forever! Or do we just want to handle this on a case-by-case basis? (In which case, I'd say we should mention that in our policy.)

Also, I'd like to suggest that we copy that policy to a more logical location (like the Messages page and perhaps Warnings as well) and change the warning to explicitly mention deletion as well, especially in light of the fact that this differs from Wikipedia policy. I think "deletion" is implied by the words "alter" and "tamper", but it's best to be clear. Anybody else have thoughts on this? —Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 04:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't they move the warnings to an archive? --Michaeldsuarez ^{(Talk) (Deeds)} 14:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

No, since it the times it happened, they archived merely minuted after they received the warning.

I don't know if they should be allowed to remove it. It depends on if someone would get blocked for doing something wrong 6 months after their first warning. If not, then they should be able to remove it. Since, I see the warnings as partially a guide for administrators to sum up their behavior that they may have missed. And they shouldn't have to scour a bunch of archives in order to find it. I guess I am fine with an archive after X amount of time, but we would need something a tad more concrete for it to be policy. –Elliot ^talk 15:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The way the warnings policy has been applied recently is incorrect. Section protection is designed to stop tampering with official warnings - for example, edits like [1] and this. That's why the word "tampering" is used in the policy. Archiving warnings is explicitly allowed on Wikipedia here, and UESP has always taken WP as a base where no other explicit policy exists.

Until anybody wants to propose a change to the warnings policy, people are allowed to archive any warnings on their page.

Please will an admin or patroller remove the section protection from my talk page so I can follow site policy? –rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 21:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

While that's all well and good, it seems like a minor cop-out to archive soon after. I guess I am not opposed to removing it, I don't want to step on anyone's toes. –Elliot ^talk 22:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No can do, especially because we actually do have a policy on that right here. As you will notice, there are no stated exceptions for archiving. This is too keep warnings and blocks from being lost in the depths of talk page histories/archives (so that future editors can see that bad behavior from users may be part of a trend, and so they can act accordingly. That being said, I do believe that it would be in the spirit of the policy to move them to a subpage called 'Warnings' that was linked off of the User Talk page, but I think even that should wait a little while since your block just expired.--Ratwar 22:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - I was asking active editors. The full policy is as I described, and a personal dislike of one admin for one user isn't the basis for a decision. The policy regarding section protection is a later addition and therefore takes precedence. I know - I was there when Nephele wrote it. –rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 22:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Ratwar is active as an admin, even if his edit count per se is low. I'm sure I don't need to direct you of all people to the various activity logs. :) He may still not be as active as he once was, but the activity on the site isn't as great as it once was, and I know a great many people needed (and some are still on) a wiki-break after recent events. In addition, I know from personal experience that Ratwar's also quite active on IRC, and it's my understanding that he's active in the forums as well. And last I heard, frequency of editing or performing the various admin duties wasn't a prerequisite to have an opinion at a site you've been an admin at for close onto 3 years now. I doubt if you'd have allowed someone to dismiss your points so easily after any of your wiki-breaks, so it's hardly fair for you to expect anything different here. I don't say this to be a jacka**, just to be fair to all involved.

But as to the matter at-hand, my understanding of Section Protection is that it was designed to prevent exactly the scenario described above. We do and always have (or at least since I've been here) differ from Wikipedia on this. Warning messages stay on the user page. Period. I don't see the word "tampering" as in any way overriding the previous policy, but simply summarizing it in a single word rather than going into unnecessary detail. If you require further proof that this is our policy as understood by Nephele, here is one example that I found within a few minutes where Nephele restored a deleted warning. I don't think anybody has previously tried the "archiving" argument, but that's still a form of deletion or tampering, since it makes the warning harder to find for an admin or patroller, possibly leading them to assume that a situation requires less serious action than it actually does. —Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 23:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let's not make this a personal discussion.

I thin after a month of good behavior they should be able to be removed. And they must be active during that month. It is like the forums, where warnings can be removed after 6 months. I really don't see it as being an issue. If they see the warning, understand it, then why do we have to eternally brand them? One thing I would like to see though, is to blank blocked members user pages so they don't end up in categories where they don't belong. –Elliot ^talk 23:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the section protection from rpeh's talk page. This is in agreement with involved parties and rpeh agreed to archive the warning and block notice to a seperate archive. --Timenn-<talk> 22:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Database Corruption

Following the instructions "Please report this to an administrator", please see here: Oblivion:Sanguine/Description. Joram 21:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems there has been a problem with recent deletions. Pages are showing up in some lists (eg Special:AllPages) but not others (eg the link you just provided). The bot API is also affected - trying to load OB:Garlas Agea/Description has currently been hanging RoBoT for about 5 mins. –rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 21:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. We've not yet figured it out, but I just posted a message on Daveh's talk page here. If you see I've missed anything, feel free to chime in. --GK^Talk2me 21:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Two of those pages are appearing on Special:UncategorizedPages too, along with Lore Books, which I've previously mentioned to Daveh as being a problem. –rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 09:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

There were a few tables with the "clients are using or haven't closed the table properly" error which I have just fixed (explaining the site slowness for the past 10 minutes or so). I'm not sure if this was the cause of the issues but see if anything has changed. -- Daveh 14:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it - they're still showing on Special:UncategorizedPages and give the same error. We might need to wait for the job queue to catch up though. –rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 16:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the raw database it appears as though there are four pages with the same issue:

All four pages have page entry but no corresponding revision record. Were these pages deleted/moved or what process was used to lose them (and was it the same one)? The previous database errors might have caused an issue with MediaWiki while it was moving/deleting the records which left the database in an inconsistent state. I can manually edit the database to fix it but want to make sure I'm doing the right thing first. -- Daveh 17:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The only two I know about are the two /Description pages, which GK deleted recently (within the last 5 days or so). The other two... I have no idea. –rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 18:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

(u/d) We have more database problems. The WantedCategories page is showing four categories that were recently deleted as "wanted". They aren't. None of those four Description or Author categories have any pages or media in them, so it seems to be more DB corruption. The entry for "Oblivion-Place Descriptions" might be caused by the still-problematic "Oblivion:Garlas Agea/Description", but if so I'd expect to see OB-Quest Descriptions too (for "Oblivion:Sanguine/Description").

These will probably need direct hacking of the Links table to remove, which is something only Daveh can do. rpeh •T•C•E• 11:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

When a page is deleted, the revisions move from the revision table to the archive table. Are the revisions for the articles in the archive table?

As for the category links, after these problematic pages have been dealt with, you can run the RefreshLinks.php maintenance script to fix the link tables. If that fails, hit it with a hammer. -- Nx / talk 00:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I tried this on my home wiki by deleting the revisions of a page from the revision table, but even after that I was able to edit the page and create a new revision, fixing the problem. But on UESP I get edit conflicts no matter what I do (the last edit date is always set to the current date, since the revision doesn't exist, but that isn't triggering an edit conflict on my home wiki. It's possible the caching setup on UESP is causing this). Did anyone try deleting the four blue articles? -- Nx / talk 10:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe GK did, without success. She should be online in a few hours and can confirm or deny then. rpeh •T•C•E• 12:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

See Dave's talk page where I posted details of what I attempted. Basically, I tried to undelete two of the red-links, the two subpages shown above, and that's why they're blue links now. Should I attempt to delete them again? --GK^talk2me 21:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do. At least if they're redlinks they won't show up on uncategorized pages and such. -- Nx / talk 21:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it's worked this time... They're off Special:UncategorizedPages and Special:DeadendPages. rpeh •T•C•E• 22:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but WantedCategories still isn't empty. Oh well, guess that will have to be cleared manually. -- Nx / talk 22:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed that. At least the other ones are done. Thanks for the help! rpeh •T•C•E• 22:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The categorylinks table probably has an entry with a page id that is not present in the page table. When you delete and restore a page, its entry in the page table is removed and readded with a new id, so it probably borked there. To find the offending entries:

select * from categorylinks where cl_to="Oblivion-Place Descriptions";

etc. -- Nx / talk 22:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Should I undelete and redelete the remaining eight in the list on Daveh's talk page? --GK^talk2me 22:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No, there's still something wrong with the database (you said you couldn't undelete when you tried, so you probably won't be able to do it now either). It doesn't really matter as long as those revisions are deleted, and the pages can be recreated. -- Nx / talk 22:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Table valign command

I tried to middle-align table cells on my user page and found they didn't work right. Does anybody know why the cells in this table are all top aligned? I tried it in different browsers and they were all the same. The same table on Wikipedia works as it should. I worked around it with the vmid class but valign still doesn't work.

{| class=wikitable
|1<br>
2<br>
3
|valign="top"|abc
|valign="middle"|def
|valign="baseline"|ghi
|valign="bottom"|jkl
|}

1 2 3	abc	def	ghi	jkl

Joram 07:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That's because http://www.uesp.net/w/skins/common/shared.css has

td,th,tr{vertical-align:top;}

which overrides the valign parameter. I don't thinkt that css should be there, but you can override it if you use css too:

1 2 3	abc	def	ghi	jkl

Here's some useful reference too: [2] -- Nx / talk 07:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I was a step behind you. I just figured out that the problem was in shared.css and that vertical-align worked. Then I came here and saw your reply.

Some of UESP's templates use valign so that should probably be removed. Joram 07:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like there's a lot of CSS in shared.css that should be in MediaWiki:common.css, see [3]. Shared.css is also missing some code, probably it wasn't updated to the MW1.14 version. -- Nx / talk 07:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This would have to be fixed by the site owner then. I hope nothing more important was missed. Joram 18:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No, any admin can fix it. Maybe one of 'em will notice this.... –rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 19:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought shared.css was only on the server. I haven't worked with CSS alot. ~~I downloaded MW 1.14.1 and posted shared.css here if needed.~~ Joram 19:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC), 20:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like I'm wrong about that - it does have to be replaced by somebody on the server. That means only Daveh and Nephele can do it. –rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 20:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, shared.css has to be replaced on the server, then the stuff in my sandbox should be pasted into common.css (though it might need some more tweaking, and I did not remove the line that's causing this problem) -- Nx / talk 22:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Update -- I've updated common.css and changed shared.css to the minified version above. -- Daveh 00:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This changed the title color for tables and possibly others. The forced vertical-align line should also be found and removed or stick with it and I can modify any templates that use valign. ? Joram?Talk 00:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like there's more custom code in http://www.uesp.net/w/skins/monobook/main.css, including the code for table colors. Previously this was loaded after the code in shared.css, but since that is now in Common.css, it's getting overriden. Give me a few minutes to look at it. -- Nx / talk 08:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, this is shorter. To only affect those using the monobook skin, put the following code into MediaWiki:Monobook.css:

table.wikitable,table.greylapse,table.graylapse {
background:#FDF5E6;
}

table.wikitable th,table.greylapse th,table.graylapse th {
background:#F5DEB3;
}

div.Boxmerge,div.NavFrame {
margin:0;
padding:2px;
border:1px solid #aaaaaa;
text-align:center;
border-collapse:collapse;
font-size:95%;
}

div.Boxmerge div.NavFrame {
border-style:hidden;
}

div.NavFrame + div.NavFrame {
border-top-style:hidden;
}

div.NavPic {
background-color:#ffffff;
margin:0;
padding:2px;
float:left;
}

div.NavFrame div.NavHead {
height:1.6em;
font-weight:bold;
font-size:100%;
background-color:#efefef;
position:relative;
}

div.NavFrame p {
font-size:100%;
}

div.NavFrame div.NavContent {
font-size:100%;
}

div.NavFrame div.NavContent p {
font-size:100%;
}

div.NavEnd {
margin:0;
padding:0;
line-height:1px;
clear:both;
}

a.NavToggle {
position:absolute;
top:0;
right:3px;
font-weight:normal;
font-size:smaller;
}

#coordinates {
position:absolute;
z-index:1;
border:none;
background:none;
right:30px;
top:3.7em;
float:right;
margin:0;
padding:0;
line-height:1.5em;
text-align:right;
text-indent:0;
font-size:85%;
text-transform:none;
white-space:nowrap;
}

td.expneg {
text-align:right;
background:#ff9999;
}

td.exppos {
text-align:right;
background:#99ff99;
}

Also, an admin should remove the vertical-align:top declaration now that it has been copied to Common.css, to fix the original problem. -- Nx / talk 08:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the code for vertical alignment for the default table (and greylapse). Still, I think you're better off using CSS than old html code. --Timenn-<talk> 21:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, re-added the colors for table wikitable. Haven't got around to checking the rest, so I haven't added that yet. --Timenn-<talk> 20:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

ModderElGrande

So, I ran an IP check on him after his recent edits to User_talk:Dagoth_Ur,_Mad_God, and found that he's 78.147.79.254 who has been blocked for personal attacks. The fact that he did the vandalism using an anonymous IP in an attempt to cover his tracks is also troubling. Now he did apologize for something, so I'm hesitant to perma-block him. Personally, I don't have a problem with just a week block, mainly since he apologized, but I wanted to make sure nobody wanted a longer one.--Ratwar 17:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

For interested parties, he's also begun an appeal to the block. Edit: He has now owned up to the incident in question and has made what seems to be a sincere appology. With the exception of his recent edits to DUMG's talk page, his edits do seem to be in good faith. I'm okay with just the temporary block. Dlarsh^(T,C) 18:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not opposed to either a week block or an indefinite block (not too big on the remorse=leniency). But if the week block holds, we should obviously have him on a "probation", so to speak. –Elliot ^talk 20:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

benefitting from your collective wisdom. . .maybe.

It was suggested that only the awesome power of an admin brain might help me! So, if any of you have a moment, would you be so kind as to peruse my head-scratcher of a bug. . .detailed here http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion_talk:Oblivion#100.25_chameleon_FAIL Redbarrettes 22:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The Infernal City

Can I suggest that we create a temporary, mod-like namespace for The Infernal City?

At the moment, the pages are located in mainspace, but I don't think anybody envisages it being there after the second book comes out and we know what happens in the end and what pages need creating. More and more links are being created to the pages in their current locations, and the longer we wait, the more effort will be involved in moving them.

