UESPWiki - User Contributions [en]

UESPWiki:Patrollers/Nominations

2010-07-16T19:35:44Z

ModderElGrande: /* Votes */ I'm changing my vote.

==Before you Nominate==
If you are nominating yourself, be sure that you have read the [[UESPWiki:Patrollers|Patrollers]] page, and understand what is expected out of a patroller. If you are nominating someone else, make sure you contact them beforehand and make sure they read the Patrollers page.

It is a good idea to look over the [[UESPWiki:Patrollers/Nominations/Completed|Completed Nominations]] to see what strengths and weaknesses were taken into consideration when others were supported or opposed in previous nominations.

==Nominations==
After nomination, there is a one week interval to allow the community to ask questions and vote on the new patroller. After this week, an Administrator will decide on the consensus and add the Patroller role to a successful nominee (if the consensus is to make the nominee a patroller), or drop the nomination (if the consensus is to not make the nominee a patroller).

==Current Nominations==
If you would like to nominate someone (including yourself) add his/her name below, with a reason for the nomination.

===[[User:Corevette789|Corevette789]]===
Since I've been active recently, I kept noticing that Corevette's name kept popping up. Then imagine my surprise when I found out he wasn't even a patroller! I intend to remedy this situation by nominating him for patrollership. Corevette789 has been consistently [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Corevette789 active] for the last year, is [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Corvus&diff=prev&oldid=585612 polite] when talking to other users, has many great edits, already watches the Recent Changes (and probably has been for a long time: this is shown by the large amount of "undo revision" edits on his contributions page), and his work is consistent with the style guide and grammar-wise. I think it's due time we gave him the shortcuts that would make his work easier.

Additionally, we currently only have 3-4 active patrollers (not including the administrators, who I suspect do a lot of the work). I will also likely disappear as school starts, because I will have to apply to colleges this year. I believe an extra patroller will help us out, and save me some work in patrolling his edits! :) [[User:Vesna|Vesna]] 02:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
*I accept this nomination.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 02:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
====Votes====
* '''Strong Support:''' - as nominator. [[User:Vesna|Vesna]] 02:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
* '''Strong Support:''' - We need more baby-faced patrollers, and as far as baby-faced editors on UESP go, Core is the most qualified. --[[User:Timmeh|Tim]] [[User_Talk:Timmeh|Talk]] 02:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
* '''Strong Support:''' - I constantly see him working on some project or another, on top of scrutinizing and tidying edits on the RC. --[[User:Riddle|Riddle]] 02:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
* '''Support:''' - as the person who was going to nominate him before Vesna beat me to it. (PS, don't take the lack of "Strong" as an indication of anything other than the fact that I dislike the concept of "Strong" votes. <g>) ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 04:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

* '''Strong Support''' I wholeheartedly support this nomination (well support it with the whole part of my heart that is not currently dealing with a law class or a play). He's always polite (even when things are a little out of the ordinary, after all how often is it that someone asks to have their character names translated to Daedric?) already watches the recent changes, is comfortable reverting vandalism, and most importantly (at least to me) his edits can be trusted (see the work done by him for the OBNPCRP for example). Oh, sorry Vesna I didn't mean to use the copy and paste function :D. By the way I always thought of '''Strong''' as being more about how hard you are to sway to the opposite viewpoint or at least to neutrality than indicating that that vote has more force than just a '''Support'''.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 05:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

* '''Support''': I've had my beady eye on Corevette as a potential patroller for some time now and I think the moment has arrived. It'll be good to have another pair of eyes on the Recent Changes page. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 07:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

* '''Support''': Absolutely nothing to add, it's all been said. A good, trustworthy editor, who I'm sure will make a great patroller. Not only that, but it's about time I wasn't the youngest patroller around :P (although Vesna may be younger, I don't know xD) --[[User:SerCenKing|SerCenKing]] [[User talk:SerCenKing|Talk]] 08:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
* '''Support''': Corevette789 will definitely be a welcome addition to the team. [[User_Talk:Wolok gro-Barok|Talk]] [[User:Wolok gro-Barok|Wolok gro-Barok]] [[Special:Contributions/Wolok gro-Barok|Contributions]] 09:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

* '''Strong Support''' I'm new, but my dealings with Corevette have shown him to be polite and courteous, which can be fairly unusual on wikis! His tone is never curt or short, and he only seeks to help the site [[User:Corvus|Corvus]] 10:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
*'''Strong Support''' – Of course. --'''[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Michaeldsuarez|Deeds]])''' 14:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''': Of course Core would be a great patroller!; is there anything more I need to say? -- [[User:Jplatinum16|Jplatinum16]] 15:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''': Corevette has really taken the time to understand the wiki and what's expected of Patrollers (plus, I can't think of another editor who's tried so hard for so long to be given the extra responsibilities). --'''[[User:GuildKnight|GK]]'''[[User_talk:GuildKnight|talk2me]] 22:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''': No doubt about it, Corevette is the obvious choice. He's been doing it for months anyway, so there's really not much to say - let's just give him the extra buttons! --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 23:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''': Another support vote from me, though at this point it's more of a formality :) As stated numerous times above, 'Vette more than meets the qualifications to be named a Patroller, and would be a very welcome addition to the team. [[User:Dlarsh|Dlarsh]]([[User_talk:Dlarsh|T]],[[Special:Contributions/Dlarsh|C]]) 18:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''': Indeed, Corevette789 certainly is excellent patroller material. He keeps a good eye on the recent changes, is friendly, active, good at answering questions and knowledgeable of site policies. He would make a great addition to the team. [[User:Kalrot|Kalrot]] 22:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

*'''support'''he would make a good patroller and i'm suprised that he isn't one. cause i'm sure i've seen a patroller user box on his page though--[[User:GUM!!!|GUM!!!]] 16:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

:*'''Comment''' Actually what you saw on his page was a ''non''-patroller userbox most likely.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|any_questions?]] 16:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

*'''Support''': At first I had a bit out an outdated image of Corevette's edits. I remember that just too often his corrections of other editors work needed some verification as well. But now that I'm checking Corevette's recent activities I can no longer find such examples, so I'm happy to see his reviewing quality has improved. This is also shows signs of adaptability to me, which I find a very good trait for a patroller. --[[User:Timenn|Timenn]]-<[[User talk:Timenn|talk]]> 08:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
====Consensus====
:'''Support''' --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 08:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

===[[User:Jplatinum16|Jplatinum16]]===
It's now just over a year since Jplatinum16 started editing regularly and it's been clear for some time that he's been patroller material. Contributions are good, checked, researched and reliable and if it hadn't been for his lack of time a couple of months ago, I'd have nominated him then. It looks like time has become more available so it's time for us to add him to the patrolling team, where I'm sure he'll be of immense help.
*I officially accept this nomination -- [[User:Jplatinum16|Jplatinum16]] 15:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
====Votes====
* '''Support:''' - as nominator. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 15:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

* '''Support:''' Per nomination.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|any_questions?]] 15:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
* '''Support:''' When you can create pages [[Morrowind:Magic|this good]] you are definitely patroller material. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 15:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
* '''Support:''' Ditto Krusty, not to forget [[Oblivion:Arcane University|this]] bit of "magic". Jplatinum has been on my don't-need-to-check-when-patrolling-his-edits list for a while now and I think he'd be a great addition to the team. --[[User:SerCenKing|SerCenKing]] [[User talk:SerCenKing|Talk]] 15:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' – Agreed with all of the above. --'''[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Michaeldsuarez|Deeds]])''' 16:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' He's on my auto-patrolled list. And the magic he worked from above.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 16:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

*'''support'''wow jc made the morrowind magic page? definitly a support--[[User:GUM!!!|GUM!!!]] 16:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

*'''Support''' Nothing much to add here; the man knows his stuff. [[User:Dlarsh|Dlarsh]]([[User_talk:Dlarsh|T]],[[Special:Contributions/Dlarsh|C]]) 00:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

* '''Support:''' Another one who's been on my potential-Patroller list for a while. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 03:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

<s>*'''Oppose:''' I've looking through his contributions to the site in the search for any major ones but the problem is, I couldn't find any. But JP16 would definitely be good for patroller if he was to be nominated again as it would give more time to make more major contributions to the site. (If this nomination fails that is) --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|Contribs]] 18:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)</s>

* '''Comment:''' Er... He made major formatting changes at the very least to the Arcane University which turned it into it's present incarnation as a shining example of how to write many-sectioned place pages. He also made the Magic page for MW, which was quite good when started and has only improved since - those are pretty important aren't they?--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|any_questions?]] 21:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

*'''Support:''' For reasons given above. As far as "major" contributions, [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Oblivion%3AArcane_University&diff=529892&oldid=521504 this edit] to OB:Arcane University, mentioned by SerC above, and the creation of [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Morrowind:Magic&oldid=585815 this article], mentioned by Krusty above, are two of several examples that can be found. Along with the great deal of work he's done on Morrowind pages and in the OBNPCRP, I think he's definitely patroller material. --'''[[User:GuildKnight|GK]]'''[[User_talk:GuildKnight|talk2me]] 19:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

*'''Support:''' JP has definitely made "major" contributions, but even more important than that, he is a great editor and his contributions certainly don't need to be edited by a patroller (except for a minor typo here or there). More than two-thirds of his edits are in the content space and I think he'll make a great addition to the team. Wholehearted support. [[User:Vesna|Vesna]] 19:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

*'''Support:''' I recall rpeh bugging Jplatinum16 on this matter before. Back then Jplatinum was quite ready for patrollership, so now that he is willing to accept the nomination I feel that nothing stands in the way. --[[User:Timenn|Timenn]]-<[[User talk:Timenn|talk]]> 08:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

*'''Support:''' Oops, I didn't catch those two edits. After seeing them, I am impressed and have decided to now support his patroller nomination. --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|Contribs]] 19:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

==Completed Nominations==
Completed nominations can be viewed on [[UESPWiki:Patrollers/Nominations/Completed|this page]].

UESPWiki:Patrollers/Nominations

2010-07-14T18:52:14Z

ModderElGrande: Sign post.

==Before you Nominate==
If you are nominating yourself, be sure that you have read the [[UESPWiki:Patrollers|Patrollers]] page, and understand what is expected out of a patroller. If you are nominating someone else, make sure you contact them beforehand and make sure they read the Patrollers page.

It is a good idea to look over the [[UESPWiki:Patrollers/Nominations/Completed|Completed Nominations]] to see what strengths and weaknesses were taken into consideration when others were supported or opposed in previous nominations.

==Nominations==
After nomination, there is a one week interval to allow the community to ask questions and vote on the new patroller. After this week, an Administrator will decide on the consensus and add the Patroller role to a successful nominee (if the consensus is to make the nominee a patroller), or drop the nomination (if the consensus is to not make the nominee a patroller).

==Current Nominations==
If you would like to nominate someone (including yourself) add his/her name below, with a reason for the nomination.

===[[User:Corevette789|Corevette789]]===
Since I've been active recently, I kept noticing that Corevette's name kept popping up. Then imagine my surprise when I found out he wasn't even a patroller! I intend to remedy this situation by nominating him for patrollership. Corevette789 has been consistently [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Corevette789 active] for the last year, is [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Corvus&diff=prev&oldid=585612 polite] when talking to other users, has many great edits, already watches the Recent Changes (and probably has been for a long time: this is shown by the large amount of "undo revision" edits on his contributions page), and his work is consistent with the style guide and grammar-wise. I think it's due time we gave him the shortcuts that would make his work easier.

Additionally, we currently only have 3-4 active patrollers (not including the administrators, who I suspect do a lot of the work). I will also likely disappear as school starts, because I will have to apply to colleges this year. I believe an extra patroller will help us out, and save me some work in patrolling his edits! :) [[User:Vesna|Vesna]] 02:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
*I accept this nomination.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 02:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
====Votes====
* '''Strong Support:''' - as nominator. [[User:Vesna|Vesna]] 02:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
* '''Strong Support:''' - We need more baby-faced patrollers, and as far as baby-faced editors on UESP go, Core is the most qualified. --[[User:Timmeh|Tim]] [[User_Talk:Timmeh|Talk]] 02:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
* '''Strong Support:''' - I constantly see him working on some project or another, on top of scrutinizing and tidying edits on the RC. --[[User:Riddle|Riddle]] 02:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
* '''Support:''' - as the person who was going to nominate him before Vesna beat me to it. (PS, don't take the lack of "Strong" as an indication of anything other than the fact that I dislike the concept of "Strong" votes. <g>) ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 04:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

* '''Strong Support''' I wholeheartedly support this nomination (well support it with the whole part of my heart that is not currently dealing with a law class or a play). He's always polite (even when things are a little out of the ordinary, after all how often is it that someone asks to have their character names translated to Daedric?) already watches the recent changes, is comfortable reverting vandalism, and most importantly (at least to me) his edits can be trusted (see the work done by him for the OBNPCRP for example). Oh, sorry Vesna I didn't mean to use the copy and paste function :D. By the way I always thought of '''Strong''' as being more about how hard you are to sway to the opposite viewpoint or at least to neutrality than indicating that that vote has more force than just a '''Support'''.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 05:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

* '''Support''': I've had my beady eye on Corevette as a potential patroller for some time now and I think the moment has arrived. It'll be good to have another pair of eyes on the Recent Changes page. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 07:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

* '''Support''': Absolutely nothing to add, it's all been said. A good, trustworthy editor, who I'm sure will make a great patroller. Not only that, but it's about time I wasn't the youngest patroller around :P (although Vesna may be younger, I don't know xD) --[[User:SerCenKing|SerCenKing]] [[User talk:SerCenKing|Talk]] 08:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
* '''Support''': Corevette789 will definitely be a welcome addition to the team. [[User_Talk:Wolok gro-Barok|Talk]] [[User:Wolok gro-Barok|Wolok gro-Barok]] [[Special:Contributions/Wolok gro-Barok|Contributions]] 09:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

* '''Strong Support''' I'm new, but my dealings with Corevette have shown him to be polite and courteous, which can be fairly unusual on wikis! His tone is never curt or short, and he only seeks to help the site [[User:Corvus|Corvus]] 10:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
*'''Strong Support''' – Of course. --'''[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Michaeldsuarez|Deeds]])''' 14:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''': Of course Core would be a great patroller!; is there anything more I need to say? -- [[User:Jplatinum16|Jplatinum16]] 15:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''': Corevette has really taken the time to understand the wiki and what's expected of Patrollers (plus, I can't think of another editor who's tried so hard for so long to be given the extra responsibilities). --'''[[User:GuildKnight|GK]]'''[[User_talk:GuildKnight|talk2me]] 22:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''': No doubt about it, Corevette is the obvious choice. He's been doing it for months anyway, so there's really not much to say - let's just give him the extra buttons! --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 23:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''': Another support vote from me, though at this point it's more of a formality :) As stated numerous times above, 'Vette more than meets the qualifications to be named a Patroller, and would be a very welcome addition to the team. [[User:Dlarsh|Dlarsh]]([[User_talk:Dlarsh|T]],[[Special:Contributions/Dlarsh|C]]) 18:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''': Indeed, Corevette789 certainly is excellent patroller material. He keeps a good eye on the recent changes, is friendly, active, good at answering questions and knowledgeable of site policies. He would make a great addition to the team. [[User:Kalrot|Kalrot]] 22:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

*'''support'''he would make a good patroller and i'm suprised that he isn't one. cause i'm sure i've seen a patroller user box on his page though--[[User:GUM!!!|GUM!!!]] 16:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

:*'''Comment''' Actually what you saw on his page was a ''non''-patroller userbox most likely.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|any_questions?]] 16:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

===[[User:Jplatinum16|Jplatinum16]]===
It's now just over a year since Jplatinum16 started editing regularly and it's been clear for some time that he's been patroller material. Contributions are good, checked, researched and reliable and if it hadn't been for his lack of time a couple of months ago, I'd have nominated him then. It looks like time has become more available so it's time for us to add him to the patrolling team, where I'm sure he'll be of immense help.
*I officially accept this nomination -- [[User:Jplatinum16|Jplatinum16]] 15:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
====Votes====
* '''Support:''' - as nominator. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 15:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

* '''Support:''' Per nomination.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|any_questions?]] 15:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
* '''Support:''' When you can create pages [[Morrowind:Magic|this good]] you are definitely patroller material. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 15:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
* '''Support:''' Ditto Krusty, not to forget [[Oblivion:Arcane University|this]] bit of "magic". Jplatinum has been on my don't-need-to-check-when-patrolling-his-edits list for a while now and I think he'd be a great addition to the team. --[[User:SerCenKing|SerCenKing]] [[User talk:SerCenKing|Talk]] 15:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' – Agreed with all of the above. --'''[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Michaeldsuarez|Deeds]])''' 16:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' He's on my auto-patrolled list. And the magic he worked from above.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 16:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

*'''support'''wow jc made the morrowind magic page? definitly a support--[[User:GUM!!!|GUM!!!]] 16:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

*'''Support''' Nothing much to add here; the man knows his stuff. [[User:Dlarsh|Dlarsh]]([[User_talk:Dlarsh|T]],[[Special:Contributions/Dlarsh|C]]) 00:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

* '''Support:''' Another one who's been on my potential-Patroller list for a while. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 03:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

*'''Oppose:''' I've looking through his contributions to the site in the search for any major ones but the problem is, I couldn't find any. But JP16 would definitely be good for patroller if he was to be nominated again as it would give more time to make more major contributions to the site. (If this nomination fails that is) --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|Contribs]] 18:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

==Completed Nominations==
Completed nominations can be viewed on [[UESPWiki:Patrollers/Nominations/Completed|this page]].

UESPWiki:Patrollers/Nominations

2010-07-14T18:51:43Z

ModderElGrande: /* Votes */

==Before you Nominate==
If you are nominating yourself, be sure that you have read the [[UESPWiki:Patrollers|Patrollers]] page, and understand what is expected out of a patroller. If you are nominating someone else, make sure you contact them beforehand and make sure they read the Patrollers page.

It is a good idea to look over the [[UESPWiki:Patrollers/Nominations/Completed|Completed Nominations]] to see what strengths and weaknesses were taken into consideration when others were supported or opposed in previous nominations.

==Nominations==
After nomination, there is a one week interval to allow the community to ask questions and vote on the new patroller. After this week, an Administrator will decide on the consensus and add the Patroller role to a successful nominee (if the consensus is to make the nominee a patroller), or drop the nomination (if the consensus is to not make the nominee a patroller).

==Current Nominations==
If you would like to nominate someone (including yourself) add his/her name below, with a reason for the nomination.

===[[User:Corevette789|Corevette789]]===
Since I've been active recently, I kept noticing that Corevette's name kept popping up. Then imagine my surprise when I found out he wasn't even a patroller! I intend to remedy this situation by nominating him for patrollership. Corevette789 has been consistently [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Corevette789 active] for the last year, is [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Corvus&diff=prev&oldid=585612 polite] when talking to other users, has many great edits, already watches the Recent Changes (and probably has been for a long time: this is shown by the large amount of "undo revision" edits on his contributions page), and his work is consistent with the style guide and grammar-wise. I think it's due time we gave him the shortcuts that would make his work easier.

Additionally, we currently only have 3-4 active patrollers (not including the administrators, who I suspect do a lot of the work). I will also likely disappear as school starts, because I will have to apply to colleges this year. I believe an extra patroller will help us out, and save me some work in patrolling his edits! :) [[User:Vesna|Vesna]] 02:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
*I accept this nomination.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 02:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
====Votes====
* '''Strong Support:''' - as nominator. [[User:Vesna|Vesna]] 02:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
* '''Strong Support:''' - We need more baby-faced patrollers, and as far as baby-faced editors on UESP go, Core is the most qualified. --[[User:Timmeh|Tim]] [[User_Talk:Timmeh|Talk]] 02:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
* '''Strong Support:''' - I constantly see him working on some project or another, on top of scrutinizing and tidying edits on the RC. --[[User:Riddle|Riddle]] 02:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
* '''Support:''' - as the person who was going to nominate him before Vesna beat me to it. (PS, don't take the lack of "Strong" as an indication of anything other than the fact that I dislike the concept of "Strong" votes. <g>) ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 04:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

* '''Strong Support''' I wholeheartedly support this nomination (well support it with the whole part of my heart that is not currently dealing with a law class or a play). He's always polite (even when things are a little out of the ordinary, after all how often is it that someone asks to have their character names translated to Daedric?) already watches the recent changes, is comfortable reverting vandalism, and most importantly (at least to me) his edits can be trusted (see the work done by him for the OBNPCRP for example). Oh, sorry Vesna I didn't mean to use the copy and paste function :D. By the way I always thought of '''Strong''' as being more about how hard you are to sway to the opposite viewpoint or at least to neutrality than indicating that that vote has more force than just a '''Support'''.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 05:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

* '''Support''': I've had my beady eye on Corevette as a potential patroller for some time now and I think the moment has arrived. It'll be good to have another pair of eyes on the Recent Changes page. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 07:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

* '''Support''': Absolutely nothing to add, it's all been said. A good, trustworthy editor, who I'm sure will make a great patroller. Not only that, but it's about time I wasn't the youngest patroller around :P (although Vesna may be younger, I don't know xD) --[[User:SerCenKing|SerCenKing]] [[User talk:SerCenKing|Talk]] 08:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
* '''Support''': Corevette789 will definitely be a welcome addition to the team. [[User_Talk:Wolok gro-Barok|Talk]] [[User:Wolok gro-Barok|Wolok gro-Barok]] [[Special:Contributions/Wolok gro-Barok|Contributions]] 09:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

* '''Strong Support''' I'm new, but my dealings with Corevette have shown him to be polite and courteous, which can be fairly unusual on wikis! His tone is never curt or short, and he only seeks to help the site [[User:Corvus|Corvus]] 10:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
*'''Strong Support''' – Of course. --'''[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Michaeldsuarez|Deeds]])''' 14:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''': Of course Core would be a great patroller!; is there anything more I need to say? -- [[User:Jplatinum16|Jplatinum16]] 15:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''': Corevette has really taken the time to understand the wiki and what's expected of Patrollers (plus, I can't think of another editor who's tried so hard for so long to be given the extra responsibilities). --'''[[User:GuildKnight|GK]]'''[[User_talk:GuildKnight|talk2me]] 22:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''': No doubt about it, Corevette is the obvious choice. He's been doing it for months anyway, so there's really not much to say - let's just give him the extra buttons! --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 23:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''': Another support vote from me, though at this point it's more of a formality :) As stated numerous times above, 'Vette more than meets the qualifications to be named a Patroller, and would be a very welcome addition to the team. [[User:Dlarsh|Dlarsh]]([[User_talk:Dlarsh|T]],[[Special:Contributions/Dlarsh|C]]) 18:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''': Indeed, Corevette789 certainly is excellent patroller material. He keeps a good eye on the recent changes, is friendly, active, good at answering questions and knowledgeable of site policies. He would make a great addition to the team. [[User:Kalrot|Kalrot]] 22:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

*'''support'''he would make a good patroller and i'm suprised that he isn't one. cause i'm sure i've seen a patroller user box on his page though--[[User:GUM!!!|GUM!!!]] 16:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

:*'''Comment''' Actually what you saw on his page was a ''non''-patroller userbox most likely.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|any_questions?]] 16:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

===[[User:Jplatinum16|Jplatinum16]]===
It's now just over a year since Jplatinum16 started editing regularly and it's been clear for some time that he's been patroller material. Contributions are good, checked, researched and reliable and if it hadn't been for his lack of time a couple of months ago, I'd have nominated him then. It looks like time has become more available so it's time for us to add him to the patrolling team, where I'm sure he'll be of immense help.
*I officially accept this nomination -- [[User:Jplatinum16|Jplatinum16]] 15:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
====Votes====
* '''Support:''' - as nominator. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 15:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

* '''Support:''' Per nomination.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|any_questions?]] 15:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
* '''Support:''' When you can create pages [[Morrowind:Magic|this good]] you are definitely patroller material. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 15:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
* '''Support:''' Ditto Krusty, not to forget [[Oblivion:Arcane University|this]] bit of "magic". Jplatinum has been on my don't-need-to-check-when-patrolling-his-edits list for a while now and I think he'd be a great addition to the team. --[[User:SerCenKing|SerCenKing]] [[User talk:SerCenKing|Talk]] 15:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' – Agreed with all of the above. --'''[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Michaeldsuarez|Deeds]])''' 16:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' He's on my auto-patrolled list. And the magic he worked from above.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 16:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

*'''support'''wow jc made the morrowind magic page? definitly a support--[[User:GUM!!!|GUM!!!]] 16:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

*'''Support''' Nothing much to add here; the man knows his stuff. [[User:Dlarsh|Dlarsh]]([[User_talk:Dlarsh|T]],[[Special:Contributions/Dlarsh|C]]) 00:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

* '''Support:''' Another one who's been on my potential-Patroller list for a while. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 03:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

*'''Oppose:''' I've looking through his contributions to the site in the search for any major ones but the problem is, I couldn't find any. But JP16 would definitely be good for patroller if he was to be nominated again as it would give more time to make more major contributions to the site. (If this nomination fails that is)

==Completed Nominations==
Completed nominations can be viewed on [[UESPWiki:Patrollers/Nominations/Completed|this page]].

UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard

2010-07-11T15:17:48Z

ModderElGrande: /* Block Request - User:Elliot */

[[Category:Message Boards|{{PAGENAME}}]]
The '''administrator noticeboard''' is where we discuss and coordinate administrative tasks on the wiki. Although this page is intended for [[UESPWiki:Administrators|administrators]], all users are encouraged to participate in discussions. __NEWSECTIONLINK__
{{Archive Table|class=compress|title=Major Discussions
|UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Vandalism|Vandalism|Mostly spam, actually.
|!|Page Archives|
|Archive 1||February 2005 – June 2006
|Archive 2||June 2006 – August 2006
|Archive 3||September 2006 – June 2007
|Archive 4||June 2007 – July 2007
|Archive 5||August 2007 – October 2007
|Archive 6||October 2007 – November 2007
|Archive 7||December 2007 – January 2008
|Archive 8||January 2008 – February 2008
|Archive 9||February 2008 – August 2008
|Archive 10||September 2008 – October 2008
|Archive 11||November 2008 – December 2008
|Archive 12||December 2008 – March 2009
|Archive 13||April 2009 – December 2009
|Archive 14||January 2010 – May 2010
|!|Past Administrative Requests|
|User:Aristeo/RfA|Aristeo's Request for Adminstrator|''Approved Jun. 19, 2006''
|User:Nephele/RfA|Nephele's Request for Adminstrator|''Approved Aug. 13, 2006''
|User:Aristeo/RfB|Aristeo's Request for Bureaucrat|''Withdrawn by Aristeo Nov. 19, 2006''
|User:Ratwar/RfA|Ratwar's Request for Adminstrator|''Approved Jan. 31, 2007''
|User:TheRealLurlock/RfA|TheRealLurlock's Request for Adminstrator|''Approved Feb. 23, 2007''
|User:Rpeh/RfA|Rpeh's Request for Adminstrator|''Approved Oct. 1, 2007''
|UESPWiki:Archive/AN Request for Server Access|Nephele's Request for Server Access|''Approved Jan. 4, 2008''
|User:Eshe/RfA|Eshe's Request for Adminstrator|''Approved Mar. 31, 2008''
|User:GuildKnight/RfA|GuildKnight's Request for Adminstrator|''Approved Nov. 11, 2008''
|User:Timenn/RfA|Timenn's Request for Adminstrator|''Approved Aug. 7, 2009''
|User:Krusty/RfA|Krusty's Request for Adminstrator|''Approved May 3, 2010''
}}