My suggestion is this:

Move the main page (:The Infernal City) to Lore:The Infernal City
Move (subpages) to Lore:The Infernal City/(subpages)
Create a template like {{TR3}} to make all links to TIC pages

Add the following line to MediaWiki:Uespnamespacelist:

Lore:The Infernal City ; TIC ; Lore ; The Infernal City ; Lore:The Infernal City ; Lore-The Infernal City ; [[Lore:Main Page|Lore]]: [[Lore:The Infernal City|Infernal City]]

What this would mean is that a sub-space like Tamriel Rebuilt and Stirk - Lore:The Infernal City in this case- would be set up for The Infernal City, and a template would control (almost) all links to it. Then, if we decide to move the novel content to a Novels namespace, it's just a matter of tweaking one template and fixing the categories. If we decide to keep it where it is, then... well that's fine too.

I don't think anybody envisages the pages staying in mainspace for ever, and the sooner we move to a solution that can be adapted... the better. rpeh •T•C•E• 22:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. I'm still not sure I like the idea of keeping it in Lore, but I agree that the sooner we get it out of mainspace, the better, and this seems to be the most logical course of action until we make some decisions after the second book. --GK^talk2me 23:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Apologies - I should have made it clearer. This wouldn't necessarily be a permanent solution. The trouble with the current situation is that most templates don't deal nicely with Mainspace. Moving it to a subspace and using a template for the links means that if we later decide to use a proper namespace (Novels: or Infernal: or whatever) all that will be required is a template tweak then some bot expansion. rpeh •T•C•E• 23:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Well it's been a week and nobody has complained. Please can an admin add that line to MediaWiki:Uespnamespacelist then we can start linking things into the site properly. rpeh •T•C•E• 20:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Let me know if there are any problems. --GK^talk2me 22:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It's all working beautifully. That should make it much easier if we decide to move it again later. Just remember to use the {{TIC}} template to link to it and within it. rpeh •T•C•E• 10:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Mature Content

I couldn't find a policy about mature content. If there's a policy against it then this file will need attention. ? Joram?Talk 23:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that as well; but it's used (along a few others) in this specific mod page. Supposedly the 'warning' at the top of the page should be enough. Of course anything non-ES related that is inappropriate will be speedy deleted without second thoughts. --SerCenKing ^Talk 23:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I put all of them into a new category. ? Joram?Talk 23:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

If it's worth putting those into a Mature Content category, what about low-res images like this and stories like this from Daggerfall? --Mptrj - ? - ? 02:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we should delete that image that Joram mentioned straight away, and possibly give whoever put it up an indefinite ban, no hard feelings to anyone, but I just don't want to see UESP go downhill with crude images and stuff. --ModderElGrande 20:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

We can't and we shouldn't since there are several images like that that are being used in Oblivion Mod:Body Mods, also there's a big red box on top of the page that already warns whoever enters the page to stop reading if they don't want to see that kind of images. And no, the block is absolutely not necessary since no-one has violated any policy. --S'drassa ^•T2M 22:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well maybe we could like censor the rude parts out, you know, like pixelate or blur out the rude parts of the images.--ModderElGrande 14:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

All of this is completely unnecessary, category and all. The reason you couldn't find "policy" for mature content is that we don't have one. We regularly revert "obscene" text/images as vandalism, but these are not obscene. These are images of body mods; so, naturally, they show the body that is modded. It makes most sense to show the bodies without clothes so that the viewer can see exactly how the bodies are changed. Pixelating or blurring the images would defeat the purpose of the images. These are not pornographic images, not "crude images", not "rude", simply images that display the female form nude to see the differences between the way they were in the vanilla game and the way the mod makes them (and does a bad job of it, I might say... is it because I'm the only female involved in this conversation that I'm the only one who noticed that the woman in the image Joram linked to has four hands?). --GK^talk2me 04:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I confess I never noticed the hands, that's funny. I made the category just to group images with the same theme not to segregate or imply they were undesirable. ? Joram?Talk 04:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

So basically just because I suggested something I get ganged up on? --ModderElGrande 17:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is ganging up on you. GuildKnight explained the current situation to you and anybody else with the same question. rpeh •T•C•E• 17:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The site certainly isn't going to go downhill because of this. That warning, and the one on the book page, is is definitely enough. So far, everything remotely "rude" is 100% to do with the subject matter of this site. There's no reason to take any of those images down, or censor them, unless they have no justifiable place on the site. Oblivion is a 15-rated game here in the UK, and Morrowind is a 12+ on the PEGI system, and films with similar ratings often show a lot more than these images. -Itachi 18:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, here we are again, people ganging up on me just because I made a suggestion. This is a wiki, not a porn site. --ModderElGrande 19:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

(/Outdent) Honestly, stop this pathetic whining. Nobody is ganging up on you, the Community is simply expressing its opinions, which happen to be opposite to yours. This is a wiki, an encyclopaedia, therefore our aim is to document. Those image serve to document certain mods which are covered where at UESP. Now, nobody is forcing you to stare at them nor are they being linked anywhere extremely visible; the warning at the top of the Body Mods page says it all.

Furthermore, nude bodies do not indicate pornography; nude is a famous component of art. Are you saying Michelangelo's, Leonardo's, Raffaello's and others great works of nude art and sculture are pornographic??? And plus, I don't see how someone could, put bluntly, be sexually aroused by computer images. Therefore I ask you to stop posting accusatory comments just because people disagree with you. If you're not mature enough for that, then just leave. --SerCenKing ^Talk 19:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Remember that Oblivion is a rated M game; It is assumed that any content under the Oblivion category may be of Mature quality; whether that be mods or original content.--Tim ^Talk 19:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

True, I'll shut up about it all then. So that people can stop yelling at me. --ModderElGrande 19:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

We aren't yelling at you. You're the first person (that I know of) to have complained about these images, and since this wiki is run on a policy of consensus over debatable issues, it seems only fair to keep them on. You opinion matters as much as anyone else's, but it won't change a majority unless you persuade it that way. It sounds harsh but that's what consensus is - reaching a solution through discussion and majority. If we consistently served the minorities on issues then the site would not be a reflection of its user body. The fact is that the games we explore here are age-rated, so it makes sense to allow content which would otherwise be similarly age-rated. Yes we appreciate your viewpoint, but you haven't given us a decisive reason to agree with you. -Itachi

Well done Itachi, you have done an excellent job of belittling my opinion. I will now take my leave from this matter. --ModderElGrande 20:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hostility much?! I have nothing against you - its only a few images! I would say exactly the same to anyone else - please don't feel like you're being targeted. -Itachi 20:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This is quite enough. Consensus has been reached that there is no reason we should object, as a community, to having these images on our articles. Further discussion along the lines of the last few comments is not helpful to the wiki, so please refrain. --GK^talk2me 20:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

A little addition

(moved to Oblivion talk:Easter Eggs#Blades Names)

Vandalism?

Hey, I've just been scanning the recent changes log and I noticed this. Do you think this is vandalism or just a strange edit? --ModderElGrande 23:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not vandalism. -- Nx / talk 23:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

On a side note I thought the edit was in good faith but I posted it here just for confirmation purposes. I don't want to give out a warning for an edit in good faith. --ModderElGrande 23:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Should I give a notice to him/her for adding false info or would that be unnecessary? I'm hesitant to give him/her or warning because I'm kinda 50% thinking it's in good faith, but I'm also 50% thinking it could be delibrate vandalism too, so I don't know. --ModderElGrande 23:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think it's vandalism? The edit made is definitely not vandalism if you read the article; it's talking about possible drug addict ideas for roleplaying. It seems that the edit is not only 100% in good faith, but also 100% thoughtful, creative, and not false. You shouldn't give a warning or notice. -- Jplatinum16 01:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright then. I don't want to take action if the edit's in good faith. --ModderElGrande 10:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Server Monitoring

I've finally got around to implementing one of suggestions made after the database drive failure last summer which is to setup some form of server monitoring (Zabbix if anyone is interested). The web interface for it is at monitor.uesp.net. Currently the Zabbix server is running off of content3 which is our extra/misc server at the moment.

Anyone is free view the status of site from this web interface which might be useful to diagnose the site when it experiences lag or intermittent issues. Note you don't need to login to view the monitoring output just use the menu bars at the top to navigate. Some example links:

Overview -- If anything is red it means something is wrong.
Overview Data -- Same view but with explicit numbers.
Latest Data -- Shows the latest monitoring data grouped by server and basic type. You can also see handy graphs here by expanding items and clicking the graph button on the right.

Currently it is just monitoring the basic server properties and not specific things like MySQL or memcached status but these things can be added to provide more monitoring capabilities as well as give more triggers to check if anything goes wrong. Right now it is setup to just email me warnings at home/work but I would like to get it setup to also send me text messages for critical items.

I've also made the quick page UESPWiki:Status which anyone is free to change as they see fit. -- Daveh 03:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You're not giving everyone access to phpMyAdmin? You're no fun! ;) Looks like some neat tools, looking forward to exploring them more. ? Joram?Talk 22:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Files/Images Server

I've added a new server to the batch (files1.uesp.net) whose sole job will be to house all the static site content like the Wiki images. I've just switched all the content servers over so there may have been a few seconds here and there of image hiccups (as Corvette789 noticed). If you notice any other image issues in the next few days don't hesitate to let me know. I'll be making a few other minor changes to how image and other static content are served this week, none of which should result in any noticeable service interruption (unless I make a mistake somewhere). -- Daveh 22:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Update: I just fixed an issue which caused images on any cached pages to not be displayed properly as they were referring to the old images path. That should be fixed and there shouldn't be any similar issues like this from the other recent changes. -- Daveh 00:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Squid Server Issue

The squid1 server went down this morning and I'm looking into it now. You can switch to direct connections (i.e., content1.uesp.net/wiki) and I've switched www.uesp.net to point at content1 but DNS propagation will take some time. When I know more I'll update it here. -- Daveh 13:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Update -- Squid1 is back up but the cause of the issue is unknown at the moment. I'll be able to do more checking after work today. -- Daveh 15:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Update -- Some initial investigation seems to point in the direction of another hard drive issue. I'm confirming it with iWeb to see if it warrants a hard drive replacement. -- Daveh 03:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Update -- iWeb has confirmed that it needs to replace the hard drive in squid1. I'm going to redirect all squid1 traffic to content2 which will allow the drive to be replaced with no downtime. This should happen early next week. -- Daveh 13:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm now getting frequent errors and redirects to EQWiki when looking at uesp.net. Is this just the DNS propagation issue? I wouldn't have thought that would change between requests for the same page. ? Joram?Talk 20:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I getting the same stuff as what Joram is getting. At first I thought we got hacked and I can't access any of Daveh's user pages, not even his talk page. I was going to ask him why it was redirecting but it seems he already knows and has posted it here. What I don't get is why it redirects to EQWiki rather than just showing "can't find server." Very odd. --ModderElGrande 20:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting Can't find server.--Corevette789 20:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to setup a temporary Squid cache server on content3 but it turned out to be not as trivial as I initially thought. The DNS entries should be reset to their original (or pointing back to content3 until the squid1 hard drive is replaced) so you should just be able to reload the page to fix any issues (although it may take a while for the DNS change to propagate around). At worst just navigate directly to the site (content1.uesp.net, content2.uesp.net, or content3.uesp.net). Note that the site will be a bit sluggish this weekend as it is bypassing the squid1 cache. Content3 is the fastest at the moment as content2 is serving everything and content1 still has that reload bug. -- Daveh 20:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Update -- I received the squid1 with a new hard drive sooner than expected and got it setup/tested and the DNS entries were just switched back. It should slowly come back into service as the DNS changes propagate. As usual, if you notice anything amiss just let me know. -- Daveh 02:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Will do Daveh! --ModderElGrande 21:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Lookie what I got

A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:

   (SQL query hidden)

from within function "Database::insert". MySQL returned error "1062: Duplicate entry '7683' for key 1 (70.38.12.115)".

--Corevette789 00:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

More details are needed, like:

What page were you on?
What were you doing (saving a page, editing a page, uploading a file, etc...)?
Other relevant factors...

-- Daveh 01:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I was saving a page asking a question to help a user here and it worked before I got this message and appeared in the Recent Changes Page.--Corevette789 01:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Patrolling CSS/JS pages

Just so all the Admins and Patrollers know (though I suspect the Patrollers have already figured this out), Patrollers don't have the right to flag users' .css and.js pages as patrolled. There's a setting that I'm pretty sure would let us do it (see editusercssjs here), but that would also let us edit those pages which isn't something I feel we should be able to do. I just wanted to mention it so the Admins know that they're the only ones who can patrol these edits on the rare occasions that they come up. ? Robin Hood?Talk 09:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Elliot - Abuse of Power

I want to complain about an abuse of power by Elliot. After he added an insult here and refused to allow the comment to be removed, I gave him a warning for personal attacks (as described in your site's Etiquette policy). He refused to accept the warning then engaged in edit warring and accused me of doing the same, giving ME a warning. Despite another editor agreeing that the warning was frivolous, he reinstated it repeatedly and eventually used Section Protection to prevent me (or Corevette789) from removing it again.

This is a clear case of power abuse. Wikipedia policy contains clear restrictions intended to stop administrators or other "senior" editors from using their extra powers to "win" arguments. Please can an administrator rule on this matter? 204.45.58.234 17:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This happened exactly as I predicted and I want nothing to do with this argument. I tried under the best of my power, without breaking policy, to stop things like this from happening, but to no avail. I am sorry to Elliot and Rpeh for getting involved.--Corevette789 17:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Well this is intriguing.