== Semi Unprotected ==

I just noticed in my Watchlist that {{tl|Archive Header}} was recently vandalized by an IP address. It's supposed to be semi-protected based on the {{tl|Protection}} template in it. Can someone please check that? Thanks! ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 15:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

: Looks like the protection was temporary - it ran out on 6 Feb. In any case, it should use {{tl|TemProtect}} rather than {{tl|Protection}}. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 16:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

:: Just a reminder, this still needs to be fixed. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 15:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

== Ban For 98.126.56.178 ==

He/She has made multiple personal attacks on [[User:Nephele|Nephele]].
:And me and Timenn. Timenn just logged off so It'll be a while, we can make it for now.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 00:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

:agreed i agree!--[[User:GUM!!!|GUM!!!]] 00:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

::Done --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 02:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

== Virus found on site ==
{{dm|GuildKnight|Virus found on site|User talk|1}}

On Tuesday the 1 June 2010, my AVG encountered a virus on the following page:
http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Skyrim

AVG labeled it as "Exploit Neosploit Toolkit (Type 1109)"

I just wanted you to know ASAP! and I have no idea wehat to do or what this means.
Love your work
eid_broughton@yahoo.com
:GK will be gone for a while and that seems unlikely, are you sure it was from that page?--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 01:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

::According to a [http://www.bassresource.com/bass_fishing_forums/YaBB.pl?num=1275167508/6#6 forum] where a user had a similar experience:
:::''It means YOUR computer is infected with a virus (malware specifically). You'll get this error message regardless of what site you're on. It seems to only affect Firefox users.''
::Which definitely sounds more likely than UESP being the source of the virus. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 02:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

== Updates to Archived Discussions ==

To let everyone know, some quick feedback on assorted updates I've implemented based on old discussions:

* [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive_14#Database Corruption|Database Corruption]]
** I started the refreshLinks maintenance program running last night... it's made it about 80% of the way so far. It's fixing all of the issues with bad category links, etc. But I've also been struggling with an obscure code bug that's been adding a lot of bizarre entries to wanted categories and wanted pages -- things like Special-NPCs as a wanted category. Since it only happens when pages are processed by the job queue, it's really annoying to track down; I keep thinking that I've taken care of it, and then more start appearing. So I'll be continuing to try to deal with that situation. If there's still strange stuff in places like wanted categories by the end of the week, let me know; in the meantime, assume that I'm working on it.
* [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive_14#New User Group|New User Group]]
** Implemented. Blocker group has ability to block for up to four hours, and admins have the ability to add/remove from the group. I took the code Nx wrote and simply added it into UespCustomCode since that made the majority of the code unnecessary -- I'm assuming Nx doesn't mind, but if there is an issue, I can change the implementation.
* [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive_14#Skipcatcha_please|Skipcatcha please]]
** I did ''not'' follow through on this, pending the possible Userspace Patrollers group. That group has been given skipcatcha authority, and it's possible that membership in that group will be fairly widely available, in which case adding it to all confirmed users is probably unnecessary.

However, this probably is the end of my wikicode editing spree, short of dealing with new bugs that I may have introduced in the process.

<s>P.S. The one caveat with everything I've been doing so far is that it's only active on content1/2. I can't make any changes on content3 yet. If I don't hear from Daveh in the next few days, I might look into figuring out how to tell the squid server to not use content3. That would allow us to start making changes that rely on the new code. Then once I hear from Daveh, content3 would be updated and put back into the system.</s> --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 18:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

:I'm tentatively (cross my fingers) concluding that the bug creating all the wanted categories/pages has been fixed. It's been five hours since a buggy entry was created, and I've been throwing everything I can at the bug during that time. Nevertheless, it's still going to probably take a day for the wanted lists to get cleaned out. I'm also running a script that will make sure, eventually, to refresh any pages that have been processed strangely at any point in the last couple days. Again, it'll be about a day before it's done so in the meantime reports like [[#Quest_links_not_displaying_correctly|the following]] might continue to trickle in.
:One other point: some of you may have noticed the site not responding a few minutes ago (specifically content2 not responding). That was my fault, triggered by another bit of database updating I was taking care of. Basically I needed to monopolize the database for a couple of minutes for some reorganization, the upside of which is that now every time someone does a full-text search that search won't monopolize the database for a couple of seconds. In other words, 120 seconds of work now to fix a constant stream of little 2 second jobs. That should clear out one of the most common reasons why the database can be slow to respond to a request.
:Other than the above-mentioned cleanup scripts that will still be running for a while, that should be the last of my server disruptions for now. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 22:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

::So was that why for about 15-20 minutes everything kept timing out ?--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 22:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

:::TheAlbinoOrc: Yes. One of the servers became completely overloaded, to the point where I couldn't even force it to restart.
:::One hopefully final update: all changes have now been made live on all servers, and all the update scripts have finished running. So no more restrictions on making use of the new features. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 19:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

== Quest links not displaying correctly ==

Why aren't the links to the quests always being displayed correctly? When I bring up the Skingrad page, I get several lines like the following instead of quests and links.

[[{{{questpage}}}|{{{altname}}}]]: {{{description}}}

Skingrad isn't the only page like this. {{unsigned|99.175.93.246|2 June 2010}}

: There are various updates taking place at the moment (see the previous section on this page). [[Oblivion:Skingrad]] looks fine to me, which probably means you have a caching issue. I just purged that page: try again now. Otherwise, you'll just have to wait a little while. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 19:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I just checked [[OB:Skingrad]] also, it looked fine... except that the people were too far down in their section.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 20:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:Just a thought, I was getting lots of things like this with IE8. Whats your browser?.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 20:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Firefox.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 20:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:I meant the anon, but it looks fine for me on that page.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 21:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

== Proposed Policy: Abuse of Anonymous Editing ==

We've clearly had a problem, for far too long now, with editors abusing the wiki's open editing system so they can be disruptive and generally waste the community's time. [[#Second Opinion Please|Second Opinion Please]] is the latest example; the [[UESPWiki_talk:Administrator_Noticeboard#Time to Vote|talk page]] shows it's not a new problem. Therefore, I propose adding the following section to the [[UESPWiki:Vandalism|Vandalism]] policy, under [[UESPWiki:Vandalism#Types of Vandalism]]:
:'''Abuse of Anonymous Editing'''
:Deliberately hiding or falsifying your identity in order to make unwanted, controversial, or inappropriate comments is not tolerated. Regular UESP contributors are expected to contribute using their own account whenever participating in any community discussions. Therefore, an edit can be treated as vandalism if a site editor judges that it meets all three of the following criteria:
:* The edit is made by an anonymous IP or newly created account (one with no significant contribution history).
:* There is reason to believe that the person making the edit is familiar with UESP (e.g., person refers to community members or site policy).
:* The edit has no constructive value and/or is likely to be disruptive.

This would imply that such edits could be reverted on sight, and the anon could also be warned and blocked, if necessary. The wording is deliberately somewhat fuzzy: the targeted editors are already trying to exploit site policy, so they will inevitably try to take advantage of any loophole. As for including it on the vandalism page, as far as I'm concerned, these types of edits do far more damage to the site and its community than someone replacing a page with obscenities, so let's start dealing with them accordingly.

All ''community members'' are welcome to provide feedback; it helps if you can start your comment with '''Support''', '''Oppose''' (or '''Comment''', etc.) as appropriate.

{{Showhide|Votes|content=
* '''Support''' as proposer. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 05:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Strong Oppose''' Firstly, this would directly contradict the [[UESPWiki:Etiquette|Etiquette]] policy (esp. 7th point in the General section). Secondly, point 2 of the new policy involves excessive supposition on the part of editors. Thirdly, so does point 3 - "constructive" is in the eye of the beholder to a large extent. Fourthly, I agree that "hiding or falsifying your identity" is wrong, but the remedies suggested here use a far too-broad brush and will catch plenty of other people. Fifthly, I have said before, and still believe, that established, named editors have caused far more trouble in the past than all the anons put together. Finally, I managed to track down the relevant quote that I'm sure you've all heard without source. It's from William Blackstone, in ''Commentaries on the Laws of England'' (1769): ''"the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer."'' Similarly, it is better that we have to put up with the trouble caused by one rogue IP user than place unnecessary sanctions on all of them. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 05:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Support''' Though, we could just punish all people who make edits that have no constructive value and/or is likely to be disruptive. As for Rpeh's points: Laws may paint a large area and hit unwanted people, however people on the wiki should have enough judgment to know when to punish and when not to punish. As such, as long as I think that at least half the admins on the wiki have a lick of sense, this rule shouldn't hit anyone that it isn't supposed to hit. --[[User:Timmeh|Tim]] [[User_Talk:Timmeh|Talk]] 06:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Although not an admin, just wanted to say that this is a great idea :P [[User:Mikeyboy52|Mikeyboy52]] 06:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Support''' - We've had far too many troll-like edits made by Tor users and the like who are obviously just trying to conceal their identity and disrupt the site. We already revert non-constructive edits to old discussions, regardless of who they're by, and I think it's a step in the right direction to revert blatantly disruptive edits, particularly when there's reason to believe that it's an abuse situation. Productive or well-meaning users would still be entitled to all the same rights as everyone else, but those who are here solely to disrupt will no longer have a place here. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 06:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per nomination. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 09:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' Now, I like the proposition, and I would really like reality to be like this; unfortunately, it is not, and my motivation for opposing comes from the fact that we have numerous “established” members, who, and I’m sorry to say this, is really not capable of judging these things. I have seen numerous examples where anon users accidentally blanked a page and received vandalism warnings almost immediately, even if the edit was clearly an accident. I will not mention any names, nor will I give any examples but I fear that these new rules will hit several people who do not deserve it and make the Wiki a warning zone where we, as patrollers, will have to change warnings into “welcome and advice” all the time – wasting even more time than we do now. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 10:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*:Well, that is applicable to nearly every situation. You shouldn't avoid something because of ignorance; you should try to change that ignorance and push forward an intelligent community. The best way would be to lead by example. Inform users when they are doing something incorrectly. Some people need direct instructions; however, that shouldn't be reason enough to stop something. At a minimum, it would be best to at least try it out. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 11:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*::I'm not sure this is the best approach myself, but would you be more comfortable if we limited reverting questionable IP contributions to patrollers and admins? ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 15:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*:::Problem is, that is exactly what we have been doing all along. While patrollers can’s block people, they tend to be very quick to alert an admin if they notice a proxy or TOR-user making unconstructive edits to the site. This proposal will allow each and every registered member on the entire Wiki to hand out quick warnings in anger or nervousness, something that way too many editors suffer from. For the time being, I think we’re doing fine. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 09:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' I find point 2 too vague in my opinion. How can we know if an anon is familiar with UESP? They could just as easily referred to Wikipedia or another Wiki. I don't see why knowledge of UESPWiki's policies points directly to a vandal. It's the edit itself that matters, not one's supposed knowledge of policies or one's status (status as in: anon, newly-created account, established editor etc.) I think these points are unfavourable to anon editors while not giving anything in return. [[User_Talk:Wolok gro-Barok|Talk]] [[User:Wolok gro-Barok|Wolok gro-Barok]] [[Special:Contributions/Wolok gro-Barok|Contributions]] 12:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' I would tend to be Opposed to the second guideline as I fit it at one time since I'd been using the Wiki for several years without creating an account and then for several months as Mhira (until I forgot my password and created this account) therefore I had no significant contribution history but knew some of the Wiki's policy and knew of some of the community members.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 14:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*:''Responding to the above two points on the second requirement:'' That one also concerned me a bit. Would removing that point altogether be a better choice, do you think? ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 15:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

*::I think that would work. I also think that there should be at least two people that agree on removing the edit.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 15:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - Seems like it would be difficult to determine if an anon is "familiar with UESP", and I'm sure there would be arguments about an anon's identity if someone makes that assumption. The 3rd point seems obvious, but how do we differentiate personal oppinions and comments from outright disruptive vandalism? And also, it's important that the policy doesn't suggest that anons can't contribute to community discussions, or that they arent part of the "community" -- [[User:Jplatinum16|Jplatinum16]] 18:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' - I don't know if I agree with the sentiment behind this proposal. There have been and will continue to be situations where an editor's opinions may be taken a different way if the editor's identity is unknown, and my first thoughts are that each editor should have the right to anonymously express thoughts if he or she wishes. --'''[[User:GuildKnight|GK]]'''[[User_talk:GuildKnight|talk2me]] 21:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' - In one sense using an IP to edit and a user account is kind of like sock-puppetry. But in another sense, IP is the only way to remain anon, should we so choose at the time. [[User:Mikeyboy52|Mikeyboy52]] 16:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Support''' i like the idea but lets say someone forgets to login so mabye it would omly be considerd light vandalisem--[[User:GUM!!!|GUM!!!]] 17:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Oppose:''' Too vague and it allows Patrollers, sysops, and other editors to disregard Assume Good Faith. --'''[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Michaeldsuarez|Deeds]])''' 01:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Partial Support:''' I would like to see this limited to open proxies and any other deliberate attempt to conceal an identity. I think this will suffice, as so far practically all condescending arguments made that I have seen came from such an IP address. Adding the clause that edits from anonymous sources (open proxies and such) can always be reverted by another is a clause that would solve the most problems. People can try to make controversial statements if they want, but they shouldn't make one from a deliberately concealed IP. --[[User:Timenn|Timenn]]-<[[User talk:Timenn|talk]]> 08:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' per Krusty [[User:Arny|Arny]] 09:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
}}
{{Consensus|None|message=Votes were roughly equal. In the absence of consensus, existing policy stands. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 03:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)}}

== Proposed Policy: Prohibiting Interactions ==
{{Notice|Please note that the proposed policy has now been enacted. It can be found at [[UESPWiki:Interaction Ban]].|width=90%}}
I'd like to propose officially prohibiting [[User:Elliot|Elliot]] and [[User:rpeh|rpeh]] from interacting with each other, in any way, on the wiki. Both have been told as much, unofficially, many times. Given that past requests have failed to resolve the situation, a new approach is clearly needed. There is wikipedia precedent for the proposed restrictions, for example [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley#Motions this motion] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Abtract-Collectonian#Feuds_and_quarrels this finding] from their arbitration committee.