You did edit war. Three reverts of my edit is edit warring.
What I stated was not a personal attack, so learn the difference before you tear through a tantrum. Calling me a troll, though, is a personal attack. Ouch, how does that feel?
Your warning on my page, therefore, constitutes vandalism. (You have no grounds for a warning.)
IPs seem t always magically complain about me... I wonder why? Yeah, you know who you are.
I have always held the position that IPs should not be allowed to edit, and this is precisely the reason. You first edit, reverting my edit, reveals your blatant intentions.
People use section protection on warnings all the time, as that is their purpose. It's nice to see you word rules to enhance your weak argument. –Elliot ^talk 17:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't. The Three Revert Rule refers to more than three reverts. I never did that.
You accused another editor of not being able to read. That is a clear personal attack.
Therefore the warning you received was not vandalism.
I do not know and do not care what has happened in the past, although if this episode is illustrative of your past behavior, I can understand why you have had difficulties before.
The site obviously disagrees with you.
People should not use section protection or any other kind of protection when they are in dispute with the editor they are warning. That is the basis for this complaint. 204.45.58.234 17:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It is worth pointing out that this comment by Elliot proves that he only warned me out of spite. This is clearly not behavior that should be accepted. 204.45.58.234 17:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Read the rules. "3RR is a bright line where action now becomes almost certain if not already taken. It is not an "entitlement" to revert a page a specific number of times."
If that is what you consider a personal attack, the internet is no place for you.
Yes, it actually was.
Wow, all the IPs that seem to have a personal vendetta against me always mention that. Coincidence? I think not!
I really don't care if they do. It doesn't make them right.
You know a lot for being a little IP. You obviously have past experience on this site and a personal issue with me.

I warned you because you edit warred. –Elliot ^talk 18:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Having looked back through your previous contributions, I see there is no point arguing with you as you obviously believe that the rules do not apply to you. I will leave it to an administrator to resolve the matter. 204.45.58.234 18:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh where have I heard that before? Oh wait! Calliope (rpeh's sockpuppet, mind you) and Dr Jones!!!! So either their is a broken record playing in my head, or you might have a personal issue with me, which started your entire storm of unnecessary edits. So, I will ask again, who are you? –Elliot ^talk 18:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem to think I'm somebody you know. I'm not. I have never edited this site before today. Those links just prove what type of person you are. 204.45.58.234 18:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Man, there's that record playing in my head again. I need to get it fixed! You know a lot for having never edited this wiki before. And it took you less than 10 minutes to go through all of my contributions? You're pretty talented! –Elliot ^talk 18:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Elliot, you're not helping your case by being cheeky towards the community. How about you just admit to your wrongdoing instead of just attacking other members. --ModderElGrande 18:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I would kindly ask both of you to stop this petty bickering. It's true that the Three revert rule wasn't broken, this would apply to additional reverts made after three. The line that Elliot quotes misses the clause, present in full article, that this should apply to administrators, rather than all editors. Since Elliot is no administrator I would like to see he doesn't jump to enforcing warnings without waiting for other experienced editors to take over (for the sake of neutrality).

On the other hand, switching the argument to another talk page, to avoid 3RR, seems much like Gaming the system. Instead of targeting Elliot directly each time, you could have seen that it did not help, and asked other editors for help.

For both it looks like you're more interested in continuing this argument than solving it. So here's a polite but firm request to drop it, and wait until more editors can have their say on the matter. --Timenn-<talk> 18:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright. --ModderElGrande 18:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Username Question

Would MartinAndJauffreAreLovers count as an unacceptable username? The reason why I am asking this is because someone's recently joined up with that name. --ModderElGrande 01:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've checked out MAJAL's userpage and it contains some pretty inappropriate content too, is he block-worthy? --ModderElGrande 01:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I checked the page and I didn't see too much "inappropriate content" other than the username and the "they have publicly declared their love for each other" part.--Corevette789 01:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing really wrong with it, nor is it block worthy. –Elliot ^talk 01:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Even if you want to consider homosexuality to be an adult topic (which, for fairly obvious reasons, I would have a bias on), there's much more blatant adult content on the wiki, so I don't think it's a problem...apart from the fact that "Juaffre" is misspelled. ;) ? Robin Hood?Talk 01:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

As long as the nonsense doesn't spill into other namespaces, it's fine. He's only adding content to the user namespace, so I don't believe that there's a problem. --Michaeldsuarez ^{(Talk) (Deeds)} 02:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

98.218.8.19

Note: This discussion was originally placed on UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard/Vandalism but it wasn't getting much attention so I decided to move the discussion here.

I'm convinced that 98.218.8.19 is ready for a temporary (if not permanent) block. His/her edits have been nothing but disruptive, obscene, and all of his/her contributions are nonsense edits. He/she has already been given a warning but he/she has ignored the warning and has continued making nonsense edits. I think the IP is more than ready for a block. --ModderElGrande 09:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

They did not edit once the warning was issued; therefore, no block is needed. –Elliot ^talk 16:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Me and GK got all of those edits, and even before the warning was issued the vandalism stopped.--Corevette789 20:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

80.202.122.175

This anon has only made one edit after the warning I issued. I will wait for one more because I am going to assume he hasn't seen the warning yet.--Corevette789 23:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes that is another. I am requesting a block for the IP 80.202.122.175--Corevette789 23:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Timenn-<talk> 23:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Redgaurd page protection

Moved from page: Redguard

I think some administrator should protect this page, or semi-protect it, because it has suffered many attacks in the past and, lets face it, there are alot of racist people out there who will continue to bash redguards untill stopped.--Arch-Mage Matt 01:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I second this, I looked at the history and it isn't as bad as the Journal page, but It is one of the worst I don't think it would hurt.--^Corevette₇₈₉ 01:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This is best brought up on the Administrator Noticeboard. ? Robin Hood?Talk 02:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Then I'll just put this here, which I added to the Lore: Redguard

As I said on the oblivion article, I think this page should go under semi-protection to stop unregistered users from adding racist comments and insults. There haven't been any attacks really recently, but why wait to revert the next racist and insulting comment? --Arch-Mage Matt 02:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

In general, protection of pages should be done only if really necessary to prevent ongoing vandalism. Personally, although I think the articles on Redguards are getting close to that point, I don't think they are there yet. rpeh •T•C•E• 00:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Superblood

I am requesting an Immediate block of the user Superblood for 75+ vandalizing edits.--^Corevette₇₈₉ 23:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Timenn you are a lifesaver--^Corevette₇₈₉ 23:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you all for the vandalism reverts. --Timenn-<talk> 23:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

De-Patrollership Request for Elliot

After the series of edits and arguments that erupted last Saturday, 6th of March, I have come to the decision that Elliot no longer qualifies to be a UESPWiki Patroller and I therefore propose for his patroller rights to be removed. Let me make this very clear, I am in no way trying to prompt a 'witch-hunt' against Elliot, nor do I have any history of arguments with him, either on site, in the IRC or via email.

For example, I wasn't involved in either of the three latest arguments Elliot has gotten in to, exception made for this comment. Furthermore, I would like to stress that this decision was pondered thoroughly, as can be seen from the length of this post (for which I apologise). It is unfortunate for the site to lose a Patroller at the time being, but I believe that Elliot's current position of authority is doing no good to the site and prompting misuse (if not abuse) on his part. In particular, the latest events have convinced me further of Elliot's inability to hold a position of authority on this site, due to his repeated policy breaches and "misuses".

The first policy breached, or rather misused, is the Protection Policy; as with all other site policies and general topics, I studied this very carefully before posting this. The anon 204.45.58.234 posted a complaint on this page because Elliot abused of his Patroller powers by protecting a warning on the anon's talk page that Elliot and the anon were debating about. Copied verbatim from the policy page is the purpose of Section-Protection:

"Section protection has been added to the site to prevent users from tampering with warnings and other official messages placed on user talk pages" See here

Elliot in this case didn't breach policy, since he protected a warning which had been removed, but he misused his power and wronged in two significant ways. First of all, the warning shouldn't have been on the page in the first place; it was frivolous and was clearly added out of spite, since the anon had posted one on Elliot's talk page. Therefore, the anon and more importantly Corevette789, were right in removing it; since Corevette had already posted a more appropriate unofficial warning. Secondly, Patrollers (and Admins for that matter) should not use Section Protection while in an argument. The anon himself expressed this quite well:

"People should not use section protection or any other kind of protection when they are in dispute with the editor they are warning" See here

Since the warning-removing has totally legitimate, Elliot had no right to Section Protect it; and this action can only be seen as a way to force his own view without letting the anon respond and a clear misuse of the Patroller authority he currently holds. Furthermore, Elliot had already been told not to behave in such a manner, but, and this is the first of his worrying traits, he apparently hasn't learnt from his mistake back then.

The largest and most serious policy breaches are to do with our Etiquette policy; one of the founding stones of any wiki. Elliot has breached this so many times it would be futile to list all of the instances. The fact that a Patroller is breaching Etiquette repeatedly casts a shadow on fellow Patrollers such as myself and on our wiki as a whole. In fact, Elliot has managed to breach every single point on the Etiquette page. To avoid, an excessively long post, I will only list the most significant breaches.

"Be patient and courteous " This has definitely never been Elliot's style. There are many edits to prove he has time and time again responded with arrogance, insult and belittlement to any user he was involved in an argument with (see here for plenty of examples). Even if we only take the latest case, two comments stand out: "it is you who cannot read" and a particularly vicious post on ModderElGrande's talk page. Just so we're clear about this, let me provide two definitions (both from dictionary.com) for 'courteous':

"having or showing good manners; polite."

"mannerly, gracious, courtly. See civil."

Once more, Elliot showed displayed qualities inappropriate for a patroller. After seeing his insulting comment being removed from CP, he didn't post a comment on the anon's page to prompt a debate about the edit, as detailed by the policy. Instead he slapped a warning on it. Corevette789 (who isn't even a patroller) acted correctly by posting on the anon's talk page and starting a civil conversation. If a Patroller can't admit he was wrong, can't post a talk page comment and instead resorts to pointless warning, I see no reason for him to remain one.

One thing that sets Elliot apart is that he doesn't learn from his mistakes. For example, he was repeatedly told not to engage in edit wars, to treat users civilly and to value others' opinions (here), to not use section protection in a wrong way and was also asked to step down for two weeks (here). In spite of this, he still makes the same mistakes.

"Unregistered users are to be treated with the same respect as any other user on the site." Everyone has the right to stay on UESP as anonymous if they wish so; this is policy. Just because Elliot disagrees with this doesn't entitle him to take no heed of this point. He repeatedly discredited the anon for not creating an account, thus breaching yet another aspect of Etiquette. Elliot obviously doesn't take into consideration that an Anon could be a WP Bureaucrat for all he knows. Furthermore, he also decided to drop various, not-exactly-veiled insinuations that the anon was rpeh. Elliot had no evidence to support this, since he doesn't have CheckUser ability. He seems to be convinced that every anon has a personal vendetta against him and even says it himself: "there's that record playing in my head" He also didn't think of looking the anon up on Google, which would have told him it was an open proxy. Again Elliot has failed in the simplest of tasks: looking up an anon who is editing controversially on Google. This is standard procedure and the fact that a Patroller doesn't do this and instead decides to launch into a round of insulting and unsupported insinuations is quite worrying.

Quoting policy again: "Personal attacks are grounds for an immediate block" Elliot believes that saying someone cannot read is not a personal attack – as shown in his edit summary here To clarify this, let's take a look at WP's article. First of all, Elliot complies to the most basic description: he replies to rpeh's claim that he hasn't addressed the most significant issues of the topic by stating that rpeh can't read. This is clearly linking the validity of the statement to a characteristic of the person advocating the premises (which is rpeh's apparent lack of reading abilities). Elliot in particular falls underneath the "ad hominem abusive" header since it involves "insulting or belittling one's opponent" In my book, explicitly saying someone can't read is a clear belittlement and insult. Therefore yes, Elliot's comment does qualify as a personal attack. However, I'm not seeking to block Elliot (even though our Blocking Policy suggests otherwise). In any case, this behaviour is unacceptable for any user on UESPWiki, let alone a Patroller.

"Stay on task" Elliot immediately derailed and started to argue with the anon; in the meantime the original problem (the CP argument) was forgotten and even Elliot's insulting comment was discarded for a series of ramblings about how there is a "conspiracy" against him, how every anon is by right rpeh (here) and even re-opening the argument as to whether rpeh is Calliope (here). Patrollers are supposed to be mediators in arguments, not start and worsen them irrationally.

"ask someone for help" Instead asking others' for input, Elliot rejected MEG's, took little notice of Corevette's while dismissing him as a nuisance and it was finally Timenn who had to post on Elliot's page to ask him to stop. (Elliot's response was again not on topic, but rather an insinuation that Timenn is also part of the conspiracy since he is rpeh's friend)

It therefore appears clear to me that Elliot cannot possibly hold any position of authority on this wiki. His repeated breaches of policy and his attitude to search for arguments every time he comes on the site (see Category talk:Users and Template:Gameinfo) are simply inacceptable. He also seems to have a tendency to engage in edit wars rather than taking it to a page and discussing it. Furthermore, he doesn't appear to be interested in actually using his patroller rights in a serious and helpful way. His most recent entries in the Patrol Log have been his own auto-patrolled edits. He wasn't patrolled a single edit since mid-December and instead of helping out with the excessive patrol back log of these days, he has decided to come on site for yet another round of boxing.