A secondary proposal, if the community first agrees with the interaction prohibition, is to remove all current warnings from rpeh and Elliot's talk pages that are related to past incidents between them (or sanction any past edits that have already removed such warnings, as appropriate). The removal would not be intended as any type of statement about the correctness of the original warning. Rather, it is to help both editors feel that they are being treated equally under the new policy. Furthermore, it allows existing discussions such as [[#Request_to_remove_warning|Request to remove warning]] to be closed; otherwise, this new policy will effectively bar the complainant from making any further contribution in his appeal process.

===Restriction Enforcement===
Under this proposal, the next time either Elliot or rpeh violates the restriction prohibiting any interaction, the violator gets an official warning. After the warning, any further violations by the same editor will result in the editor being blocked for a week. The editor will continue to be blocked for a week at a time, as many times as necessary.

As long as the other editor does not respond or do anything to violate the restriction, the other editor will receive no warning and won't be blocked -- this policy will result in no black marks on your record if you comply with the policy.

The primary purpose of the block is to enforce a time-out/cool-down period, and thus prevent the typical rapidly escalating back-and-forth edits. The warning/block is also critical to make it clear to the other editor that he does not need to take any action in response to the violation. Therefore, it's important that we (the administrators) intercede whenever there is a clear violation, even if it's relatively minor (especially given the hope that this policy will reduce the fallout produced by a violation). Furthermore, if other community members notice a violation that has not been addressed by an admin, they should report it here (a simple link to the questionable edit is sufficient; any type of additional explanation is likely to cause extra problems).

Personally, I don't think a pre-warning or advance notification of the new policy is necessary for either editor, given that it's clear that both editors monitor the Administrator Noticeboard. But it others feel differently, someone could post an unofficial notice on each editor's talk page as soon as this policy is considered official.

===Restriction Details===
Prohibited actions under the proposed restrictions would include:
* Making comments about the other editor, indirectly or directly, on articles, on discussion pages, or in edit summaries. Substitutes for names (e.g., "you know who") would count as making an indirect comment.
* Making any edit to the other editor's user page, user talk page, or user subpages.
* Undoing any edit made by the other editor.
* If these rules are violated to the point where one editor gets warned or blocked, then the other editor is also prohibited from making any references to that warning/block. Any type of comment seems likely to be interpreted as gloating or otherwise exacerbate future arguments. I want to stop this cycle, not create new ways to perpetuate it.

Furthermore:
* Elliot and rpeh must do everything possible to avoid derailing other community discussions with their conflicts. So if, for example, rpeh has already contributed to a discussion, Elliot needs to (a) think carefully about whether any contribution is appropriate (e.g., is the information new and important to the discussion) (b) wait long enough (e.g., 24 hours or more) before responding so that it's clear to everyone the comments are not being made hastily or emotionally (c) make absolutely sure that the comments are on topic and do not violate any of the above prohibitions. The same recommendations apply to rpeh if Elliot has already contributed to a discussion.
* Elliot and rpeh can edit an article previously edited by the other editor, but only if at least 24 hours has passed -- and even then, cannot simply undo the other's edit(s). This condition is to ensure that the restrictions don't effectively make every article on the site off-limits for editing, given both editors' extensive contribution history.

Finally, for this to have a realistic chance of working, I think some form of [[#Proposed Policy: Abuse of Anonymous Editing|the above proposal]] to prevent disruptive edits by anonymous editors needs to be in place. We need to be able to remove and prevent any external provocations that could possibly be interpreted as either editor trying to circumvent the restriction.

=== Discussion of Proposal ===
Before wrapping up, I'd like to suggest if rpeh or Elliot wish to respond to this discussion, that they limit themselves to constructive comments that are strictly on the topic of this proposal. I doubt it's necessary to discuss or even make any further reference to the events that have led up to this point. Regardless of who was right or wrong in the past, I believe the community primarily wants to prevent future incidents -- or, if that's not possible, allow clear action to be taken against the person truly responsible.

Again, all ''community members'' are welcome to provide feedback; it helps if you can start your comment with '''Support''', '''Oppose''' (or '''Comment''', etc.) as appropriate.

{{Showhide|Votes|content=
* '''Support''' as proposer. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 05:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' I'm not prepared to put up with this kind of restriction on my editing. I edit widely and this proposal means Elliot can stop me editing anything in which I have an interest by editing it himself. Quite simply, it's about time Elliot got the block he so richly deserves. He has a history of grossly-insulting comments both on- and off-wiki. To me, has has made comments such as "I'm sorry your mother is such a fucking failure" (I apologise for the language, but it's necessary to highlight what an obnoxious person Elliot is). To Corevette, he made threats like "Until then, I will follow you. Not like a cat following you. like a wasp". To Michaeldsuarez, we have "MDS, go back to your shitty ED and go fuck one of those dumbasses over there."
:: Any or all of these comments are grounds for a block yet no such action has been taken. With no Elliot threatening and abusing other editors, the problem goes away. He has been repeatedly blocked at Wikipedia for the same kind of behavior he has shown here (edit warring and insulting other users) and UESP is simply lagging behind the times.
:: Furthermore, the topic that seems to have spawned this proposal has been quiescent for a week. This entire discussion is therefore moot. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 06:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
:::''I'd like to suggest if rpeh or Elliot wish to respond to this discussion, that they limit themselves to constructive comments that are strictly on the topic of this proposal.'' Way to miss a point... And what you state is hearsay in terms of logs, which is why it is a policy to prohibit such posts. As well, e-mails have no grounds for punishment, especially since there is no way to validate them, barring someone else logging into your email account. And we shouldn't forget you part in that email skirmish, rpeh. Plus, it was quite some time ago. I've moved on. You should as well. However, it is funny that you consider yourself immune from criticism when it comes to personal attacks. This page itself is a shrine to those attacks you have made. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 09:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

::::It was a "suggestion". I chose not to follow it for the reason that Nephele has been away and probably doesn't know the kind of vitriol to which several editors have been subjected during that time.
::::But let's get down to cases here. During, and after, the last discussion, one of the two editors was doing research and adding information to Lore articles to back them up with facts and add new details that create a big improvement. The same editor has spent time checking edits, tweaking, adding and removing where necessary to make sure the site is as accurate as possible. The same editor has spent time answering the questions of a large number of people experiencing difficulty with the game and asking for help. The other editor has done ''nothing'' until another piece of controversy started.
::::Timenn has asked me not to use the "T" word so I won't, but I don't know what other word is suitable for somebody whose only contributions take place in moments of controversy.
::::The reason I object so strenuously to this proposal is that it gives the same sanction to both editors. One has always been, and continues to be, a huge help to this site. The other... isn't. Treating both editors the same is a gross, unforgivable injustice.
::::Lastly, the emails, IRC logs and other communications are admissible under [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:HARASS WP:HARASS], which states ''"off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking"''. Indeed it can.
::::I am not going to be taking any further part in this debate. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 10:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::And yet you fail to quote [[wikipedia:WP:NPA|WP:NPA]]. It doesn't matter who has done what. I have had some pretty big issues come up lately, and I have decided to cut my activity down to a bare minimum (including other reasons on the wiki). Also, my choice of participation is not under your jurisdiction of appropriate judgment. Furthermore, it truly isn't harassment when the other person (claiming harassment) returns comments with equal vigor. Lastly, you oppose the equal sanction because you believe you have done no wrong in this entire situation, which is gross in and of itself. The rules apply to everyone. Even you. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 11:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::If you do not have time to edit the site then how is it you have time to monitor and contribute to debates such as this and the other two that are currently active? It seems you are being economical with the truth, Elliot. [[Special:Contributions/80.239.242.95|80.239.242.95]] 05:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::::I can make time (about 10 minutes or so in a day) to respond to far reaching proposals, especially one about me. I don't have time to plan and constantly work on a wiki. Is that okay with you? '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 17:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

* '''Oppose''' This isn't really a solution though. This situation can and will happen again with other users. I suggest we find a more permanent policy for ongoing conflicts between users. --[[User:Timmeh|Tim]] [[User_Talk:Timmeh|Talk]] 07:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*: '''Furthermore''' Taping their mouths shut doesn't solve the problem. They still hate each other. If Elliot is truly a troll, then he'll just find another target. If Rpeh is truly... a major ass?... then he'll just find someone else to be a major ass to. I've actually got something in mind for a counter-solution and I'll put it up in a little bit (I've got more to read, apparently). --[[User:Timmeh|Tim]] [[User_Talk:Timmeh|Talk]] 16:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Support''' God am I gonna get flak for this. I say support, until they stop going nuts over each other. I do agree that a more permanent solution is needed, but... unless said soluton appears in the next few days, support. Sorry, rpeh. No appologies to Elliot, though. <3 •[[User:Atreus|A]][[User_Talk:Atreus|t]][[Special:Contributions/Atreus|r]][[Special:Emailuser/Atreus|e]][[User:Peregrine|u]][http://atreus.necrolounge.org/ s]• 07:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''<s>Support</s> Oppose''' This is the first time the field as actually been even, so I will support this. I am willing to follow the restrictions if rpeh is as well. And: ''Elliot can stop me editing anything in which I have an interest by editing it himself''; rpeh, this is a rather poor argument. I cannot read your mind to see what you will edit, and I have no intention of weaseling my way into such a position. And Timmeh, if you wish for something more solid, then precedence is the best way to go about that. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 09:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC) I have changed my vote after careful consideration of the circumstances. Nephele's (and other's) lack of knowledge of the situation is most troubling. She can see what has been said, but there are things only rpeh and I know. This will do nothing to stop it. If anything, ''it will cause more tension''. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 17:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' I’ll have to agree with Timmeh on this one. If any action should be taken, it is changing policy to include ongoing disputes between members. While I really like the stance Elliot shows on this matter, it is more than likely that it will happen between other members in the future. I think this proposal is a bit too “personal” for its own good and should be made more general. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 10:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*:This isn't a proposal of policy, per se. It is more of an arbitration represented and enforced by the community. You oppose for a merely semantic reason. I ask you to see it as arbitration and not policy and reconsider your vote. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 11:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*:: I know it is not a proposal of policy. I suggest it changes into that. Oppose it is. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 11:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*:::It's not something that can be a policy since the enforcement would be made on a case by case basis. The policy would be so vague that it would not even be effective. All it would be is a center for resolving such conflicts; AN is enough to fill that role. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 11:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*::::I'd have to agree; the policy would end up being something like "If a dispute between two editors becomes disruptive to the Wiki as a whole, it is possible to block interaction between them" which is what is implied by precedent here.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 14:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Per comment above.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 14:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Clearly, there needs to be something done, as it seems like at least once every week or two, I open up my RC or Watchlist and sigh when I see it filled with edits between Elliot and rpeh, both antagonizing the other, whether they're doing it deliberately or not. To address some points above:
**I don't think either rpeh or Elliot should feel significantly limited by the actions the other one might take in terms of editing. At the risk of sounding arrogant, I think I speak for everyone that if we saw tendentious behaviour directed towards disrupting the other one's contributions simply by contributing to a wide array of articles all of a sudden, it would be seen for what it is and appropriate sanctions would be taken. Elliot has already said he wouldn't do that, and I think at least at this point, it would be pretty obvious if he did (I don't mean that to be insulting in any way, just an observation that most of Elliot's recent contributions have been to the A/N so a change in pattern would stand out). It might be a bit harder to judge if rpeh were doing that, but if it became a major concern for Elliot, that could be discussed. If necessary, we could always re-word that to say something to the effect of "editing at cross-purposes" rather than having a strict time limit.
**While I agree that many of the things that have been said offsite could qualify under harassment policies, this arbitration is geared strictly towards the onsite interactions.
**I also agree that rpeh has been far more productive than Elliot in the past few months, but to be fair, Elliot has made a few productive edits such as the {{tl|od}} template and being bold with fixing the superscript in the {{tl|unsigned}} template. (He may have made others as well, but much of my recent work has been with templates.) Notwithstanding that, however, Wikipedia has a policy on bans that I think could reasonably be extended to an interaction ban, namely [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:BAN#Bans_apply_to_all_editing.2C_good_or_bad|this one]]. This is not to say that I believe that this is what rpeh is doing, however I think the policy must nevertheless apply.
**I agree that the specifics of this case should be seen an arbitration and not policy, however I also think that this could be turned into a more generic policy for how to handle users who clearly have repeated difficulties interacting civilly (perhaps with as little tweaking as replacing the user names by User A and User B). ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 15:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
:::Elliot steals from Wikipedia and posts on UESP, and even [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Template:Outdent&oldid=568415 admits it]. How does copying the work of other people compare to what Rpeh has been doing? And yeah he is a friend of mine but I don't care. Elliot is a troll and Rpeh is a useful user. To punish Rpeh because of Elliot's trolling is totally unfair. [[Special:Contributions/80.239.242.95|80.239.242.95]] 02:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::::"Friend"? Lol. And in case you missed it, a bunch of things on this wiki and plenty of others use WP as a backbone. And it really isn't stealing if I give them credit, now is it? (Also, everything is licensed under CC, so that is another hole in your theory.) Oh, and thanks for the personal attack. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 17:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::No, wiki sites use MediaWiki as a backbone, not Wikipedia. Taking material from Wikipedia and causing strife is ''all'' you do, and that was my point. I tried to find a contribution of yours that wasn't part of an argument, something taken from Wikipedia or a removal of other editors' work but gave up after the third page. I say again... compare that to rpeh and learn from the difference. [[Special:Contributions/80.239.242.95|80.239.242.95]] 19:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::You sure do know a lot for being a ''"friend of rpeh's"''. I have no intentions or need to answer to an IP. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 02:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Oppose:''' I agree with [[User:Timmeh|Timmeh]]: Censorship will only cover up the problem; it won't resolve the issue. --'''[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Michaeldsuarez|Deeds]])''' 01:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*:It ''won't'' be truly resolved. Ever. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 05:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Strong Oppose:''' I think you should just let them do anything they want as long as it is just between the two of them. And as Michaeldsuarez says abouve censorship wont do anything [[User:Arny|Arny]] 09:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
}}
{{Consensus|Oppose|message=There was, however, general support for a permanent change in policy rather than a one-time interaction ban. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 03:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)}}