I think I've reached a saturation point – that's enough. With his unrestricted actions and behaviour Elliot has repeatedly soiled the good name of all Patrollers on this site; not to mention the effects he's had on UESPWiki's online reputation. If Elliot doesn't want to contribute constructively to this site, there is no reason for him to be a Patroller. Time and time again, me and the other Patrollers/Admins have tried to reason with him but he always justifies his actions with a "that's just who I am". Well, if that's who he is then fine, but that's not who we want our Patrollers to be on UESPWiki. --SerCenKing ^Talk 12:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

SerCenKing made many valid points, so I'll try to keep this short. I also agree that Elliot's actions have proven him unworthy of patroller rights. Though I am not in any way saying that he hasn't productively contributed to the wiki, everything SerC mentioned in this discussion is accurate and as worrisome to me as it is to others. In addition to the actions described above, a look through Elliot's recent contributions shows that he vanishes for a while, only to resurface when he can become involved in a conflict. This year, he's barely patrolled; one edit in January, two in February, and none this month. While I would never suggest that this alone should be reason enough to remove patroller rights, it makes this discussion make even more sense. The only other patroller-tool he's used was section-protection, twice that I've found, and both times he used it improperly. I'd like to ask Elliot to voluntarily relinquish his patroller rights, due not only to the wide-spread disapproval of his actions that I've discovered (and that he's already aware of), but also due to the fact that he can contribute exactly the same way that he has been without these rights. --GK^talk2me 16:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with SCK and GK, enough is enough, Elliot's comment on my talk page (which I removed) has made it clear that he does not deserve patroller status as well as his abuse of patroller privileges (such as the section protection.) I would like to state that one of the ways he abused section protection is when he gave a warning to an anonymous user and used protect tags when they weren't needed. --ModderElGrande^{Talk contribs} 18:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I've just found out that Elliot has been demoted to a normal editor before so this obviously isn't the first time he's been a bit of a rebel. We need good patrollers, not ones that mess around, flame/attack people and get trigger edit wars. No hard feelings or anything. --ModderElGrande^{Talk contribs} 20:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree as well. Since becoming a Patroller, Elliot has shown impatience, difficulty working with others, poor judgement in the use of his elevated privileges, and a persecution complex. Some of this has occurred visibly here (as shown by the various links in SerC's posts), and even more of it has occurred on IRC. Contrary to his perception that IRC doesn't count for anything on-wiki, it most certainly does when it comes to behavioural issues, especially from staff members, as detailed in the IRC guidelines. All behavioural guidelines that apply here apply there as well, and I have seen a variety of disturbing behaviours from him there including accusations of sockpuppetry, accusations of spreading lies about him, swearing, and other generally unprofessional behaviour. In light of these concerns, I feel that he should step down from being a Patroller, or if necessary, have his Patroller rights removed. ? Robin Hood?Talk 21:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

And the politicking of the UESP finally rears its ugly ass onto me. I have decided to resign from my patroller position, effective immediately. I am rather disappointed in the reaction and IRC behavior of GK and SerCenKing, but they know how I feel about them (it's not in high regards, if you were wondering). So another member leaves the ranks; who will be driven away next? –Elliot ^talk 22:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

After witnessing things like this, I would have to agree with Elliot's resignation and removal of Patroller rights. If Elliot can't tell the difference between constructive and unconstructive replies, then he shouldn't have become a Patroller. It's things like thing that make me sometimes regret helping Elliot during the Calliope crisis. I'm glad that Elliot decided to step down peacefully; his resignation prevented another circus-like, anonymously-written, proxy-based call for demotion. --Michaeldsuarez ^{(Talk) (Deeds)} 03:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with everything that has been said and I'm glad this has now been resolved. It's a pity that this debate was used to make snide remarks about GK and SerCenKing, both of whom have behaved perfectly throughout the process. rpeh •T•C•E• 05:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This seems to have settled peacefully, but I'll throw in my two cents anyway; I agree with the statements above. This whole thing doesn't make me feel particularly good but I believe that it will benefit the wiki and that's what it's all about. In Elliot's case, something just went terribly wrong along the way – we have plenty of huge discussions to prove that – and I'm glad it's over before it became totally ridiculous. It is not beneficial for any wiki to have a patroller, hard-working or not, that causes such a big stir with his/her behavior – and pops in from time to time only to participate in edit warring, controversial discussions and what have we. In my experience, what went wrong is that Elliot became a patroller too early – made a few missteps including several edit summaries with attitude problems (which is bound to give you lots of enemies in no time), and never really recovered from it. As time went by, more and more anons joined the "fun" and Elliot just stopped caring about wiki rules, community and most other things that you have to "respect" if you are part of a wiki. Most people would do that if they had to defend themselves and their actions on a daily basis. Of course, there were probably more problems than that, but that's my experience and I blame the early mistakes (and especially the premature patroller nomination) for the way things turned out. Make no mistake, I have had tons of good times with Elliot on IRC and he have helped me out countless times + the fact that he is one of the hardest working patrollers I have seen – but when things went downhill, the fun and dedication more or less disappeared and everything became a matter of who was "right" or "wrong" and about arguing endlessly with the entire community on both IRC and the wiki – and that gets very old in a matter of weeks. So, all in all, and considering Elliot's contributions in the last 4-5 months, I think SerCenKing made the right decision with this request – because let's face it: this was going nowhere fast. --Krusty 10:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I support the request made by SerCenKing, I can find myself in the arguments he gives. Looking back at the past several months I think I can say that Elliot has always shown these mannerisms when dealing with controversial issues, only then they were balanced and compensated by all the other work he did. We all have our moments when we try to passionately argue our point, but the line for me would be where such arguments start the dominate a person's activities on this site.

Let me add that Elliot has shown a tendency to push people to do things for him (mostly on IRC), the latest being his repeated demands (he phrases them like demands) to remove his patroller rights immediately. While I understand that such direct allegations to one's activities on the wiki may feel personal, I don't think it's correct to dismiss them as an angry mob's law. Rather than immediately act on his decision, I feel we need to give other editors the opportunity to provide us with a different perspective on the matter, otherwise it might give editors the idea this thing was rushed to shut them out. --Timenn-<talk> 10:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Consensus: Remove Patroller Rights

I have removed Elliot's Patroller rights, per the consensus of the above discussion. --GK^talk2me 00:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Warnings for Elliot and 204.45.58.234

There were comments by Timenn on Elliot's talk page suggesting removal of the warning given as the result of an edit war. As the seconder, I simply removed the warning rather than responding. I also took the initiative and removed the corresponding warning on the anon's talk page. If anybody has concerns over this, please say so, but I think it's best if we simply put it behind us. ? Robin Hood?Talk 06:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

After examining Special:Contributions/204.45.58.234, I think that it's clear that the anon intentionally sought to create trouble with Elliot. I don't see any problems with removing the warnings from their talk pages. The warning was just a way for the anon to start a conflict in order to create a pretense for requesting the removing of Elliot's patroller rights. --Michaeldsuarez ^{(Talk) (Deeds)} 16:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore the anon that warned Elliot was an open proxy per google search as Timenn discovered and pointed out to us which is grounds for an immediate perma-block for the anon. --ModderElGrande^{Talk contribs} 18:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Updating Patroller Guidelines

I noticed than on this page it says 100 edits is required to be nominated as a patroller, and this seems incredibly out of date to me. Lets use 300 edits minimum as an example for this one. It would give a much better idea on if they are going to stay on the site plus it is great experience for the user. Draft: Nomination Guidelines

There are no truly hard and fast guidelines to nominating a patroller, but the community does look for certain things when deciding whether or not to accept the candidate. Here's a list of things that make up an guideline for patroller nominations.

1. Editing Experience- As a patroller, you will be dealing with many different aspects of wiki markup. You need to know how to deal with headers, templates, and tables. A minimum of 300 edits will allow us to judge such things. Edits to your own User page, or User Talk page should not be counted as part of the 300.

2. Time on the Site- The community needs to know that you'll be around for a while after becoming a patroller, so it is important to have 4 months or more of significant activity.

3. Spelling and Grammar- As a patroller, you will be checking other people's edits for spelling and grammar mistakes, therefore you need to show this trait in your own edits. You need to adhere to the UESP Spelling page in order to properly patrol edits.

4. Style- Being a patroller means that you must be able to follow the Style Guide. This means no first person within articles as well as a number of other things. Additions to UESPwiki should be as readable as possible, and thus patrollers will need to rephrase poorly written edits.

5. Watch Recent Changes- As a patroller, you will have to watch the Recent Changes page thoroughly. Doing so before becoming a patroller is advisable to get a feel for the job.

6. No Recent Nomination- If a user has been nominated with their consent in the past three months, and that nomination was either rejected or withdrawn, they are not eligible to be nominated again.

7.VandalismIf ANY vandalizing edits were made under your name then you are not eligible for nomination for at least 6 months after the incident.

Feedback?--^Corevette₇₈₉ 01:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I think its OK, but the edits should go down to 300-350, 400 seem a bit too much. Everyone (including myself) will have to try harder to become patrollers!--Arch-Mage Matt^Talk 01:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It has been at 300 and you just broke 600 edits today.--^Corevette₇₈₉ 01:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was 200 before... besides if you take away user/user:talk page edits I have 400, give or take.--Arch-Mage Matt^Talk 02:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You can use this to check that--^Corevette₇₈₉ 02:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The number of edits isn't the be-all and end-all of a good patroller. SubtleCynicism never put a foot wrong, and although his low edit count was mentioned during the nomination process, he was darn useful during his (all too brief) stay on the site.

Some people have suggested age as a criterion. No. Vesna was a great editor and patroller, who was just 13 when elected. Nobody ever had cause to mention her age when talking about her contributions to the site.

When I was a patroller (and yes, I just re-self-nominated) I suppose my criterion for patrolling an edit was "Would I have made this edit?" If the answer was "yes", I'd mark the edit as patrolled. If no, I'd leave it. That's obviously not the case for vandalism, but vandal edits are easy.

Some editors are active on certain projects and not others. The canonical example is PLRDLF, who is one of the site's three DF experts but who has turned down the opportunity to become a patroller on two (at least) occasions, for perfectly good reasons. OTOH, Gez and Theviking are great on the Tamriel Rebuilt project. Unfortunately there's no way we can split up responsibilities by project.

Enough rambling and down to opinions. Pace my comments about edit counts, I think a patroller should have made 350 main/gamespace edits and should have been on the wiki for at least three months. That should be enough time and activity to judge whether or not somebody is ready. rpeh •T•C•E• 04:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I have been subject to the age thing and I completely agree with that section. I have also learned there is another conversation about this topic.--^Corevette₇₈₉ 15:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I had been working on something similar last week, but lost my work when my computer restarted overnight :( . Anyway, I like a lot of the suggestions here, I suppose. Here, I've mocked up the changes I'd like to make to the Patroller Guidelines. To go over my reasons, first of all, I wanted to separate suggestions from things that, I think, should immediately disqualify a person from nomination. Of the four in that section, the only that's not self-explanatory is:

Active on the wiki: This, I think, covers the intended purpose of the original guideline. It ensures that we have a person who has shown some level of consistency in editing. I'm not particularly attached to the stated limits, it just seemed to make sense to me.

For the "Immediate Disqualifications" section, a lot of them will need explanations:

Less than 250 edits in content space: Yes, I want to disqualify all talk page edits. Answering questions on talk pages, helping people, etc; that's all important, but that's more of a "mentor" role on the wiki, and we have that program already. I think patrollers should, rather, have proven themselves helpful in a content sense, and this will provide that.
Less than one month on the wiki: I'd like to require that the account itself be at least a month old. As stated in my sandbox, this is the minimum time required to adequately learn this wiki's policies, procedures, and preferred styles.
Recent nomination: already in the guidelines, and worded as a disqualification
Recent warning: I think at least a month after a legitimate warning has been issued is required to ensure that the editor has improved.
Recent block: Should be self-explanatory, I think.
Recent resignation: Also possibly self-explanatory, but I think this would avoid any issues with future patrollers resigning in a fit of anger only to re-nominate themselves the next week.

Anyway, this is what came to my mind. Corevette's "vandalism" suggestion should be adequately covered under my "warning" and "block" suggestions, and I think 250 edits is a sufficient number when restricted to content edits. Thoughts, suggestions, love it, hate it? Tweak the numbers a little? --GK^talk2me 17:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The disqualifications section is a very good idea! I think it should be made clear when the block time starts. Like after the block time is up, or when it is administered.--^Corevette₇₈₉ 20:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the ideas presented above, though I tend more towards the stricter requirements (300 edits, 3 or 4 months min), but there are two things I'd like to see added.

E-mail functionality must be enabled. I think this should be part of any "staff" position on a wiki, for the simple reason that you may sometimes have a question as to why someone reverted or patrolled an edit, but it may not make sense to bring it up on the wiki (because it's too small a point, because it might cause flame/edit wars), you may want to thank them for editing something, or for whatever other reason. To me, the ability to contact someone offline just goes with the role.
A clarification that these are guidelines and that in unusual circumstances, exceptions might be made. For example, if Nx ran for Patroller, I know I'd support it without hesitation because despite the small number of edits, they demonstrate expert-level knowledge of wikis, he's got copious amounts of quality edits at RationalWiki, and he's clearly familiarized himself with the specifics of our wiki. Users like him are the rare exception, however, so I think any such wording needs to reflect that the guidelines will apply unless there's an exceptional reason they shouldn't, not just because Joe Blow thinks he's special. (That said, arbitrating situations like this can be tricky, so I can also support the opposite position of just not allowing exceptions at all.)

? Robin Hood?Talk 20:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The email idea is very good actually. I need to make a new one for wiki-only stuff as all my others have about 10,000+ unread from facebook and spam. Thanks for the feedback and a goid idea for me.--^Corevette₇₈₉ 20:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I like the email suggestion, and have added it to my sandbox. The "guidelines" suggestion, however, I think we can do without. I'd rather not complicate it, and we can discuss special circumstances if and when they arise. I've also updated my sandbox with a clarification that the "block" caveat begins at the expiration of the block. As far as the numbers, as I've said, I'm not particularly attached to anything. The numbers I listed are, basically, what I consider the minimum acceptable. Personally, I think if an editor has amassed 250 edits in content-space, editing near-daily for a month, that would be sufficient activity to judge ability and trustworthiness. I've left that as is for now, until we get more feedback. Anyone else? --GK^talk2me 03:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I like your ideas but the email function as a must... ehh... sometimes people might not want to be contacted through email and besides, there's always their talk page that can be used to contact people. --ModderElGrande^{Talk Contribs} 18:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we're at a consensus here, but someone correct me if I'm wrong. I'll most likely update the patroller guidelines with the contents of my sandbox later today. --GK^talk2me 16:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Yup I think the consensus has been reached what sandbox of yours is this in GK?--^Corevette₇₈₉ 21:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This looks good to me. I think it's ready for prime-time. rpeh •T•C•E• 21:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. And, Corevette, it was in my Sandbox no. 4, linked to in the discussion earlier, but it's on the Patrollers article now. --GK^talk2me 21:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

New Templates

Hi, I've created some new templates that can be placed on people's talk pages. The templates I've created are the "only warning template" and "final warning template" as seen on Wikipedia. If needed, admins can change them if they want. To find them, look in Sandbox 4 on my userpage. --ModderElGrande^{Talk Contribs} 18:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

These are unnecessary because we only give one warning. Wikipedia, on the other hand, gives four warnings. –Elliot 23:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I don't foresee any circumstance that these would be used. --GK^talk2me 00:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocking Fury and friends

Fury and his several names (Swisschease and Fireandwatercat, and I'm sure he'll make more) have attacked me in my userpage and his IP address should get a block--Arch-Mage Matt^Talk 20:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

He also has another alt account or many.