=== Timmeh's Alternative Proposal ===
We could just give them a month to shape up or get out, with the punishment for not doing so is a 3 month block or something. It's not the nicest option, but honestly it's gotten to the point where a block for either/both of them may be better for the wiki in the long term. If I were to see them not at each others throats for a month, maybe my opinion might change. --[[User:Timmeh|Tim]] [[User_Talk:Timmeh|Talk]] 03:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

{{Showhide|Votes|content=
* '''Neutral'''. The bottom line, is that at this point I'm in favor of just about anything that changes the status quo. So, if the rest of the community supports Timmeh's proposal, I'll support it, too.
:However, I'm not outright voting in support of the idea because I personally don't think the proposal is workable. In every one of these incidents each of the editors blames the other one for provoking the situation. For the sake of argument, let's say that rpeh is right and Elliot is provoking rpeh. Timmeh's proposal implies that if Elliot places another warning on rpeh's talk page, both Elliot and rpeh will end up being blocked for three months -- so the site loses a valuable contributor for three months solely because another editor provoked a situation. Someone might respond that in that situation it was obvious Elliot was in the wrong and therefore only Elliot should be blocked -- but none of the past situations have been obvious, so I don't think any future ones will be. In other words, we'll either end up with another confused mess and do nothing, or else we'll impose blocks on both and both will complain that they're the victim. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 20:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' Being excessively blunt is not going to solve anything. Mediation is better than aggravation. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 02:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Strong Oppose''' This is too harsh maybe a 3 day block? --[[User:Arny|Arny]] 09:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Support''': It's not worth much at this point, but I'm a strong supporter of the simple-but-effective approach. I find this satisfies that. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 03:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
}}
{{Consensus|None|message=Votes were even (based on an assumption of support from Timmeh himself). In the absence of consensus, existing policy stands. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 03:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)}}

=== Modification to Original Proposal ===
In response to the above feedback, I've posted the proposed text for a new, more general policy at User:Nephele/Sandbox/6.

I'm guessing the most likely issue with the new text is whether it's sufficient to have two administrators agree. So I've highlighted that phrase in green as a semi-placeholder. Basically, I think that for it to be useful as an official policy, it has to be possible to enact the policy without a full community consensus -- otherwise we're effectively re-introducing the policy every time we try to use it, which defeats the purpose of creating a general policy in the first place. Two administrators seemed like a reasonable minimum requirement. However, that requirement can easily be changed without invalidating the rest of the proposal, so if the primary issue is that requirement, could we still get consensus on the rest of the text, and then spend more time refining the details?

I think that what I've posted is about as general as we can get and yet still have a policy that will help in the current situation. The fundamental problem here, as I see it, is that the Elliot-rpeh incidents always start with actions that are acceptable under wiki rules. That's basically why it's been so hard to take action in any of the past incidents. Any type of general solution, that affects all editors, will either be too vague to make a difference or else will prevent other editors from making necessary edits. Imagine, for example, trying to come up with a specific, enforceable set of rules about when it is acceptable to undo another editor's edit -- for any rule you could come up with a dozen exceptions when the rule should be broken. In normal situations, we need to give editors some latitude to judge what is best.

As a result, I think any proposal to deal with this situation has to acknowledge that it is not typical -- it has to place restrictions solely on Elliot and/or rpeh that do not apply to other editors. If we want to stop the incidents, we need some non-subjective way to say "this edit is going to provoke an incident" -- only then we can say the edit isn't allowed, and take action if someone breaks the rule. The most obvious way to identify a problematic edit is "if this edit involves both Elliot and rpeh".

My primary objective with this proposal is to find some way to make the next incident not be a repeat of the last few dozen incidents -- I'm not hoping for a universal solution. If I'm correctly understanding what's been said so far, everybody agrees that there is a problem here, and everyone agrees that the problem is likely to happen again unless something is done. But at the moment, nothing really has changed, and as long as that's the case I can't help but assume that this will keep happening over and over again. If anyone thinks that further policy changes, for example, to the [[UESPWiki:Etiquette|Etiquette]] page would be helpful, those suggestions can still be brought forward. Or if a future proposal makes this non-interaction restriction obsolete, we can revoke it. But we need to start somewhere.

--[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 20:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

=== Discussion of Modification ===
To help us make some forward progress, could contributors explicitly state their opinions on the following points:
# '''Overall''': Do you support/oppose the overall intent of the proposed policy?
# '''Requirements''': Do you support/oppose the specific requirements necessary before this policy can be enacted, in other words, is it enough for two administrators to agree that a pair of editors need this restriction? If not, what is the minimum requirement that you think should be necessary?
# '''Apply now''': Do you support/oppose applying this policy to rpeh and Elliot?
I think that increases the chances of being able to get this policy in place to handle our one current situation, after which we can spend more time refining the details of when/how it might next be needed.

{{Showhide|Votes|content=
* '''Overall: Support'''. '''Requirements: Support'''. '''Apply now: Support'''. As proposer --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 20:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
* Overall: '''Support'''. Requirements: '''Support'''. Apply now: '''Support'''. It may need some tweaking over time, but it's a good base for a general proposal that will handle both the current and any future situations like this. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 20:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

* '''Overall: Neutral'''. '''Requirements:Support'''. '''Apply now: Oppose'''. For a general rule, 1 week might not be bad (depending on what stage the rule is enforced). But for Rpeh and Elliot, the punishment needs to be way more strong than a one week block. Elliot has made personal attacks on Core in PM on IRC, twice. These PM's are free for everyone to see. Even if you ignore all of his other actions (which isn't a shining example of how to edit the wiki) he should have already have a block of at least a month, even if it isn't sanctioned by the rules, because it is a personal attack against one of our editors in response to actions on the wiki. The entire community should be ashamed that it hasn't done '''anything''' in response. Furthermore, Rpeh's behavior and Rpeh's contributions need to be separated in our minds. I cannot deny that his contributions are valuable, but his continued attitude with dealing with other editors (not just Elliot) is a cause for concern. He shares a great deal of blame for the current situation we are in, even if he hasn't done as much of the harm. Furthermore, a block of a week is called a vacation. There are very few circumstances where blocking someone for a week is anything more than a slap on the wrist and doesn't even reach close to being a deterrence for this kind of behavior. Furthermore, it isn't fair when compared to other punishments. At the very least, a one month block should be in place, with continued "Tape over the mouth" for a month after the block is done. --[[User:Timmeh|Tim]] [[User_Talk:Timmeh|Talk]] 21:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
**Addendum: Also, there is no reason to officially warn them if they break the rule. This is the warning. If it's gotten to the point where we have to invoke this rule, then they know already. --[[User:Timmeh|Tim]] [[User_Talk:Timmeh|Talk]] 21:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
**Another Addendum: I'm saying that if we need to use this rule on Rpeh and Elliot, that there be no official warning before we block them. We post that they're now restricted by this rule, and then we block them if they break it. But, as Krusty said, we shouldn't put them under this rule as soon as we've reached consensus, which is what I assume is meant by "Apply Now". We should see how they act after Elliot's current block is done, and if it is necessary to invoke this rule, then lay it on them. --[[User:Timmeh|Tim]] [[User_Talk:Timmeh|Talk]] 20:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

* '''Overall: Oppose'''. '''Requirements: Oppose'''. '''Apply now: Oppose'''. Almost everybody acknowledges that the current situation is the fault of one user more than the other and this attempt to tar both users with the same brush is a massive injustice. Elliot has personally attacked several users and has hidden behind the letter of the law rather than its spirit. On Wikipedia he would have received a lengthy block long ago for his actions, and did indeed receive a week-long block for his similar behavior there. Since this policy is being based on Wikipedia's own version, the same standard should apply. I'm well aware that I have pushed the boundaries during my interactions with Elliot but I'm afraid it has become necessary. Almost the entire administration team has been absent recently for various reasons (I do not wish to imply any criticism here - we all have lives off-wiki) and Elliot has been left to attack, disparage and harass other users to his heart's content. It is left to the rest of us to do whatever we can to limit Elliot's effect on the site. In my case, this has taken the form of removing him from IRC when he was present to do nothing other than argue (an action for which nobody except Elliot had anything other than praise) and try to stop responses to Elliot when it has become clear that he is more interested in the argument than in the outcome.

: I have already agreed to stop interacting with Elliot in an email to another administrator. If Nephele had consulted her fellow admins, who are in far better possession of the facts in this matter than she is, she would have known this. This policy is unnecessary, too wide in scope, and generally unhelpful. I oppose it strongly. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 22:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

* '''Overall: Support'''. '''Requirements: Support'''. '''Apply now: Support'''. I am not going to reason with some sanctimonious bullshit and finger pointing that others users happen to employ on a regular basis. I also won't try a pathetic move by trying to discredit the other editors in order to further my own argument. I also won't try to qualify it by saying ''it was necessary'', when none of our actions have been necessary (calling an established editor a troll over 20 times, referring to trolling in IRC the moment they enter, is definitely ''not necessary''). I was against it at first, but Nephele has managed to write a good version of such policy. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 02:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

* '''Comment''' I think that Elliot is more responsible for these fights than rpeh he seems to be always looking for a fight and is always fighting users (rpeh, half life) so I think a 1 week block for Elliot should settle things down [[User:Arny|Arny]] 09:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*:You '''''clearly''''' don't understand the situation. Please explain in great detail how I initiated any sort of fight (especially with HalfLife). If you cannot base your comments on facts and understanding of the situation or common sense, then you should keep out of such debates. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 09:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*:: [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HalfLife&diff=prev&oldid=576606 This], [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User:Elliot&diff=prev&oldid=576627 this]. Even though you dont always start the fight you always aggrevate it [[User:Arny|Arny]] 10:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*:::Actually Elliot should already have been blocked as the [[UESPWiki:Etiquette#When Conflict Arises|UESPWiki]] Etiquette policy states [[User:Arny|Arny]] 10:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

* '''Overall: Support'''. '''Requirements: Support'''. '''Apply now: Strong Oppose'''. I think the new policy is well written and the requirements are fine. I know that I am sick and tired of waking up to yet another nights’ bickering, name-calling and fighting on the AN (and so is the entire community) and it feels good to be able to hand out the appropriate warning before it escalates. It saddens me a great deal that we have to make a policy like this, but it seems necessary these days. But I hate the very thought about applying this new rule to Rpeh and Elliot now. It feels forced, it feels half-baked and rushed and very unfair, especially to those of us who knows the background story and have followed the feud closely for months. Timmeh wrote earlier: ''"This is the warning. If it's gotten to the point where we have to invoke this rule, then they know already."'' That sums it up. We can’t invent spontaneous policies to stop an on-going problem without at least giving the editors in question a chance to change their behavior. It just feels wrong and I sincerely hope that this rushed decision gets the Oppose stamp. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 09:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*:Krusty (and Timmeh), could you possibly clarify what you do think is appropriate for rpeh and Elliot? (Although with Elliot's block it's possibly now somewhat moot, on the other hand, a week from now we're back to the status quo, and I still think it would be prudent to have some restrictions in place.) I'm particularly confused because I understood Timmeh's comment to mean that we should essentially accelerate the restrictions -- apply them, but skip straight to a block for the first violation. So I don't see how that leads to the conclusion that no restrictions should be applied. Therefore, do you think no restrictions should ever placed on rpeh and Elliot? Or else under what conditions do you think the restrictions might be appropriate (e.g., how long after the policy is put in place)? In other words, if the general policy is put in place, I think it would help the other admins to understand your concerns, so that we know whether two of us can decide restrictions are necessary (in particular, if you're not around at the time). --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 19:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*::Can I just point out here that I've steered clear of Elliot since I was asked to do so by Timenn? There has been plenty of drama over the last couple of days, but it hasn't come from me. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 20:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*:::I will try to clarify, even if recent events have made it somewhat unnecessary. I do not think it is fair to invent a policy in the middle of an existing feud and hand out spontaneous warnings. The editors in question should at least be given the chance to think about the policy and improve their behavior before we start to block them. I’m all for the new policy but it is simply wrong to activate it right away, with such short notice. Even if Elliot took a block today, I think we should calm down, get the policy written and see what happens. I do not think we should apply the new rules to Rpeh or Elliot before we are sure that they will continue fighting. I know these arguments may sound a bit meaningless with Elliot gone and all, but that is my stance – I’m fairly sure that Rpeh will remain silent and ignore Elliot in the future, mostly because the feud seems to be over after today – but also because of this new policy. So: Let’s take a deep breath, get the policy going without any further action taken against Elliot or Rpeh – and cross our fingers for a more peaceful and friendly environment around here in the future. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 21:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Overall: Neutral, Requirements: Neutral, Apply Now: Neutral''' – The intent of the policy, which is to put a halt to not-so-civil behavior created by personal disputes, is something that I support. I also know that blocks are sometimes necessary to such stop disputes. When I was in conflict with [[User:HMSVictory]] over 2 years ago, the dispute became so bad that both of us were blocked (by [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] in a twist of fate). When we were blocked and couldn't edit any longer, we were given time to cool down and think. Nevertheless, the block that settled the conflict was only ''15 minutes long''. The proposal advocates a 1-week block, but an entire week may not be necessary, hence my neutrality on the Requirements. Of course, this is a special case. The dispute between rpeh and Elliot has disputed the community here (mostly in edit wars, edit summaries, and by derailing community discussions), and the dispute has been an extremely long one. rpeh was blocked for 2 weeks before, and Elliot was blocked for a week on Wikipedia, so a one-week block may not be that effective on them. ''It would have to be a month-long block''. Since "helpful" blocks for cooling-down can range from 1 minute to a month, I believe that the block duration should be flexible rather than set in stone. As someone formerly blocked in order to end a conflict, I hope that you respect my opinion. --'''[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Michaeldsuarez|Deeds]])''' 13:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*:How does my WP behavior have any bearing on this matter? '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 13:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*::I'm just saying that you already know what a week-long block feels like, so it may not be effective in ending the arguing here. As [[User:Timmeh|Timmeh]] has stated, ''a block of a week is called a vacation''. --'''[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Michaeldsuarez|Deeds]])''' 14:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*:::MDS makes a very good point here: I think a flexible block time based on the admin's judgement of what would be effective in a given situation is probably the better way to go. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 15:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*::::I'm fine with a flexible block time. The one-week was primarily inspired by Wikipedia. But I also wanted to make it clear that, unlike vandalism blocks, I don't think a second block should automatically be a permanent block. In the case of vandals, we're blocking people who have shown no potential to contribute productively to the site (and even if they did have a change of heart, they'd be better off starting with a new account). In this case, we're blocking editors who have made constructive edits, and therefore shouldn't necessarily be blocked permanently because of a disagreement with another editor. But leaving it up to the admin's judgement is probably the best way to figure out what is right in the specific circumstances. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 19:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