Fury
Okoklol
Huhisthisit

Please could someone block all of these? Thanks! --ModderElGrande^{Talk Contribs} 20:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Now Horsey! and Heytherepies! as well--Arch-Mage Matt^Talk 20:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

C'mon Timenn and GK, come online! (Only mentioned those two seeing as they are the only active admins) --ModderElGrande^{Talk Contribs} 20:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Who are timen and gk?(just curious...)— Unsigned comment by Lichesarecool (talk • contribs)

They're the two only active admins on the wiki. --ModderElGrande^{Talk Contribs} 20:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Are these user names(or whatever) for ppl who are gonna be blocked(wait these user names sounds like my cousins favorite words....) anyway nvm (ok ive just lost my mind.....lol!!!) — Unsigned comment by Lichesarecool (talk • contribs)

Full list of names--Arch-Mage Matt^Talk 20:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Lichesarecool (he hasnt done anything but this was the userbox that was the first thing Fury edited on my page)
Horsey!
Huhisthisit
Okoklol ?
Heytherepies!?
Wtfhacks?
Fireandwatercat ?
Swisschease ?
Fury

(edit conflict) We could have another too. A user called Mmmcookies. --ModderElGrande^{Talk Contribs} 20:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

And Marcus21.--Arch-Mage Matt^Talk 20:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Definatly Mmmcookies--Arch-Mage Matt^Talk 21:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

But what can we do? None of us are admins so we can't block him. We need to wait for Timenn or GK to come online. --ModderElGrande^{Talk Contribs} 21:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, we should keep adding the users here if they keep coming, so the admins could have easy access to all them. And its just reverting edits for us... good greif--Arch-Mage Matt^Talk 21:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

(u/d) With all due respect to the people posting in this thread, there's no need to do it. The admins aren't around at the moment but they'll be able to spot what needs doing fairly easily. rpeh •T•C•E• 21:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

GK you are a lifesaver! --ModderElGrande^{Talk Contribs} 07:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

New User Group

In the light of the uptick in recent vandalism, I'd like to suggest the creation of a new wiki User Group. We only have two active admins at the moment and they can't be around all the time. My suggestion is a new group called something simply like "Block" that would, believe it or not, grant the "block" right to its members. Ideally this should be grantable/removable by admins, like Patroller status currently is.

There could be a few options for giving the new group: giving it to patrollers who have been recently active on the wiki, have been in their role for six months, and actively ask for the role seems sensible. Additionally, there could be a mechanism whereby an admin could grant the group for a short period of time while they are indisposed. For instance, just before the current round of vandalism, the one admin who was on site at the time announced in IRC that she was going to be away for a while. If the new group had been in existence, it could have been granted to other users and then removed again later on.

If this ad-hoc mechanism were to be adopted, there would need to be a few extra guidelines: no blocks for more than an hour (say); all blocks to be listed on a new page and reviewed by an admin at the earliest possible opportunity; and the same don't-use-your-ability-to-force-an-argument rules that apply elsewhere.

Note that I'm only suggesting the "block" right be given. There's an argument for "protect" too, under similar conditions. It certainly should not include the extra admin rights like "blockemail", "delete", or anything like that.

This isn't going to be a panacea, but it might help out in the short to medium term. rpeh •T•C•E• 20:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This is an excellent idea! --ModderElGrande^{Talk Contribs} 20:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking its not only gven to patrollers, but users who have reverted ______ amount of edits.--Arch-Mage Matt^Talk 20:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I was just about to finish an email off to GK about this. I was curious whether or not there could be a new editor position specifically for averting vandalism, with this rather prolific vandalism about. I wouldn't mind holding such a position, since i'm more or less always available. A•t•r•e•u•s 21:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Very good idea. A new group with "trusted editors" that can make very short term blocks and semi-protect pages would stop a lot of vandalism in its tracks.--^Corevette₇₈₉ 21:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

They'd have to be very active, well trusted users who have reverted lots of vandilism and made lots of trustful edits.--Arch-Mage Matt^Talk 21:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy to step up to it, but I don't will agree due to my notorious past. --ModderElGrande^{Talk Contribs} 21:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

\=> I can vouch for the major annoyance vandalism is, especially if you are a patroller who tries desperately to revert/patrol everything - and you just can't do anything to stop the vandal(s). Having spent several hours in the last couple of days wasting my time on vandalism, I'd be happy to take on the responsibility, get the extra tool and save everybody a lot of time. And, like Atreaus, I'm available and online all the time. --Krusty 21:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

(re: A-MM) Well, then, i'm shot down. :P Also, UESP just gave me the warning that the page is getting too long xD A•t•r•e•u•s 21:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure all of the people who have posted here would be interested in doing it (including myself) but that would be up to DaveH to start it- wouldn't it?.--Arch-Mage Matt^Talk 21:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Dave would have to create it, but my suggestion is that admins would be able to add and remove users from the group as required. rpeh •T•C•E• 21:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

<- Yes, excellent idea. It would also ease the transition from Patroller to Admin by being one less tool for them to familiarize themselves with. ? Robin Hood?Talk 21:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I imagine that an admin's first choice would be a patroller, but a user who has been around for a while and demonstrated a certain sense of responsibility might be acceptable in an emergency. The emphasis here is on temporary. If one admin grants the role, another admin can easily revoke it when he or she comes online and is able to cover. rpeh •T•C•E• 21:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should give only patrollers the right to this new feature, because essentialy that would just be giving all patrollers blocking rights. (Because why would you deny any patroller that askes to be in this group?) --Arch-Mage Matt^Talk 21:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

(various E/Cs) Obviously, I'm in favour of this and I'm available for the job. However, I'd prefer only giving Patrollers this right (and Atreus which is a ~~Forum~~/IRC moderator). After all, blocking is a serious tool and I think it should be (for now at least) limited to Patrollers, who can be trusted with it; with all due respect to MEG, Corevette and Matt. --SerCenKing ^Talk 21:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

(aside) i'm not a forum mod ;) A•t•r•e•u•s 21:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No. Actually, HELL no. This is absolutely unnecessary. There are plenty of admins on the wiki to take care of this. This just seems to be a ploy to grab at power. –Elliot 21:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a 'ploy to grab at power' for some of us at least, see Blocking Fury and friends post above, we were floundering around helplessly when this guy just kept attacking (me, mostly) when he knew he couldn't be stopped.--Arch-Mage Matt^Talk 21:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Look, only Timenn and GK are active. That's two admins!! Timenn hasn't exactly been active and we need European users for when GK isn't online. This isn't a conspiracy Elliot, it's an attempt to address issues that have arisen recently. Try refreshing RC to get an idea of what you're talking about before you post. --SerCenKing ^Talk 21:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

\=> I don't think 2 admins is enough and if you would have been here for the vandalism streak, and it wasn't rpeh who proposed it, you would be agreeing.--^Corevette₇₈₉ 21:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, take into account that there's two active mods. One was generically "away" and one who was getting food. Two mods is barely enough. Plus if/when TESV or TES MMO ever come out, we're gonna need a lot more. A•t•r•e•u•s 21:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sercen, I am damn well informed, which is exactly why I oppose this. Okay? And Corevette, you understand not one thing between me and rpeh, so stop using that as ammo. If anyone proposed it, I would be opposed. If we can't give rollback to patrollers, then we will not be giving them the ability to block. So you drive away three admins and then ask for more privileges? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. –Elliot 21:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Then you want Fury and friend's barrage of attacks to happen more often? When the Admins are away, the vandilisers come out and play...--Arch-Mage Matt^Talk 21:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

First off, Elliot, this is one of the reasons why we love you. Blathering insinuations of power-grabbing. Also, it wasn't any one person to drive away mods. (I assume you mean Ratwar, Eshe and.. RH? iunno. i don't follow your thoughts that well) the amount of arguing on this site is what contributed the most. Sure, there's specific events you can show drove them away, but the underlying reason is bickering, insults, and general... ne'er-do-welling. A•t•r•e•u•s 21:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the fix we need. Trust me. And Atreus, please stay out of wiki politics. –Elliot 21:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

<3 this is a community, mind you.A•t•r•e•u•s 22:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

So sorry, Elliot, but you have no right to request that Atreus stay out of "wiki politics". Please, Atreus, continue. I find your perspectives enlightening. --GK^talk2me 22:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Lol. You've got to be kidding me. Maybe if I agree to it then it won't happen! –Elliot 22:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Lets all try to stay calm and not let this turn into a war!!!--Arch-Mage Matt^Talk 22:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Can I suggest that anybody with substantive objections lists them? At the moment there seems to be one person with an objection, but it's not clear why. rpeh •T•C•E• 22:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Because it is unnecessary. Once you give patrollers blocking rights, admins only have deletions and protections to do by themselves. I rate blocking as the main administrator privilege, followed by deleting, protection, and then rollback. If you want to get them an upper hand on vandalism, start with rollback. –Elliot 22:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Giving them rollback won't stop vandals, just.. make them quicker. Protection might be okay, but that seems like overkill for a single IP address vandal. Blocking a rampant user is just a quick and easy way to avert someone spamming up the RC and generally getting in the way. A•t•r•e•u•s 22:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

That's why admins have mass rolback and blocking rights. –Elliot 22:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This is just to tie down vandals to give admins more time. VERY short blocks should be used an hour seems good.--^Corevette₇₈₉ 22:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

...the whole point of this discussion is that there's not enough admins and giving some patrollers/editors some intermediate abilities can cut down on spam attacks significantly. Are you saying we should just promote more patrollers to admins and have done with it? A•t•r•e•u•s 22:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

People freak out every time something like this happens. The result? All accounts blocked, all edits reverted. I see no harm. –Elliot 22:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You're totally missing the point here. The admins weren't here when this happened. They can't block and ban when they're not here. Thus, proposed solution: give certain people additional abilities and power. A•t•r•e•u•s 22:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I have an Idea that might solve this situation: What if we give patrollers (or whoever) a right that just blocks a User for an hour or two? That means the attacker can't add nonsense to other pages, and it gives time to the admins to get on and block them for longer.--Arch-Mage Matt^Talk 22:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Elliot, "Once you give patrollers blocking rights, admins only have deletions and protections to do by themselves." is not true. Renaming users, Check User and many other rights (list) will remain with admins only. I'm also suggesting that this group be within the gift of admins so that it can be removed at will and as necessary. rpeh •T•C•E• 22:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

AMM that is what I said above.--^Corevette₇₈₉ 22:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no way of enforcing that in software (as far as I know) but the suggestion was in my original post: "If this ad-hoc mechanism were to be adopted, there would need to be a few extra guidelines: no blocks for more than an hour (say)". Anybody abusing that would lose the right. Simple. rpeh •T•C•E• 22:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

(To Corevette) Woops. The infamous AMM's idiocy strikes again!--Arch-Mage Matt^Talk 22:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I would rather see the vandal brake instituted. That received consensus, but nothing was ever done. I say we stick to that if we wish to block someone. –Elliot 22:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this proposal makes more sense than the Vandal Brake (which was brought to Daveh's attention, but he never implemented). I think it would be very helpful to have trusted editors who are able to block vandals for an hour or so, and it would make me feel less guilty about leaving at times. I agree with rpeh's suggestions; if there's no way to restrict it, we should at least have guidelines. It would be rather simple to say that if a patroller blocks a person for over an hour, or uses block in a conflict he or she is involved in, they would lose the right and receive an official warning. --GK^talk2me 23:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me especialy since misusing that privilge could be considered vandalism.--TheAlbinoOrc 23:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

As the writer of the Vandal Brake extension, all I have to say is, it's not worth the trouble. If you want I can write a small extension that prevents blocks longer than an hour (or any configurable value) for patrollers. -- Nx / talk 11:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I am uncomfortable with the idea of many people being given block rights who aren't administrators (or patrollers), but do I admit we could look for a viable option that would actually address the problem at hand.

The right to block only for a few hours would certainly be better in my opinion. It would be a function that the User Group can only use in emergencies; situations where the editors can't keep up with the vandals actions. So someone who is merely yelling at editors and makes an abusive post every hour should be left to the administrators. Additionally there should be some strict rules regarding abuse of the rights (think on how every passenger has the "right" to stop a riding train with the emergency stop), to prevent the function being used in controversial situations. --Timenn-<talk> 17:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd have no issue with giving it to Patrollers, though I may be biased there, so I would suggest that we start with that and then see if there's a need for more. I think it was mentioned back in the beginning, but we may even want to start with only the long-time Patrollers, though I think that would be marginally more effort on DaveH's end to code...but not too much as far as I know.

I agree that the right to block for only an hour or two is what's called for here, and if Nx is willing to script something like that, I think we should take him up on it. We'd want to discuss renewal of blocks for repeat vandals when Admins are absent, but apart from that, I don't foresee any major points of contention in terms of how it should be used...I think we all understand the intent here. ? Robin Hood?Talk 19:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with RH, giving it to patrollers would be good idea. However there would have to be limitations, for example allowing to block up to a maximum of say, six months. However blocks that are longer than six months and indefinite blocks should be reserved for admins only. --ModderElGrande^{Talk Contribs} 08:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

(u/d) There seems to be consensus about non-admins being given block powers. Can we agree to set up a new group, within the gift of administrators, and get Daveh to create it? This is getting ridiculous. rpeh •T•C•E• 20:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I wrote the following draft for the UESPWiki:Patrollers page, see here. We need to determine how many hours a Patroller's block can last, I'd say we're fine with about 4 hours. That should be enough for an admin to see it and follow up on it (the block can always be repeated if necessary). --Timenn-<talk> 15:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I like the text Timenn - and I'm fine with any block longer than three hours: after all, most vandals get tired pretty easily if they're blocked. My only question is: do we want to create a separate page (like IRC blocks) to list the blocks or do we want to post it here on AN? --SerCenKing ^Talk 19:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd change "excessively" to "persistently" - "excessive vandalism" is something of ~~an oxymoron~~ a tautology.

The other thing that should maybe be included is the options that patrollers can use: "Prevent account creation", "Automatically block the last IP address used by this user, and any subsequent IPs they try to edit from" (named accounts only), "Prevent user from sending e-mail" (named accounts only), "Allow this user to edit own talk page while blocked", and "Block anonymous users only" (anons only). Any thoughts on those options - or doesn't it matter? rpeh •T•C•E• 19:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Given the edits of the last few days, I don't think we'll want anons-only. I'm a little iffy about Patrollers having the ability to block the user's own talk page too...I mean, if the editor wants to edit their talk page, the Patroller can section-protect any warning, then just let the vandal go nuts, maybe reverting every so often if necessary for language issues, threats, etc. I think talk page blocking should be left to an Admin. Same thing for preventing e-mail; I wouldn't want a "bad" Patroller to be able to block a private e-mail to an Admin asking for intervention. It's unlikely to happen, but I can at least conceive of a case where a Patroller is at odds with an editor and the "dirty laundry" isn't something the editor would want to be public. I'd be fine with Patrollers having the other options. ? Robin Hood?Talk 19:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Since this seems to be going through, here are my thoughts. I don't think it is necessary to block IPs for more than two hours if you are waiting for an admin to come by. Most of the time, a simple 30 minute block can make them leave or get bored. I think Patrollers should be able to block talk pages, but only under the extreme condition that the vandal is making a lot of edits. I guess the key word here is discretion. Also, I don't think I am comfortable having all Patrollers with this right. I think each patroller needs to request it and have it put up to a vote by administrators only. Yeah, I know community. Well, I don't care. This isn't some simple patroller right. Also, I don't think we need more than 4 extra hands around; that is plenty enough help. And "excessive vandalism" is perfectly fine; it is what WP uses to describe it. Elliot 20:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

(u/d) Okay, I've asked Daveh to set up a group. Yes, I know this is jumping the gun but given that he's not always around, it made sense to me to get the group set up then GK and Timenn can decide what they want to do with it. If the proposal ends up not being accepted, then the group can be left unused. rpeh •T•C•E• 22:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd also prefer to have block rights given separately from patroller rights. I think the patroller requirements aren't quite... stiff(?) enough to be used as an indicator for being given block rights. I'm perfectly fine with any maximum block length between one and four hours. It makes sense to me to allow them to "prevent account creation", "automatically block last IP...", but I agree that disabling email and disabling talk page edits should be left to admins. If I understand correctly, "block anonymous users only" refers to not blocking registered accounts when the IP has been blocked, which I also don't mind being available to these selected "trusted editors". --GK^talk2me 22:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright, Daveh has set up the "blockuser" group. I've left him another message on his talk page, because the group is not able to be granted by admins at the moment.

Nx, would you mind working on that extension you mentioned to prevent blocks beyond a set length for the group? I assume it will be trivial to change the limit later, so you can start with four hours and we'll reduce it if necessary. --GK^talk2me 15:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Done, source and description are at User:Nx/RestrictBlock. MediaWiki can already prevent a user group from blocking email, because you need the "blockemail" right for that option. I've added the "blocktalk" right, which is needed to use the "Block user from editing talk page" option. There's a minor cosmetic issue, when the extension prevents a block, it will display its error message above the block text, and in place of where the error would normally be (such as the expiry invalid error), you'll see <hookaborted>, see the screenshot. I've reported that to mediawiki, see wikipedia:bugzilla:22922 -- Nx / talk 18:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Restart

Sorry to bring this section back from the dead but it seems that there's another irritant determined to cause trouble. Has there been progress on the getting-admins-able-to-assign-the-group score, or is it worth asking Daveh to add the current group of active patrollers to the group for the moment? rpeh •T•C•E• 19:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Once you're blocked, you're blocked from everything

Well, considering the recent... contributions... of lichesarecool and his many accounts, (WHY does he hate me so much to attack my page 50000 times, and even send me a death-threat?)... anyways, I think it would be appropriate for a blocked user to not have the right to edit their talk page. I mean, they were BLOCKED despite being warned to stop, so why would they have anything useful to say? They would just continue to vandilise their talk page (as seen on many occasions), why don't admins just protect the user:talk pages from the blocked user before they have a chance to casue havok?--Arch-Mage Matt^Talk 20:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

For the sole reason to argue the block just in case.--^Corevette₇₈₉ 20:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is their right to appeal the block. So, no, I don't think this will happen. –Elliot 20:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(various E/Cs) User talks pages shouldn't be protected as every user has the right to appeal the block on their talk page. At this stage however, it appears Lichesarecool has no intention of doing so; therefore a talk page block extension is warranted. --SerCenKing ^Talk 20:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(Corevette) But the blocked users are not blocked for 'typos' and 'false info' they're blocked for ecsessive vandilism, (others) and if they want to protest they can protest to a warning. If they only want to protest to a block, thats their choice--Arch-Mage Matt^Talk 21:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Read the blocking policy: "The user talk page is made available for edits so that the editor (or any user of that IP address) can ask for clarification about why the block was implemented, or can appeal the block. Administrators (or other editors) will respond to any reasonable questions that are posted on a blocked user's talk page. However, all editors are advised to simply ignore any comments posted by a blocked user that are likely intended to bait a discussion; i.e., 'Do not feed the trolls'. –Elliot 21:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(Arch-Mage Matt) What happens if someone gets blocked unfairly (either as in they shouldn't have been blocked in the first place, or they were blocked for too long) shouldn't they have the right to protest that ?--TheAlbinoOrc 21:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It's best not to become overly aggressive or zealous when dealing with blocked users. For example, I was unjustly banned from editing Conservapedia, and they blocked me in such a way that I can't edit my talk page, so I can't appeal the block. --Michaeldsuarez ^{(Talk) (Deeds)} 03:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Another Notice

Well, after just reviewing my userpage history, I found out that this guy (Skooma Junkie) made some not so welcome edits to my page. I just found this out about two days ago, and I think I should've known about it the day it happened. (Several weeks ago) I'm suggesting that a new message be given to you, the same message if you get a new talk page edit, saying something like,

A user other than yourself has edited your userpage.

Its not of the most relevance, but I would like to know, and I'm sure any other users would too, if their page has been edited/attacked. Thanks, --Arch-Mage Matt^Talk 19:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Use Special:Watchlist instead. --Michaeldsuarez ^{(Talk) (Deeds)} 19:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The watchlist is the best way to spot it yourself. Most editors who have been around for a while will immediately remove any edits mage to somebody else's userpage, which indeed Elliot did in this case, so vandalism won't be around long. There's no way of adding the new message you want without rewriting the wiki software, and that's unlikely to happen. rpeh •T•C•E• 20:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Skipcatcha please

Can autoconfirmed users be given skipcaptcha please? A spambot would likely fail at the registration phase, but if they somehow manage to get past the captcha twice (once at registration and once to post spam), they'll be blocked anyway, so they won't reach autoconfirmed status. -- Nx / talk 20:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this would be a good idea. It's been a real pain for me recently, especially given that when adding a {{proposeddeletion}} tag to a page, it always asks for a captcha because of the links to Google. Tonight, those of us trying to revert the vandalism on Arch-Mage Matt's pages have repeatedly run into the captcha screen because of pre-existing links. It was particularly annoying given that we were doing nothing but helping out. The only spam to have appeared on the site recently has been done manually (User:Shibo) so this proposal shouldn't lead to a mass of links appearing. rpeh •T•C•E• 20:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Would it be better to simply remove the external link from {{Proposeddeletion}} and {{Speedydeletion}}? This way, external links still require captcha, but the prod/speedies don't. I'm fine with either, just wanted to put this out there as an alternative. ? Robin Hood?Talk 21:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not just those, though. It's been a real pain tonight because it kept appearing when all I, Nx and Corevette were trying to do was restore the status quo ante. rpeh •T•C•E• 21:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point, I withdraw my suggestion. ? Robin Hood?Talk 21:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Make a book function

Wouldn't it be nice to add a 'make a book' function? Like on wikipedia? — Unsigned comment by 83.243.165.190 (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

What exactly are you referring to? Could you provide a link?--^Corevette₇₈₉ 17:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe anon is talking about this: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Collection -- Nx / talk 18:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, it's pediapress.com [4] — Unsigned comment by 83.243.165.190 (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that uses the collection extension, which isn't installed at UESP. -- Nx / talk 18:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I only skimmed the functionality, but I don't see that being a huge benefit to UESP. I think other than the Lore pages, this site is mostly used as a spot-reference, so I can't see how making a book out of certain pages would do all that much for most people. ? Robin Hood?Talk 18:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be nice to have some kind of a souvenir, and a book is, for me, an exelent choise.— Unsigned comment by 83.243.165.190 (talk)

As a related aside, making offline pages available (in HTML or PDF) has been brought up from time to time and the functionality is built into MediaWiki (at least for the HTML pages). I just need to spend some time to set it up properly. -- Daveh 20:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Forum problems

Hi, I've been trying to contact an administrator as I am unable to log in to the UESP forums, it keeps saying my account is inactive, and the email I used to register is invalid.... Im guessing there was a spelling mistake in my email when I registered, and thats why I cant seem to activate my account, I dunno if this is the most suitable place to ask for help, but its the only place I could find on the site that let me send a message to an admin.... thanks in advance if anyone can help

Tysonne

Sorry, but I don't have any way of checking out what's going on with your account. See this page, where the forum staff is listed. If you're unable to contact any of them through the forum, try leaving a message one of their talk pages or sending them an email via the "Email this user" function on the wiki. --GK^talk2me 03:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Spam block

I am requesting a block for IP: 172.162.108.109 for spamming links to external sites.--^Corevette₇₈₉ 02:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

request a block

requesting block for 68.96.46.16 http://www.uesp.net/wiki/User_talk:68.96.46.16

continued vandalism after a warning was given - attacking the same page with obscenities — Unsigned comment by Walbert (talk • contribs) on 11 April 2010

Done. --Timenn-<talk> 09:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for Adminship

The UESPWiki, at the moment, has only two active admins, and we could use some help.

Our Request for Adminship (RfA) process is based on Wikipedia's policy. An editor, when nominated, accepts and answers questions, which can be asked by any registered editor. Votes and comments can also be left by any registered editor. Daveh makes the call, based upon the community's consensus, after about a week.

Krusty

Krusty (talk⁺ • contribs • edit count • logs • email)

archived to User:Krusty/RfA; consensus: support

Request for Block of Rpeh

Recently in IRC, User:rpeh has decided to use his half-op abilities to kick and block me without any substantiated reason (other than "I don't like you"). He then decided to call me a troll and tell me to go away because nobody liked me (obvious personal attacks). I can provide a log of the events if someone wishes to see them since all I currently have is my word, but IRC cannot to be quoted. I am requesting ~~the removal of all rights of his~~ an indefinite block be made since he has once again shown that he is unable to handle the duty and responsibility that comes with being a patroller or member of this site. Elliot (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Two admins were present in-channel at the time and neither objected. Your ban was necessary because of your insistence on trolling and was removed after 10 minutes (before this was posted). I hope you have learned your lesson. rpeh •T•C•E• 22:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Coming from someone who has an issue with just the site of me, a block by you on me is something to be scrutinized to the fullest extent. Calling an established user a troll and kicking them for holding a discussion is a clear breach of your duties as a patroller. The administrators are there, but not one of them was involved in the discussion. Timmenn was away and Krusty did not participate (they both were idle for well over an hour each). You only called me a troll once GK had left. Your disregard for policies is something that should be noted, not overlooked. Elliot (talk) 22:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning that Elliot is once again beginning the edit warring for which he has become famous. Here and here he reinstates a comment that does nothing to advance the debate and only attacks another user while also removing another user's attempts to seal the debate. I'm not going to respond to this trolling any further. rpeh •T•C•E• 22:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

How does that pertain to the discussion at hand? (And your edit summary is another example of why your rights should be removed). He believes he is above the rules of the wiki, as can be seen by his recent behavior. Elliot (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The point is that you spend far more time trolling on this site (and others) than you do improving it. I spend huge amounts of time researching other people's questions and edits and then I have to spend more time dealing with unproductive edits from you. Your comments on the CP were not about templates, they were aimed purely at me. I'm afraid there's no point trying to deal with you in any kind of normal manner: you are a troll, pure and simple, and deserve to be treated as such. Since all you now do is troll, there is no point in trying to debate with you. This AN discussion is nothing more than another attempt at trolling. Point in fact: I have used time during this discussion to patrol other people's edits and make adjustments where necessary. You have done... nothing. When there's such an obvious troll, there's no personal attack to be made by calling it one. rpeh •T•C•E• 22:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't need to edit frequently to provide a point. And despite what you seem to think, your 55,000 edits don't excuse any reprehensible behavior that you have shown today. Your personal attacks were unprovoked, and you insist on continuing them. You have no right to call me by such a name. Elliot (talk) 23:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't feed the troll. rpeh •T•C•E• 23:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The above is precisely what I am referring to. Elliot (talk) 23:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Elliot's changing of this section's title - again without having done anything useful on the site in the interim - is more proof of his incessant trolling. rpeh •T•C•E• 00:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

(←) Do you have an actual response to my claims? You know, other than attacking me. And, the title I changed it to is more appropriate for what I am requesting. Elliot (talk) 00:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. You were disrupting the channel and I took action to stop it - one of the duties of a half-op. You are trolling here too by, inter alia accusing me of "bordering 3RR" when I have made precisely ONE undo during this discussion. Again, this is trolling by Elliot. As I've said, you are simply trolling now. I will not respond to you further on this topic except to say "Support" during the vote on blocking you. rpeh •T•C•E• 00:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not the one insulting other editors. I am not the one who sits there smugly because every single user on this site is blinded by your repeated reminding of your edit count. You continue to call me a troll (personal attacks), and based on all of the trouble you have caused (unlike you, I have never been blocked here), I believe it is in the best interest of the site to see you leave. I was not disrupting the channel, since I was asking you where exactly I attacked you. Your continued attacks are enough to block you, let alone all prior engagements. Elliot (talk) 00:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

And the 3RR was a mistake by me; I mixed the AN and CP reverts together by mistake. Elliot (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

hmm...i don't meen to intrude but after reading this very long disscosion i don't think that ethir of you should be blocked--GUM!!! 00:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

If any other editors voice concerns, I'd be happy to hold a vote regarding to rpeh's eligibility for his position. As it stands, it seems rather personal and irrelevant.