<s>*'''Overall: Support, Requirements: Oppose, Apply Now: Oppose''' There should definitely be a flexible block time; also if Editor A edits User B's talk page ''constructively'' that shouldn't cause problems. As for Apply Now I Oppose per [[User:Krusty|Krusty]].--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 18:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)</s>
*:Just to be clear, if the block time is made to be flexible, does that satisfy your concerns about the requirements? As for Editor A editing Editor B's talk page, I'm sorry, but I don't agree that it should be allowed in this particular situation. The restriction is for unusual situations, where I don't think it's safe to assume that Editor B will agree that the edit is constructive. In the case of vandalism or some other problem on Editor B's talk page, there are numerous people other than Editor A who can deal with the situation, without the risk of the edit being misinterpreted. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 19:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Overall: Support, Requirements: Support, Apply Now: <s>Support</s> Oppose''' <s>In light of relevant recent events (specifically me responding to [[User:Elliot|Elliot]] and [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AElliot&diff=577199&oldid=577194 his response]) I support this.</s> Please see my response to Elliot below.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 18:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
*:You do realize that I can ask for a user to stay off of my page right? Your change of vote in retaliation to that and my own change of vote, should be removed. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 18:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
*::I accept that you can ask for any user or group of users to stay off your page. However you asked for users to learn what was going on. I responded that I ''did'' know what was going on. I felt that you overreacted. But you're right (at least about the apply now part of ''my'' change of vote. I haven't seen your vote change yet though so I'm not sure about it ). Also I left the rest because I support the principle of being evenhanded and feel that for resolving other disputes (or any continuation of this one) the proposal is useful.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 19:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
*:::Elliot - Albino can change his vote if he so pleases, and you are in no position to tell him his vote should be deleted. There is absolutely no reason to remove either of your votes, unless you wish to remove your own and abstain from further helpful comments. --[[User:SerCenKing|SerCenKing]] [[User talk:SerCenKing|Talk]] 21:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
}}
{|
|'''Overall:'''||{{Consensus|Support}}
|-
|'''Requirements:'''||{{Consensus|Support}}
|-
|'''Apply Now:'''||{{Consensus|None|message=In the end, this weighed slightly in favor of Oppose, but not enough to call it a clear Oppose consensus.}}
|}

{{Consensus|Support|message=I interpret the above to mean that the policy is good and should be put into place. However, there is ambiguity as to whether this should be immediately enforced in regards to [[User:Elliot|Elliot]] and [[User:rpeh|rpeh]]. As such, no immediate action should be taken against either party, however any future interaction concerns between the two would fall under the new policy. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 04:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)}}

== Proposed Policy: Administrator Re-elections ==

{| style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce;" | This discussion has been closed by [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] - see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SNOWBALL WP:SNOWBALL]. Please do not modify it.
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
I think the time has come to put into effect a mechanism that ensures administrators continue to enjoy the support of the community.

Currently, UESP has ten administrators. Of these, three ([[User:Endareth|Endareth]], [[User:Garrett|Garrett]] and [[User:Wrye|Wrye]]) were never elected. One ([[User:Nephele|Nephele]]) was elected with the votes of only two users, neither of whom are active any more. Two ([[User:Ratwar|Ratwar]] and [[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]]) had only one vote from a currently-active member - somebody who just returned after a nine month break. The other four are more recent, but even in these cases, [[User:Eshe|Eshe]]'s support only contains three still-active users out of eight votes; less than 50% is not impressive.

Since the mandate for an administrator role is given by users, it is essential to ensure that the mandate is kept up to date and renewed when necessary. This offers both an easy way for an admin to step down, and for the community to remove them where necessary. It's clearly not acceptable that somebody retains the extra powers and responsibilities if the community no longer supports them.

To this end, I propose that each admin be automatically re-nominated on the anniversary of his or her election and a re-election vote is held using the same rules as for new admins. If he or she is no longer interested in holding the role, simply declining the renomination would be enough to close the election.

{{Showhide|Votes|content=
*'''Support''': as proposer. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 08:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': Not a terrible idea, but they need to be forewarned (as in, they know it's coming, and we know they know.). Also, I think Nephele and Wyre are exempt; Nephele's proven invaluable to the wiki, and Wrye.... well, okay, have no excuse there. but he's Wyre! I also think that a lot of the current admins will see this in a bad light, particularily Ratwar. Sorry, Ratwar, but it's true, you probably will. Can't really blame you, though. •[[User:Atreus|A]][[User_Talk:Atreus|t]][[Special:Contributions/Atreus|r]][[Special:Emailuser/Atreus|e]][[User:Peregrine|u]][http://atreus.necrolounge.org/ s]• 08:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
::Nobody would be exempt. I doubt Nephele would have a problem being reelected, and although Wrye might not be interested in the light of his last few posts, I doubt he would either. That doesn't mean that we should just ''assume'' the result. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 13:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Question''' How is keeping their status detrimental to the wiki? '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 09:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
::I didn't say it was detrimental. I'm saying that an admin who no longer has the support of the community shouldn't be an admin. It's exactly the same idea behind elections all over the world. Nothing in this new policy would stop somebody standing again if they decided they wanted the job back. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 13:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
:::It was a simple question, not an implication. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 19:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
::::And I gave a simple answer. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 06:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I think most of these shouldn't have any problem getting re-elected,and if they do... well that's what the community wants. I would add though that if there is a concesus to alter this by one vote (at least in the case of [[User:Nephele|Nephele]]) since this is a re-election and we ''really'' need admins that they be left with their current status for at least a week or two and then have a new re-election.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 14:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*:(Edit Conflict) All I meant was that there needs to be some margin; if one or two peoples votes tip it then we need to wait for a bit before doing anything because that isn't a significant majority. (As far as Nephele being exempt she does a lot of the server things that are necessary to keep the site running)--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 16:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose for now:''' I think the idea is sound in principle, but there are some details I'd like to see worked out first. If they can be, I would support the proposal. For example, if an administrator is up for reelection but happens to be away on vacation at that time, the vote should be delayed. Similarly, if an administrator has left, I don't feel a vote should occur ''in absentia'' since they may not be aware of, or wish to respond to, anything said about them. I realize that may not fit with the original proposal, though. Assuming that admins weren't voted on ''in absentia'', I would want to see some kind of re-acclimation period before an administrator is voted on. For example, supposing that a clear-cut vandal came along today and coincidentally, someone like [[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] or [[User:Endareth|Endareth]] returned to block the vandal, I'd have no qualms with that. If they stayed around, then we could give them a month or two before voting so that all users could get a feel for the returning admin. I certainly couldn't speak to Endareth's suitability as an administrator, for example, since he (she?) hasn't been significantly active since the end of 2006. If he was considered suitable as an admin at one point, though, I'd be willing to give him a couple of months "on trust" and see how he did. Finally, I also agree that this should apply across the board. Even though I doubt Nephele would have any difficulties, it's not fair to say that some admins are exempt (except [[User:Daveh|Daveh]], of course...it'd be kinda hard to vote him off the island <g>). (Point of clarification: I'm equally fine with the status quo as I am with voting once a year; the above comments were made from the POV of the proposal going through.)
**'''Question:''' If we do this for admins, should we also do it for patrollers? ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 16:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
:::I don't think an absence of a couple of weeks would make a difference. An admin who doesn't realise he or she isn't going to be around during their re-election can't be a very good admin, but I'm sure some scope for variation should be allowed - eg, during the launch of TESV I'd rather concentrate on getting the content in place than having elections. For the moment, let's concentrate on the basics then we can work out the details. Second, patrollers are less important but yes, I don't see why the same rules shouldn't apply there too. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 06:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::::Okay, that seems fair. I'm still not big on voting inactive admins out, but let's see how the overall vote goes before we worry about the specifics. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 14:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Simply enough, I do not think it will benefit the wiki in any way. We can call for a vote of confidence anytime to get rid of admins, and that's bound to stir up plenty of debate. But forcing a vote when there's really no need for removing the admin? Unnecessary. Furthermore, of the admins now, I believe all of them all still capable of administration, even if they've been inactive for quite a while. --[[User:Timmeh|Tim]] [[User_Talk:Timmeh|Talk]] 16:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' A vote once a year for each administrator? It seems it would get rather busy and undoubtedly controversial. I don't think removing admins is really a good policy, and neither does Wikipedia. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 19:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I don't see why this would be necessary. Something like this can be handled perfectly fine on a case-by-case basis. To echo Timmeh a little, a vote can be called for if an admin's suitability for the role comes into question. --'''[[User:GuildKnight|GK]]'''[[User_talk:GuildKnight|talk2me]] 21:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''75%opposse''' admins can be denouced any time but still...if someone who has a problem with a admin might be afraid to say something but wiht this they may report there problem--[[User:GUM!!!|GUM!!!]] 23:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

* '''Comment''' I don't think some of the people voting so far realise the state of the problem. '''Forty Percent''' of our admins have never received the vote of an active member of the site. A month ago, that figure would have been an astonishing '''SIXTY PERCENT'''! This is clearly not acceptable in a community that claims to be governed by consensus. The site's administrators need to be able to demonstrate that they have the support of the community. At the moment, this is clearly not the case. A simple re-election would remove the need for an embarrassing de-admin vote: in 4 cases, admins would simply be removed due to inactivity. Other cases would be decided on merit as and when they became eligible for renewal. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 05:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
*:So since the voting age in America is 18, the President has to be reelected each year to include the newly eligible voters? (Not a perfect analogy, but still.) '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 17:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
:::That's a terrible analogy. Presidents '''are''' re-elected, every four years. Part of the reason for that is the changing electorate, so it sounds like you're now supporting rpeh's proposal. [[Special:Contributions/80.239.242.95|80.239.242.95]] 18:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::::Which is why I said ''every year''. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 18:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Oppose.''' This has been discussed a couple previous times on UESP ([[UESPWiki:Archive/AN_Things_That_Need_to_Happen|Things That Need to Happen]]; [[UESPWiki:Archive/AN_De-adminship_for_inactive_admins|De-adminship for inactive admins]]). However, I refused to participate in either of those discussions because I had many reasons to suspect the discussions were primarily intended to disrupt the community. I'm responding this time because the proposal was initiated by a respected member of the community and therefore deserves a full response. The length is because I'd like to summarize my opinion for once and for all, and also probably because there's some amount of accumulated back log from my past non-contributions.

:On Wikipedia, this is tagged as a perennial proposal -- two, in fact [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PEREN#Demote_inactive_admins Demote inactive admins] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PEREN#Reconfirm_administrators Reconfirm administrators] -- which they've discussed and rejected multiple times. There are links at WP leading to several very long discussions covering nearly every possible opinion; FWIW, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Admin_accountability_poll#All_admins_should_be_subject_to_periodic_reconfirmation_of_their_admin_status this poll] seems to provide the most complete list of arguments and counterarguments. WP's summary of the counterargument basically describes my main reactions:
::''In general, this policy has been opposed both by administrators who themselves tend to go through periods of inactivity and do not wish to be forced to maintain token levels of activity to maintain adminship, and by people who believe that there is no substantive security concern. The developers have pointed out that an active account is in far greater danger of becoming compromised than an inactive account. A side effect is that this may raise a barrier for inactive admins to become active again.''

:I'd be tempted to leave my response at that, except that UESP is not Wikipedia. I also think my recent experiences provide useful examples of this policy's implications -- examples that have more direct relevance to UESP than Wikipedia's examples.

:While mandatory re-elections might be a bad idea on Wikipedia, I think the specifics of UESP mean that they would be even worse here. Two specific reasons are:
:* On UESP there are constantly comments / complaints about the shortage of available admins. At UESP's size, we'll probably always be at risk of gaps in admin coverage. A policy to arbitrarily remove admins will inevitably lead to a situation where a vandal cannot be blocked because the only available person is a recently-returned admin who has lost his/her privileges for no reason other than being absent from the site at the wrong time. Therefore, I'm certain this policy will harm the site, while also seeing no apparent benefit.
:* Perhaps I'm an optimist, but I'm convinced TESV is going to be released -- and then be followed by one, maybe two, expansions. Which means UESP policies can't ignore the implications of the instant chaos produced by the release of a new game/expansion. It's obvious that the number of UESP editors will go up dramatically -- not just new editors, but also many old editors and admins are likely to return. Furthermore, my experience with SI's release says that a significant fraction of the previously active editors are likely to leave, scale back their contributions, or avoid the new game's namespace -- after all, we all want to play the game before learning spoilers from UESP. Which is a long-winded lead-in to the main point: a very likely time for inactive admins to reappear is after the release of a new game. At which point, UESP is likely to be desperate for experienced editors, in particular admins. Furthermore, any nomination under such conditions is likely to be nearly superficial -- a ton of new members; no time for anyone to properly research/evaluate the nomination -- or at least far less meaningful than their original nomination. In which case, how does a new nomination accomplish anything useful? I don't want our hands to be tied by policy written under the assumption that there's always time to leisurely repeat an approval process.