Elliot: This edit could technically be considered where your trolling began. You have a habit of swooping in and making rude comments - demands and orders even; you contribute nearly exclusively when you have something to complain about; you barge into a discussion and expect everyone to immediately accept your perspective as gospel. As of this edit, you are undoubtedly trolling. You are not attempting to amicably solve a disagreement, but making baseless accusations that have nothing to do with the template changes being discussed. This is trolling.
rpeh: Perhaps your concerns about Elliot's methods would be better addressed on his talk page, rather than in the discussion he's attempting to disrupt.

Once again, unless there are other legitimate concerns voiced by other editors, I find holding a vote for rpeh's removal of rights/"indefinite block"ing pointless; it would also be another form of feeding the troll. I look forward to hearing the opinions of other members of the community. --GK^talk2me 03:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Out of everything you have seen from rpeh... that is your response to him? The first link of yours is a legitimate response. To say that I was trolling their is massive breach of assuming good faith. I was expressing my concerns in imperative sentences, nothing more. But sitting there calling me a troll is okay? Elliot (talk) 03:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not say you were trolling in the first edit. I said that technically it could be considered trolling, since a troll lurks around only to barge in and take action when they can cause a stir. Perfectly logical reasoning, there. --GK^talk2me 03:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

As an established member of this site, I was throwing in my thoughts. It was a minor suggestion at that. So, what about rpeh's unwarranted kick and block in the IRC? Would you like a transcript? Elliot (talk) 03:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

(←) Elliot, please remember that I was there when you came in, and you were spoiling for a fight. Please recall how many times I have emphasized to you that the IRC channel is intended "to allow amicable, informal discussions about UESPWiki and the UESP site in general." Please remind yourself that "channel operators have authority to enforce these guidelines as they see fit, in particular in cases where one channel user is disrupting other users of the channel." In other words, when a user comes in trolling (intent on arguing, disrupting the channel, and refusing to drop the subject when told to do so) ops have the authority to kick them. --GK^talk2me 03:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a load of bull and you know it. Elliot (talk) 03:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I was not around last night when the whole IRC incident took place – but I was logged in all night long and I have just read through the conversation in its entirety. I have also read through the topics on both the AN and CP (the CP one was not new to me, though) and I'll have to agree with GK all the way; your very first comment to the CP was both demanding and commanding and had very little to do with a friendly suggestion. We have been over this before, but here we go again – you might type posts like that with a big grin on your face but you come off as better knowing and a bit patronizing, which is bound to net you a reaction. Rpeh pointed out that you were wrong and the rest is something we have seen way too many times. Last night, you entered the IRC clearly looking for trouble and – without a 'hello' or anything just went into a fight with rpeh. Now, I have no idea why you keep doing this, why you are going through all the trouble and endless bickering – but I do know that rpeh blocked you (for 10 minutes only!) for all the right reasons. The discussion was going nowhere and the IRC is not the right place. Still, when you were unblocked you kept arguing and even posted an official complaint, reverted RH70's attempt to get the Template discussion back on track (with the ES "Remove ridiculous hiding"), changed your original complaint to a perma-block request, kept bickering on the IRC and so on. That is trolling, that is unneeded drama and most importantly, it is a violation of the guidelines for the IRC and the Wiki. --Krusty 08:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I was foolish enough to believe that you would not also be blinded by whatever it is rpeh has over members. But alas, I am over this, and have no intention to return to such blindness. Elliot (talk) 08:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll tell you what rpeh "has over members": respect. Something that you've never gained with your actions. Goodbye then Elliot, we'll all be in tears and waving hankerchiefs as you depart. --SerCenKing ^Talk 08:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Who knew such behavior garners respect? Trust me, I will be in eternal tears for not having left this site sooner. Elliot (talk) 09:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Well I'm perhaps not the best judge of what is/isn't a personal attack but raking up things from a year ago that have been settled already certainly seems to fit that to me. All together while I (and I'm sure everyone else) wish that no-one has to leave I'm glad that if one of you does it isn't Rpeh.--TheAlbinoOrc 20:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You just have no idea, do you? Elliot (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

\=> Rather than rehash the same story again, I would like to express a few points, so we can avoid these events in the future.

Elliot, when you have issues with another editor, next time contact a third editor or ask the community's help without making demands.
This is not the right place to start discussions about IRC. There is a special project page for that, please notify us of issues there.
The banning of Elliot only took 10 minutes. It should be noted that Elliot had been kicked before in that same session, but since he has auto-join on kick enabled he immediately joined the channel again. That renders kicking useless, so a short ban is quite logical (and common practice in such situations).
rpeh, when you see a discussion get out of hand like this, try to involve other editors sooner, or hold back replying for a while so it slows down a bit. Even when the other party is quick to respond and seems intent upon escalation it will do less harm to stall for time.
Elliot, make up your mind. Either say you resign and stay true to your word, or be honest in your intention that you prefer staying around to contribute to the wiki.
And finally, Elliot if I see you making one more comment like the above reply to TheAlbinoOrc, an editor not involved in the current issue, I'll issue a warning to you. I don't want to see you making such dismissive comments to editors again.

--Timenn-<talk> 13:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Timmen: I admit that I may have been unclear as to my meaning, if it had been brought up in a different context, and not as (to quote Elliot) "Who knew such behavior garners respect? Trust me, I will be in eternal tears for not having left this site sooner." I wouldn't have had a problem with it, however the way I worded my post it sounded like no matter how or where it had been brought up I would have objected to it. Elliot: I actually do know what I'm talking about, I've gone through the archives of Rpeh's talk page and the Administrator Noticeboard for the relevant time period so I have both sides of the story.--TheAlbinoOrc 18:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Timmen, is it okay to call other users trolls? Elliot (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't care Elliot. When I see a long conflict like this appear on the wiki I don't measure all the individual accusations the parties throw at each other, but I simply see two parties that simply took the conversation further than was necessary. Suddenly drawing the line after a certain point would mean having to choose sides. You as well could have ended it by stopping to reply and wait for other editors to step in. Instead you continued a conversation which you knew would never become productive.

AlbinoOrc, I used the reply to you as example for the tendency Elliot has shown to dismiss editors like that. Editors are encouraged to participate in discussions, so Elliot cannot dismiss people like that. --Timenn-<talk> 09:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

A tendency to dismiss editors who were not in the private conversations. Yes, I have that right. But it is good to no you don't care when a patroller calls another member a troll (you still haven't told him to avoid personal attacks). Anywho, this will be my last edit. Elliot (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Elliot, can you please stop using the "established user" user? You (and any other "established users") are not above "normal users". Elliot, how do you expect us to respect you if you continue to believe that there's a hierarchy (with "established users" as a rank) on this wiki. If you treat us equally, we'll treat you equally. --Michaeldsuarez ^{(Talk) (Deeds)} 14:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit Conflict: Elliot: I was, in the wrong there I should have been less accusatory if I had done that you wouldn't have ended up going into this resenting what I did, and I wouldn't have resented the way you worded your reply. What I should have said is something like this: This comment appears to me to have the potential to seem like a personal attack, especially to users who don't have a full knowledge of the events that occurred during the time leading up to Rpeh's block, can you please make more clear that this is simply an attempt to build your case for the indefinite block of Rpeh you've requested ? I also should have left out the last part of my comment completely and expressed personal feelings of that kind at most on my userpage, where rather than causing problems in discussion it would have been an expression of my feelings on the subject where they are supposed to be exhibited.--TheAlbinoOrc 15:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I am going to second what Michaeldsuarez has said. There is no hierarchy when it comes to "user" and "confirmed/autoconfirmed user." Also, seeing the evidence I don't think a block is needed. But that's just my view on things. --ModderElGrande^{Talk Contribs} 20:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

24.8.19.11

hi i think 24.8.19.11 is ready for a block--GUM!!! 23:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I second the request, he/she has tampered with official warnings, and made personal attacks to Nephele, (while not realizing she is a woman also)--^Corevette₇₈₉ 23:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Fearing to *feed the troll* more pages, a agree that an immediate ban is in order, before more people's hard work fall victim and more tiresome work is created for active UESPians Emoboy64 23:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. --GK^talk2me 23:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

help

Discussion moved to Oblivion talk:The Ultimate Heist#help

Request to remove warning

I would like the heinous warning to be removed from my paged based upon unsubstantiated reasoning. Asking a member to stop trolling is definitely not a personal attack. Hell, other members have called other members trolls repeatedly and haven't received any form of official reprimand. So, the logical thing to do would be to remove the warning. The conflicting edits are astoundingly troublesome.

Even if I had called anyone a troll, based on the behavior displayed in the diffs above, a warning is definitely not warranted. Either make the WP:SPADE argument applicable in all situations or none, but you cannot have it both ways (it's only an essay written by a WP editor; it is not a guideline or policy that UESP would even adopt). Elliot (talk) 07:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right that we can't have it both ways. Frankly, I think you both acted very poorly in this situation. The two of you both need to learn to let other users handle any reversions or warnings that you feel may be required when you're either involved in the dispute or cannot reasonably maintain a neutral point of view. In the interest of fairness, I would support either warning both Elliot and rpeh or neither and removing the warning from Elliot's page. ? Robin Hood?Talk 14:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I agreed with RobinHood. Both of you shouldn't let Internet grudges wreck UESP. --Michaeldsuarez ^{(Talk) (Deeds)} 21:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like more people to address this. I received a warning to for stating that rpeh was trolling, yet rpeh has continued to call me a troll without any backlash. I placed a warning lately since he felt like continuing it, yet he reverted it by insulting me again. Something must be done because he is out of control. Elliot (talk) 03:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, this has got to stop. You might have noticed that neither of the administrators have removed the warning, nor did any of us bother to react to this request. The warning was put there for a reason and that is because you are showing trolling behavior. You ONLY pop in to cause trouble when you see the chance, which was clearly evident in the rpeh vs RobinHood70 conversation from last night. You can't convince me that you were really interested in the discussion at all – your goal was clearly to push rpeh in the wrong direction, keeping up the "you didn't answer my question"-routine and generally being unconstructive. The "unconstructive" part is what really makes you deserve the warning. A lot of editors are held back from constructive work because of your constant interruptions, bickering, warnings, accusations and so on. So: Stay true to your word and stay away from the site – or come back and make good and constructive work, because right now you are wasting our time. --Krusty 09:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Good to know that you allow certain users to break rules but not others. Can he do no wrong? Elliot (talk) 09:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't really trying to debate anything here. I was telling you that the warning is official and that you really should consider your behavior. And please stop using edit summaries like that. --Krusty 10:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It isn't yours to call or decide. It is the community's decision, not yours. And two members have expressed the illogical behavior brought on by the warning. Elliot (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's recall he is an Admin, he has talked about the topic with a lot of the Community and he is an unaffected third party. Plus, he was not deciding anything. Take that as his vote for it to stay.--^Corevette₇₈₉ 16:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not retarded. Saying "I wasn't really trying to debate anything here. I was telling you that the warning is official..." is definitely and authoritative push. Elliot (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Elliot, you are not helping out the Wiki at all, you are indeed trolling by throwing all your thoughts at the Administrator Noticeboard and expect to have everyone that you dislike blocked and removed from being a Patroller, Admin, etc., you starting arguments on the Administrator Noticeboard is getting you no where, you would be best off just using the Wiki for information, not your personal playpen where you expect to get everything you want. --Dremora Lord 17:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Second Opinion Please

I would appreciate a second opinion on this revert and the subsequent re-revert by rpeh. I feel the post has no merit and only serves to attack/bait users. It comes from an IP, though I found no clear-cut indication that it's a proxy.

Similarly, I have gone ahead and reverted rpeh's reversion of another post, since it comes from an open proxy, which we have traditionally disallowed, and again serves no purpose in improving the wiki. ? Robin Hood?Talk 05:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Are we allowed to make up policies now? To say "Contributions from proxies are not allowed on UESP" is to invent a totally new policy with no discussion. The suggestion that Tiber Septim = Nephele is one that has been advanced before and the fact that you don't like the idea is no reason to summarily delete it. rpeh •T•C•E 11:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I saw both posts and while I think both of them are kind of silly, I can't see any real reason to revert them. People are entitled to their opinion and as long as they are not harassing or directly insulting, I think we should allow discussions - and controversial opinions. --Krusty 11:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see any reason to censor other users' thought or criticism. We don't want to create an environment where users feel that they don't have the right to disagree with a sysop or Patroller. --Michaeldsuarez ^{(Talk) (Deeds)} 13:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm with RobinHood on this matter. Apart from the discussion whether you agree with the (re)reverted arguments, they are simply in the wrong place. Whenever someone has a problem with an editor he/she should take it up at the talk page of said editor. Jumping the gun like that in the middle of a discussion is not productive, and I think it's correct to remove it in that case.