:Beyond that, I personally think that my recent experiences provide a perfect example of why this is a bad idea. Basically, this proposal means that I would have had no admin powers when I returned to the wiki a few weeks ago. Suggesting I should be exempt, as in a previous comment, seems somewhat meaningless. First, my experience could just as easily happen to a regular admin -- I'm bringing this up as an example, after all. Second, I don't think I'd want to be exempt. Passing such a policy would be a statement that the majority of the community needs first-hand interaction with an admin before the admin can be trusted and, furthermore, that trust must be explicitly given. My additional user rights mean that the community's trust is even more important: because there is no log monitoring my server activities, I can't provide distrustful editors with evidence if questions arise. Yet somehow this supposedly critical need to review all admins doesn't apply to me?

:Therefore, during these last couple weeks I would have, for example, been unable to do any of the blocks listed in [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block the logs]. In many of those cases the vandals/spammers would have been left unblocked for hours, because there have been several occasions when I have been the only available admin, sometimes for half of the day.

:Furthermore, the practical reality is that this proposal would imply that I'd be unlikely to be restored as admin until about July (in my particular situation any renewal of my [[UESPWiki:Archive/AN Request for Server Access|server access]] might not be possible until September, but I'll stick to what would apply to any admin).

:Why so long? First, it would be at least a month before I would even start a new admin request. A small factor is that I wouldn't want to waste anyone's time with the request until I felt confident I had really returned. Far more importantly is that the entire point of the proposal is for the admin to be approved by the currently active wiki members -- and the majority of those members know nothing about me. They would need a month to have a fair chance of participating in any admin nomination. Even now, the newer editors impression of me is probably based primarily on my admin-type activities. Without my admin privileges, they'd be forced to base their opinions largely on a series of edits to obscure [[Tes4Mod:Save File Format]] subpages -- a year's worth of such edits might not even be enough ;)

:Second, in past cases it has taken as long as 47 days (for [[User:Timenn/RfA|Timenn]]) from the time a nomination starts to the time it is made effective; a 20-day interval seems typical. Policies about UESP admins can't ignore the fact that UESP adminship requests do not, and probably never will, happen overnight. Daveh has never been involved in UESPWiki on a daily basis -- which I think is probably essential as part of Daveh's long-term commitment to ensure that UESP stays alive for years to come.

:Which is why I say it realistically will be two months from the time an ex-admin returns before that admin can return to helping with admin duties. Two months during which they could otherwise be helping out -- and providing new editors with direct evidence that they're trustworthy, which is far more meaningful as evidence than any nomination discussion.

:Furthermore, there's the real possibility that de-adminship would discourage an admin from returning to UESP -- and, no, not out of spite at losing their privileges. Two primary motivations for my return to the site were to (a) help cover any admin shortages and (b) help with issues that need server access. Take away my privileges, and I would have felt like there was little reason to return -- I'd feel more productive pursuing other projects/interests. Alternatively, ex-admins might find it easier to simply start a new account -- why go back to the old account with its inevitable baggage/dirty laundry if you have to effectively start over again no matter what? Either way, someone who was once considered to be one of the most valuable members of the community is effectively lost permanently instead of temporarily.

:For the record, I'm not the only example of an admin returning after a lengthy absence -- Eshe, for example, was active for several months last year after a year-plus absence. Her return, and her ability to act as an admin when she returned, unequivocally helped the site. Again, a case where this policy would have harmed the site without any justification.

:In general, if any of the people on the inactive admin list were to return tomorrow, I would welcome the help, unconditionally. Of course that's true of the admins with whom I've worked in the past. But it's also true of Garrett and Endareth, both of whom had basically left the site before I became actively involved. First and foremost, I trust Daveh, and therefore I'm willing to trust his selections. To some extent, insisting that I be given the right to reapprove decisions about Garrett and Endareth would be comparable to insisting that Krusty's nomination be redone just because I wasn't here when the vote was made. In both cases, I trust the people who made the decision, and therefore see no reason to question the decision unless I have some type of evidence to the contrary. Beyond that, their entire wiki contribution history can be reviewed by anyone who is interested -- not to mention their contributions to other wikis (e.g., is Garrett is an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Master_Thief_Garrett admin at Wikipedia] and a [http://strategywiki.org/wiki/User:Garrett bureaucrat at StrategyWiki]). In every case, I trust the inactive admin's judgment to determine the best course of action upon returning: whether to simply step down; whether to voluntarily seek re-nomination; whether site policies need to be learned/re-learned; whether he/she is ready to just dive straight in; or any other possibility.

:As far as arguments comparing admin nominations to political elections, they're fallacious, besides the obvious [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy Wikipedia is not a democracy] guideline. There is no limit on the number of possible wiki admins. Since keeping inactive admins on the list does nothing to prevent new admins from being added, regular re-elections are not a necessary mechanism for guaranteeing turnover. Furthermore, politicians are elected based in large part on their agenda -- their opinions on specific issues and whether voters agree with those opinions. Issues change, politicians' opinions change, and voters' opinions change, so re-elections are necessary. On the other hand, admins are approved primarily based on their impartiality and whether they can be trusted to enforce wiki policy -- characteristics that don't change overnight. The basic facts in each year's re-election would be largely the same, with the potential for the "discussion" to be dominated by comments stating effectively "Support: see original nomination".

:I don't see any inherent value to periodically polling current site members about the admins, inactive or active. We don't put every policy on the site up for re-election periodically, or throw out old policies simply because the people who contributed to the original discussion are no longer active. Instead members are free to start discussions about any policy if they feel something needs to be changed, clarified, or revoked. I think the policy system works, and I think that same basic system also works for admins. Furthermore, based on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy Wikipedia is not a democracy], the purpose of nomination discussions is not to hold a vote. We don't insist that any fixed number or percentage of current members must state their opinion before closing the discussion. We don't tally the numbers and declare a winner; there have even been cases on Wikipedia where admin nominees received more opposing than supporting "votes" but yet were still give the adminship. Instead the discussion is about getting a representative range of opinions, and, ideally, reaching a unanimous community consensus. In other words, the specific names attached to the opinions aren't what matter, so a new set of names doesn't need to be added to the opinions.

:No arguments that have been presented demonstrating how or why re-elections would benefit the community. The primary visible effect of such re-elections would be the constant required discussions -- regardless of whether anyone in the community has anything to say or even has any interest in the discussion. And the only changes that I see coming out of such discussions have many potential ways of harming the site. So why keep bringing it up? --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 15:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

:: I think the arguments are clear and that you are the one making fallacious arguments. Your point about Krusty's election misses the point impressively. Under this proposal, you '''would''' get a chance to vote on Krusty's role - in just under a year's time. You say that admins' characteristics that don't change overnight, so you are admitting that they can and do change. With no mechanism for renewal, there is no opportunity for people to decide if the changes are beneficial or not. [[Special:Contributions/80.239.242.95|80.239.242.95]] 18:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
:::If an administrator needs to be reevaluated, then a discussion can take place (which has happened before, such as rpeh's case). There is no reason to create problems where there are none. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 18:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::::There '''are''' problems. Having unelected administrators and other administrators who have not received the support of current site members is an anomalous situation. Let's take your bad analogy and use it in a more sensible way. I don't have to put up with a president I never voted for because I get a chance to vote every four years. On UESP I have to put up with whatever administrators people I have never heard of decided to elect/appoint. And knock off this "suspiciously anonymous" crap in your edit summaries. I don't believe UESP has any policy that prevents me from expressing my opinions anonymously. If I was voting, I'd use my name, but I'm not. I'm commenting because I agree with rpeh's proposal. [[Special:Contributions/80.239.242.95|80.239.242.95]] 19:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' I'm changing my vote because I hadn't realized that these would be periodic; I had thought that this was a one time thing limited to admins that ''had not received (widespread) concensus'' as such their elections had not had a representative cross-section of the wiki community. You would have kept your admin rights also; the proposer stated that inactive admins returning would keep their rights for a month or two to allow everyone to become comfortable with this persons editing style.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 16:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' My vote shouldn't matter here. I believe that my worth in this community has greatly diminished since I stopped (unofficially) patrolling and paying attention. I'm not unpopular, but the idea of giving someone with no time or invested effort any more responsibility is without reason. If we consider the efforts which many of our current and past admins have given freely to the community, we find that even with sufficient cause to demote them, they still hold a great influence on the community if not by their past deeds, then by their continuing contributions.

:Achieving authority in this group project shouldn't be by popularity. We contribute because we love to, and we take on responsibility when we need to. We work best as a culture of deeds. By proving that we can handle a job and fulfill its duties, we attain respect and trust. When the power structure is reversed, and we let the new recruits promote us rather than the boss, we have well respected contributers without the proportionate voice in proper decision making and people like me telling everyone what to do. There wouldn't be proper trust in authority. We would also have a bit more drive and possibly destructive activity from those seeking personal gain instead of site improvements.

:Now I'm just providing some (hopefully lucid) feedback. I can only imagine the horrors which an evil admin could incur upon this centralized project which has had random server problems in the past including the '''smoking backup server'''. Without piling elections on to the worry-plates of our currently underfunded admins, let's get some more bigshot patrollers who can be admins in a few bagillion good edits. As for when the trusted authority goes against the grain of the community, there really is only the respect of feats which gives them that power, if leadership goes where the community is not willing to follow, we simply loose the community which hasn't invested so much in the project and might take another project the way they want to go. I think there are enough policies about ranks of admins/patrollers already without elections. [[User:Lukish|Lukish_]] [[User talk:Lukish|Tlk]] [[Special:Contributions/Lukish|Cnt]] 19:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
}}
|}

== Scorpio ==

What should be done with scorpio? Hes using bad language deleting pages removing warnings but I dont want to be hash so what else can be done to him other than a block (warnings have no effect on him) --[[User:Arny|Arny]] 19:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
:Just give things time to cool down. If he's willing to stop a block is not needed. [[User:Mikeyboy52|Mike]][[User_talk:Mikeyboy52|<nowiki>/|\</nowiki>]] 19:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

== search ==

Hey I just wanted to ask that when you search for something why does the search show you the script of the page? Why doesnt it show you the text that is on the page instead? [[User:Arny|Arny]] 10:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
:By script, I'm assuming that you mean the page source and wikitext. How's how the MediaWiki search engine works. I personally prefer wikitext being used in the searches, since links tend to be piped (eg. <code><nowiki>[[link|text]]</nowiki></code>). This sort of search also makes it easier to find and view external links. --'''[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Michaeldsuarez|Deeds]])''' 13:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

::An additional problem is that it can give problems if you start parsing an article in the middle, instead of the beginning. Imagine having to create a table from only the middle section, you need the whole of it to show the correct layout. --[[User:Timenn|Timenn]]-<[[User talk:Timenn|talk]]> 14:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

== Adjustments to template subsections ==

After some experiments (and a few mistakes) I've found out that editing a section of a page with a template directly edits the template's original page. The effects can be described as followed: [[Lore:Places_A#Anvil]] is divided into a section (County Anvil} which is divided into a sub-section (The City of Anvil) which is further divided into sub sub-sections (the districts). Editing just regular Anvil brings up [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Lore:Places_A&action=edit&section=15 the template], while editing the section County Anvil brings up [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Lore:Anvil&action=edit&section=T-1 its section text]. Editing the City of Anvil allows one to edit its [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Lore:Anvil&action=edit&section=T-2 section and sub-section]. This causes obvious problems as if someone wanted to add namespace specific info to Oblivion, it will also affect the Lore Anvil and any page that uses template Anvil. Basically, it shouldn't be possible to edit a template's subsections besides on its template page, as this could lead to a big mess. Is it somewhat possible to integrate an almost <code><nowiki>__NOEDITSECTION__</nowiki></code> into a template, so that only a temp's sections can be edited on the temp's page? Or, is it possible to merge all sections to a template, taking the option of editing it away? I probably sound confusing, so if anyone needs it I'll be happy to clarify -- [[User:Jplatinum16|Jplatinum16]] 03:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
:That wouldn't fix the "problem". Even if you add <nowiki>__NOEDITSECTION__</nowiki></code> to the article, users could still edit articles in the "Lore" namespaces (by simply editing the Lore namespace articles). In addition, we have RecentChanges patrollers who could find problems within the Lore namespace. Also, namespace-specific data and templates aren't really things new users know about, so I can't see inexperienced users causing such a problem. I don't see any reason to change anything. --'''[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Michaeldsuarez|Deeds]])''' 12:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
::The problem is not allowing editors to edit the Lore section; the problem is that editing a template section on one page will edit the template's orginal page. If I make an edit on one page, save, and end up on another, that seems like a problem. This problem can affect inexperienced and experienced users, cause I doubt most (if any) users know this. True, our trusty patrollers are always on the lookout for namespace specific info, but this affects:
#A template's page
#A page's (with the template) info
#A potentially useful namespace specific edit
Example: I want to add under the [[Oblivion:Leyawiin#Chapel District|Oblivion Leyawiin Chapel District section]] that "the Best Goods and Guarantees general store can be found here, next to The Dividing Line". I click [edit] for that section, edit it accordingly, and then save. I am now on the '''Lore:Leyawiin''' page, instead of the Oblivion one. Now, Lore:Leyawiin has Oblivion specific info. A patroller sees this, and reverts it, saying it's not lore specific. Now, the '''Oblivion:Leyawiin''' page doesn't have that info. All of this could have been avoided if a template's sections weren't editable on ''other'' pages. May not be the biggest problem, but it's one nonetheless. -- [[User:Jplatinum16|Jplatinum16]] 00:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

== Vandal ==

:{{Vandal|Mike484}}
We currently appear to have a vandal at work. Would an administrator please block him as soon as possible. Thanks! ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 23:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

:Also, while undoing the vandalism, I accidentally patrolled {{Pl|Morrowind:Starting_out|this edit|diff=581078&oldid=580985}} which makes major changes to a paragraph in a Morrowind article, and I have no ready way to confirm. Can someone double-check it and take appropriate action, please? Thanks! ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 23:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

::(Edit conflict) Yep it's fine (far better than the one it changed) the only thing I need to change is that the ebony dart only appears at higher levels.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 23:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

:::i was going to put one of these please blok him--[[User:GUM!!!|GUM!!!]] 00:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

::::Thanks for the confirmation, TAO. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 01:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::I'm not sure if just adding the template works but I tried to full-protect the warning since he was vandalizing it.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 01:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::Yeah that doesn't work (It'd be darn useful though) by the way thanks for blocking him Nephele.--[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|''Arch-Mage Matt'']][[User talk:Arch-Mage Matt|Talk]] 01:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

== Blockers ==

In regards to [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive_14#New_User_Group|this discussion]] and the [[UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard#Updates to Archived Discussions|update to it]], I'm not sure if any agreement was ever established on what admission requirements would be for the new group. In the absence of a formal policy, I'm just going to ask for that right for myself and let others fend for themselves. :) That brings back up the question of how to do it, keeping in mind that whatever is done for me will probably set a precedent:

#Do I just ask and if one (or maybe all) admins agree, I get the rights?
#Do we want a formal Request for Block Permissions discussion, the same as we would for Patroller or Administrator?
#Do we want to hammer out a formal requirements list?
#Do we want to have a requirements list ''and'' a vote (like Patrollers are now).
#Alternatively, if a requirements list is wanted, but we don't want to wait, we can put the cart before the horse and grant permissions by one of the first two methods, ''then'' put a requirements list in place at a later date.