The second comment doesn't even fit anywhere on this wiki. This blog is unaffiliated with us, and discussion about it here is simply irrelevant. Secondly, I agree that edits made from open proxies should generally be removed if one can reasonably say it isn't productive. Thirdly, back when rpeh was accused of writing the blog, I believe we agreed that speculation of that kind would never get us anywhere, so why would it now? --Timenn-<talk> 15:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

i have to agree with timmen--GUM!!! 15:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

From the last entry on this article's talk page: "...when it comes from a newly-created account editing through an open proxy and seems designed only to cause trouble, I'm not interested. If somebody has something to say about me or anyone else, they should at least have the courage to show their face while doing it. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 00:31, 2 March 2009 (EST)"

I did not "make up" policy, and if Nephele isn't allowed to castigate users (at least in your perception), then neither should you. Not only did my actions seem to reflect your own opinion of a year ago, they were consistent with our Blocking Policy (third bullet). Granted, blocking is not the same as deleting, but typically we have deleted non-constructive or irrelevant posts for users that warranted blocking. ? Robin Hood?Talk 16:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes you did. Blocking proxies is a well-established policy and there's no problem there. There is no policy page either here or on Wikipedia that states contributions from proxies can be removed. Removing posts simply because they're from proxies and for no other reason is a new policy you have invented. End of story. The posts you unilaterally removed were not personal attacks, they weren't obscene and didn't violate any other kind of policy. One of them was related to comments already present in the thread while the other was related to a long-standing mystery that a number of site members have attempted to solve. I agree it might not be a particularly useful contribution, but with the number of fanfics, roleplaying "ideas", and other nonsense that the site includes, there's no harm in having one more. rpeh •T•C•E• 20:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I interpreted policy differently than you did, I did not make it up. Clearly, at least some other users agreed with my actions, whether or not they specifically agreed with my interpretation of policy. As you know, Patrolling these sorts of things is a judgement call and I have no difficulty with the fact that I made that call—that's our job. As for the other post, I thought it violated the boundaries of civility, and we most certainly do have a policy about that (more specifically, "Personal attacks are grounds for an immediate block"). In the interests of moving this along, however, I'm content to leave the changes as they stand now (the one I perceive as uncivil left in, the proxy addition left out), but perhaps a more in-depth discussion is in order regarding what our policy should be in terms of content added by open proxies, particularly when that content appears to be off-topic to the site and/or trolling. ? Robin Hood?Talk 20:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing to interpret here. The relevant policy is this one, which makes no mention of removing or otherwise censoring the posts of open proxies. If you know of a policy that does recommend the deletion of content from proxies, please supply a link to it. rpeh •T•C•E• 21:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. I applied the blocking policy more broadly than you would have in the same instance. Now can we kindly drop this and move forward, or would you like to beat the dead horse a little more? ? Robin Hood?Talk 21:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

As long as you intend to keep inventing policy on the hoof, the horse is still very much alive. Now, please supply the link for which you have been asked or admit you were wrong. There is no third way here. rpeh •T•C•E• 21:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

(←) Back away from the dead horse. There will be no further reply from me on this subject. If you feel that strongly, by all means, feel free to take whatever other action you deem necessary. In the mean time, I'm busy editing templates. ? Robin Hood?Talk 21:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm familiar with that document but nobody on Wikipedia would dream of applying it in a situation where somebody was deleting content according to personal whims rather than policy and then refusing to admit the mistake. I note that you have still failed to fulfill the simple request I made of you, so I'm going to assume you take the second of the two choices. rpeh •T•C•E• 22:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Tsk tsk. You have a very selective definition of what is permitted and what is not. I believe it has been the long time behavior to block open proxies on sight, no? If that is the case, how is removing their comments such a big deal? Elliot (talk) 23:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

This conversation is about removing comments made by somebody editing through a proxy for the sole reason that they were editing through a proxy. Persistent trolling is an entirely different matter. rpeh •T•C•E• 23:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

We [are supposed to] block proxies on sight. So why is removing their contributions such a big deal? Elliot (talk) 00:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Now you're making policy up, too. The WP policy I have already cited clearly states that people are allowed to edit through proxies in certain situations. Let me quote the relevant part: "legitimate users...are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked". Nowhere does the policy say that proxies are to be "blocked on sight", only that they "may be blocked from editing for any period at any time". Nowhere does it say that contributions from proxies are to be deleted.

Additionally, the UESP blocking policy states that "An anonymous IP address that is identified as an Open Proxy or Zombie Computer can be immediately and permanently blocked, without warning" (my emphasis). Nowhere does it use the word "must" or any synonym. Nowhere does it say that contributions from proxies are to be deleted.

Please can anybody else who wants to engage in this debate make sure they have read and understood the two relevant policies before contributing. rpeh •T•C•E• 00:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

You still have yet to answer my question. Regardless of the semantics of must, usually, sometimes, can, or should, the normal process is blocking them. Now please, answer my question. Elliot (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

And you're trolling again. I have answered every question posed to me. I have answered them fully, with references to the relevant policies. Please go back and re-read my answers, read the links and learn from the experience. Further correspondence on this matter will not be entered into. rpeh •T•C•E• 01:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

And you are attacking again. I don't care what the policies say about removing it. I am asking why it is such a big deal. You have no qualms with blocking them, but removing their statements is such a crime against them? I wish for you to address that. And just because I don't agree with you gives you no right to call it trolling. I thought you would have learned by now.

But still, there is nothing wrong with removing the comments, RH. If some wish for it to be written in stone, then I suggest going through that process. If we are going to permit blocking of proxies (which should be seen as the be all end all of wiki retribution), then removing comments is no big deal. Elliot (talk) 01:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't feed the troll. rpeh •T•C•E• 01:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's not be so fixated on the rules. Nothing that Robin did was wrong. I stand by his reverts. Even if they are not sanctioned by the rules, they should be. And as editors, we should have some leeway with our own judgment on issues such as these when they come up. Robin was "bold" (aren't we supposed to be bold), and I approve. So, let's not all cry about it when it happens and accuse people of being a troll (maybe rightly so, but a mirror might show the same for you Rpeh. And because 1 person does something, doesn't mean that you have to do the same). --Tim ^Talk 03:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Timmeh, the rules are there for a purpose. They do not support the actions taken by RobinHood70. This has been clearly demonstrated. If you want to change the rules, please start the appropriate thread, but until then the actions that were taken were quite clearly incorrect, as I have demonstrated. rpeh •T•C•E• 03:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be one thing if these posts were constructive to the site, but done by a proxy. In my opinion, that would be ok. It would be entirely a different thing if a user used a proxy to make attacks on another user. In this case, it is ok to remove the comments. They add nothing to the discussion. Rules themselves are meant to be guides. This was a minor issue. He even asked about it here, if it was ok. And now there is debate about it, which would be good if people didn't start yelling "Omg troll" and getting worked up about something that isn't even that major. If Sir Proxy was angry that we deleted his personal attacks, then maybe he should complain. Otherwise, the only one shedding tears is you. --Tim ^Talk 06:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

That completely misses the point. This started because somebody was making up their own policy. The situation in which that was happening doesn't matter. You're also misrepresenting the original problem because the proxy didn't make personal attacks. If people can't read the policy and can't read the original issue then I give up. rpeh •T•C•E• 08:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Trolling

ok guys just calm dwon a little if this were in a room i think a bwrawl would start i can see that it wasn't nice for elliot to give rpeh a warning but it also wasn't nice for rpeh to call elliot a troll. so what i'm tring to say is leave this disscousin alone for an hour or so and let some other users have a say in this--GUM!!! 02:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict with Gum) Rpeh, with all due respect, I think you should actually try to talk to Elliot and not just block him out and pretend he doesn't exist. If you disagree, politely argue your point, don't just call him a troll over, and over, and over again. I know this argument really, really, should end, but I don't think this is the way to do it. --Arch-Mage Matt^Talk 02:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Since we've moved into a different debate, I've given this a new subheader. Please feel free to revert/edit if you disagree.

To both of you, let's look at WP's definition of troll: "In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion". Now, please can either of you - or anyone else - point out to me a useful and uncontroversial edit by Elliot lately?

Quite simply, if it looks like a troll, sounds like a troll, and acts like a troll, it's probably a troll. Me? I'm trying to get a definitive, referenced list of Septim emperors and it's bloody hard because there are lots of sources, lots of sources that need references to other sources and lots of sources that contradict other sources. Elliot is posting irrelevant nonsense designed to distract people. So tell me: what part of "troll" is inaccurate in this case? rpeh •T•C•E• 02:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

And I'm sure a huge Do not feed the troll was not meant to aggrivate Elliot, when no one else was feeding the arguement besides you and Elliot. Another note- If it looks like a hamster, sounds like a hamster, and acts like a hamster, it could very well be a Guinea pig. Even if you think it's something, it could be another. Asking how can Elliot be anything else than a troll, I don't know, becuase I won't defend him. But if he stops acting like a kid, turns around and starts helping the site, what I said will be true.--Arch-Mage Matt^Talk 02:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

AMM, I hate to just shoot you down, but personal attacks + starting things in the public= trolling. That's just the end of it. As it turns out, he is much worse with attacks on IRC.--^Corevette₇₈₉ 03:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't have IRC but from what I see here, Elliot reverting things of Rpeh's is just as bad as Rpeh reverting edits of Elliot's. What I have wanted to say for a long time, and I'm truly sorry for sounding offensive, but just get over it and ignore each other, both of you, and get back to actually doing good work for the site or leave- permenantly.--Arch-Mage Matt^Talk 03:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

AMM, excuse me but I am doing good things for the site. The entire point of this is that Elliot is stopping people from doing good things for the site and not doing anything useful himself. This is a case where both sides of the dispute are not equal: Elliot is a troll - and again, I'll ask you for evidence of useful things he has done lately. rpeh •T•C•E• 03:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

(←) I see the 3rd of Febuary, I took a quick look that was the first thing I saw.--^Corevette₇₈₉ 03:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Since you seem so fixated on Wikipedia, I will bring up WP:NPA, WP:NOSPADE, and WP:Civility. Your constant calling me a troll breaks policies, and I want you warned or blocked for doing it multiple times. Elliot (talk) 03:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

(Rpeh) I say again that I will not defend him. Elliot is not stopping anyone from doing anything, as he is not reverting my edits to help the site, or anything similar. He is in a lone arguement with you, preventing you from putting any accusation on him. If you keep saying not to feed the troll, he will remove it, and start up a whole new argument on how that was bad. I see no point in a DNFTT sign, if you alone stop bickering, Elliot will have nothing better to do but to leave.. --Arch-Mage Matt^Talk 03:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

AMM, I even tried the "let me help you" line. It did't work. I tried the "ignore him and he'll go away" line, but it doesn't work because he's such a pathological troll that he keeps coming back. He spends his time disrupting UESP with trolling posts, insulting other users through email and IRC and generally getting in the way of anybody trying to do anything useful. I'm not going to link you to UESPWatch, but there are plenty of examples there. Until Elliot is blocked for good from this site, he will continue to troll, insult and disrupt other users. There is no longer any reason why this does not happen. rpeh •T•C•E• 03:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

(←) And the insults continue? And you wish to validate your reasoning by quoting a Wikipedia essay? You have gone too far, rpeh. If you fail to edit anything I edit (this all started with your edit then I will leave you alone. Plain and simple. If you stop calling me a troll, I will leave you alone. If you stop thinking you are so goddamn entitled, I will leave you alone. You try to qualify your behavior by saying it is the result of mine. Why can I not do the same to you? Why can anyone else of this site not get away with calling others trolls? Why do you wish to constantly attack me, both here and on WP? If you leave me alone, I will leave you alone. Elliot (talk) 03:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

And now you're just lying. I defended you on WP despite the fact that most people wanted you blocked for incivility and personal attacks. Thanks for mentioning that, BTW, because it's now perfectly allowable for me to link people to your contributions so they can see how you behave there, too.

I call you a troll because that's all you are. You started well here and I even supported you in your election to the post of patroller. Since then, you have demonstrated a total lack of respect for the site's editors and its staff. You call the admins "idiots" and "fools" and generally treat everybody with contempt. While other people seek to improve the site, you seek solely to gain power on, or disrupt it. That is why you are a troll. I stand my description, as there is simply no other description that fits you. rpeh •T•C•E• 04:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you think would happen if I called you an ass and stated I said that because that is what fits you? What would happen then? Even if someone is something, calling them that is a violation of rules. And don't try to say But I am not one, so your argument is crap. Elliot (talk) 04:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I feel this has gone far enough. For me this has been another morning of waking up, and seeing the Recent Changes filled with posts on this fruitless, as I see it, discussion. So here are a few things to prevent these in the future, I'm hoping the rest of the community can back me up on them.

It seems the word troll is starting to get an infamous word to add extra weight to ones arguments. So I propose that both Elliot and rpeh no longer use it to describe each other. It's just a word, so it can't stop people from making accusations on behaviour, but I believe that having a to describe them each time, rather that simply using the word, will at least slow things down.

Next, I would like to see that both Elliot and rpeh realize that while they may not always be able to avoid each other, they can slow discussions down. So when you are checking the Recent Changes, and you see that the other party has made a statement you find appalling, you refrain from immediately replying. The comment will not go away, just wait for a day and then reply. It gives the rest of the community time to come up with a solution, before the discussion has degraded into namecalling.

Finally, seeing Elliot's post here. This is my last unofficial warning, please stop making posts like that. Would you have replied to RobinHood's initial question in your first post it would have been a different matter, but I find this post too provocative to ignore. --Timenn-<talk> 12:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

You find it easy to ignore that big ass banner up there that is beyond reprehensible, so excuse me if I find that–that is the single post of mine or rpeh's which you can't ignore–hard to believe. Elliot (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Characters, Fanfiction etc. Our (Nonexistent) Policy.

Discussion moved to the Community Portal.

COPPA Mistake

When registering for the forums I accidently clicked on the option that said I was Born On or Aftert May 30th, 1997. I am 16 years of age my birthdate being January 20th 1994. I would like to request the removal of that mistake registration so I may register properly.

Thank you.

Account Information

UserName: Team Xlink

Email: TeamXlinkSolitudeDev@gmail.com — Unsigned comment by Team Xlink (talk • contribs) on 31 March 2010

I think I've fixed it, but if there's a still problem (or if I made a mistake), post another message here. --Nephele^Talk 20:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I tried to login and I couldn't, it said I needed to activate my account, so checked to see if I had gotten a new email for activation and I have not. Team Xlink

Prev: Archive 13

Up: Administrator Noticeboard

Next: Archive 15

UESPWiki β