Also, semi off-topic, when someone has a chance, I think we can remove Krusty from the Blockers group, as he already has those rights as an Administrator anyway. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 03:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

:I've created a stub of a page at [[UESPWiki:Blockuser]] (with a redirect at [[UESPWiki:Blockers]]) and added pertinent info to [[UESPWiki:Blocking Policy]], [[UESPWiki:Administrators]], and [[UESPWiki:User Group Rights]]. I've intentionally tried to avoid describing the process, since we haven't decided.
:My opinions on the matter are that we don't need a formal requirements list or a vote. I ''do'' think, however, that it should be an agreement between at least two admins that an editor is suitable for blockuser rights. It's definitely something we should decide before assigning the rights, though. --'''[[User:GuildKnight|GK]]'''[[User_talk:GuildKnight|talk2me]] 19:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

:: I agree with GK. I recall that the entire reason to get the role assignable by admins was to allow the rights to be given quickly and easily when required. If an admin knows that he or she will be away for some time and that no other admin is likely to be around, it should be allowable to simply give the right to some user who is on IRC or obviously active on wiki. The idea is to ensure that there's always somebody around who can block as required. When the admin returns - or another becomes active, the rights could be removed if there's no need for them any more, or they could be left in place - I don't think it matters too much.
:: We definitely don't want a procedural rigmarole over this because it would eliminate the point of the group. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 14:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

== Policy Discussions ==

The various policy discussions currently on the page have been languishing, as near as I can tell because they're a mess of inter-related proposals and it's difficult to separate them. In the interests of moving forward, I'm about to do my best to call consensus (or lack thereof) on the various discussions. If further action is warranted, I will indicate what I believe the appropriate action to be based on the discussions. Even so, it may be best to wait a day or two in case there are objections to my interpretations of what to do.

As I said, this is a mess, so I won't take it hard if anybody thinks my interpretation of consensus or the actions to be taken are incorrect. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 03:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

:Okay, all done, I think. There were two discussions that I simply archived as old, but '''the second one may need further action''':
:#[[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive_14#Request for Block of Rpeh|'''Request for Block of Rpeh''']] lacked support, nor was it a formal vote. Since it's entirely an Admin decision in any event, I saw no point in providing a consensus to it.
:#[[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive_14#Request to remove warning|'''Request to remove warning''']] was slightly in favour of removing Corevette's warning from [[User_talk:Elliot|Elliot's talk page]] (the other warning and block would remain since they were from an unrelated incident), but there was very little input overall and it was implied that there may have been a behind-the-scenes discussion amongst some of the Admins to let it stand. Other comments in the various related discussions were also mixed as to what should be done, but there was an overall feeling that both parties shared the blame to some degree. Since there is no warning on rpeh's page, I suggest that Corevette's warning also be removed from Elliot's, but clearly, there are divided feelings and I'm not about to take action under these circumstances. I'd recommend the Admins hash it out, but in the absence of action or an agreement at that level, it lacks a clear consensus from the community, so existing policy of leaving the warning would prevail.
:‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 04:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

== Block Needed ==

[[User:ChampionQQ]]

Obviously, Mike needs another blocking and I suspect he's not done. --[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|''Arch-Mage Matt'']][[User talk:Arch-Mage Matt|Talk]] 03:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
:If ChampionQQ needs to be blocked, then how come he hasn't been given a warning? The blocking policy is pretty clear about warning users before blocking them. When I'm checking the site from my iPhone (as I am right now) it is very inconvenient to do extra research into whether this is one of the few exceptions where blocking without warning is appropriate. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 03:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
::But not if he has A.) Vandalized many pages or B.) Doesn't seem to be stopping or C.) Has made personal attacks. --[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|''Arch-Mage Matt'']][[User talk:Arch-Mage Matt|Talk]] 03:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
:::What I'm primarily trying to say is that if you think someone needs to be blocked, the most useful course of action is to warn the user rather than post an unnecessary message here. It would take me 30 minutes or more right now to check your A, B, or C conditions -- but only a minute to see that the user has been warned. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 03:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Since the nature of the edits makes it clear that ChampionQQ is the same person as [[User talk:mike484|mike484]] (who is permanently blocked), isn't the warning stage unnecessary? Furthermore, shouldn't the new account receive the same permanent block as the initial account? [[User:Dlarsh|Dlarsh]]([[User_talk:Dlarsh|T]],[[Special:Contributions/Dlarsh|C]]) 04:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
:{{ec}}That may be my fault, since I set a bad example and took steps out of order yesterday — I asked for a block a couple of minutes before realizing that nobody had yet issued a warning.

:Also, on that note, I've verified that all recent edits have been reverted and patrolled any that were unpatrolled. I also moved the offending file to a new location to make patrolling...I'd say "easier", but it's more like making it "not a nightmare". ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 04:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

== Innappropriate Username? ==

Would [[User_talk:Asseater9000|AssEater9000]] be an unacceptable username? Because someone has signed up with that name. --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|Contribs]] 17:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

:Based on the discussion on policy [[UESPWiki:Archive/CP_Unacceptable_Usernames|here]] that would depend on [[Special:Contributions/Asseater9000|their contributions]]. The user that was pointed out had a username of about the same potential unacceptability but made a valid contribution; since the username wasn't prohibited by law, harassing, spam, or gibberish, there was no reason to block them. I think that that applies here also.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 18:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

::TAO; while those things are all true, with some good references I might add, it is blatant profanity for the sake of being profane. This user has no contributions either, so a block or a forced username change would be in order in my opinion.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 01:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

:::While it's profanity, it's not harassment toward any person or group of people and doesn't make any type of explicit or implicit threat (unlike the username that was recently blocked), so I don't think any action is necessary. --'''[[User:GuildKnight|GK]]'''[[User_talk:GuildKnight|talk2me]] 02:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
::::(Edit Conflict) All true- potentially. But I'd still prefer to ask them to accept a namechange; after all as long as they don't do anything except on their talk page it doesn't hurt anything.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 02:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

== Block Needed 2 ==

[[User:Demons fiery]] needs a block not only has he ignored a warning, made personal attacks he has said that he is the same person as a known vandal.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 23:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
:He has been blocked for a while now.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 23:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
::Braska (Dragon Age:Origins there. Elven swearing.). I didn't realize that. Sorry for putting this up here.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 22:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

== Block Appeal: [[User:Ranger]] / [[User:Scorpio]] ==

[[User:Ranger|Ranger]] had the following to say:
:I believe it is fair enough to keep the block however instead of a month could you shorten the block to one week ([[User:Ranger|Ranger]] 16:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC))
:oh and if possible could you delete scorpio i would like a fresh start on this account thanks ([[User:Ranger|Ranger]] 16:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC))

It should be noted that Ranger is the same user as Scorpio, but the user wishes to continue as User:Ranger instead of User:Scorpio. I've swapped the indefinite block for Ranger with the current month block of Scorpio.

I'm neutral on this one, and I'll leave it others to decide. --[[User:Timenn|Timenn]]-<[[User talk:Timenn|talk]]> 09:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

:from the looks of it seems that they want to restart. so i suport his blok removel. but i would keep a eye on him ;)--[[User:GUM!!!|GUM!!!]] 13:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

::Yeah I would tend to agree here- his contributions to the wiki since the whole thing with Scorpio (at least the ones I've seen) have been mostly apologies. I personally don't see why Ranger was blocked in the first place.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 19:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

:::ranger was bolcked for being a sock puppet--[[User:GUM!!!|GUM!!!]] 19:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

:::: No, Ranger was blocked for using an alternate account to circumvent a block, which is different from sockpuppetry. Given that Ranger's [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User:Ranger&diff=prev&oldid=579948 first edit] admitted a connection with Scorpio, another edit a few minutes later [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Krusty&diff=prev&oldid=580241 also admitted a connection] and a [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Community_Portal&diff=prev&oldid=580509 third] confirms it, there's no concern that this was an attempt to create an alter ego. Ditto [[Special:Contributions/Scorpi0|his other account]]. It looks to me as if the user has had a chance to calm down, as I [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AScorpio&diff=578205&oldid=578204 asked], and I would support an unblock given edits such as [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ranger&diff=prev&oldid=581379], [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ranger&diff=prev&oldid=581383], [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ranger&diff=prev&oldid=583047] and [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ranger&diff=prev&oldid=583251], which seem to indicate a more measured approach to editing. Obviously, any return to the sort of editing that caused the warnings and blocks should immediately warrant at least the full month block that is currently in effect. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 21:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I oppose complete removal of the block, but I do think it should be shortened to about a week, maybe slightly less. But after what he did as [[Special:Contributions/Scorpio|Scorpio]] and what he did as [[Special:Contributions/Scorpi0|Scorpi0]] I think a complete removal of the block is too lenient. --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|Contribs]] 20:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

:From what I've seen, changing the block to one week seems appropriate in this situation. --'''[[User:GuildKnight|GK]]'''[[User_talk:GuildKnight|talk2me]] 18:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

::I think we can abort this appeal. Seeing the actions of [[Special:Contributions/Popopopo|Popopopo]] yesterday, an identified alternate account of Ranger, made it clear this user hasn't given up yet on harassing other editors, and vandalizing the site. --[[User:Timenn|Timenn]]-<[[User talk:Timenn|talk]]> 16:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

::: I'm afraid you're right. So much for giving him the benefit of the doubt. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 17:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

== Block Request - [[User:Elliot]] ==

First of all, I ''am'' aware that this is quite late but bear in mind I was very busy with exams and was therefore unable to post anything till now. I am asking to once again block Elliot, and this time for a month. Below is an email I received on June 18th from Elliot's uesp email, I'm guessing in response to [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard&diff=580278&oldid=580232 this] comment.

:"''Do not involve yourself in matters that concern me you little prick.''

:--
:''This e-mail was sent by Elliot to SerCenKing by the "E-mail user" function at UESPWiki.''"

This is a clear violation of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment WP:HARASS], but not only that: Elliot had been [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elliot&diff=577166&oldid=577146 blocked] [http://uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Michaeldsuarez&curid=45995&diff=577160&oldid=569531&rcid=597526 for exactly this kind of behaviour]. It appears as if he has yet again '''not''' learnt a lesson from his week long block and I therefore ask for a month-long block in the hope that it will help him understand that this behaviour is unacceptable here at UESP. --[[User:SerCenKing|SerCenKing]] [[User talk:SerCenKing|Talk]] 18:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
:It might not be my place, but I support disciplinary action against Elliot. I'm sorry you were harassed like that SerCenKing [[User:Corvus|Corvus]] 18:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
::His block has expired and he has not returned to the site afterward. Some of you may know I was subject to the same thing earlier, but even so, I am going to remain neutral because he has shown no interest in returning.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 18:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
:::Core, yes he has. See [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard&action=history here]. The email was sent ''after'' his block had expired. --[[User:SerCenKing|SerCenKing]] [[User talk:SerCenKing|Talk]] 18:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
::::Done. Ideally, I would have preferred to only block Elliot from using the wiki's email features, given that the immediate cause of the block is solely related to email. However, after looking at the wiki code it doesn't seem possible to do an email block without also blocking the user. Furthermore, I didn't think it was worth wasting my time on finding/creating a way to do an email-only block. In particular, there is no evidence that Elliot plans to make constructive wiki contributions (and in fact he has made statements specifically saying the opposite). --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 19:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::Thanks Neph :) --[[User:SerCenKing|SerCenKing]] [[User talk:SerCenKing|Talk]] 22:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
::::::I'm not sure if Krusty got my e-mail about this same issue, but since posting the text above isn't a violation of the privacy policy, I received this e-mail from Elliot on June 17:

Are you a fucking baby?

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! He told me to stay off of his page! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH Nephele do something! I am too stupid and incompetent to even comprehend rules! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH He hurt my feelings!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH.

Grow up you fucking idiot. A retaliatory move like this shows your incompetence on a new level. Just leave the site. You are too retarded to contribute positively to it.

Leave before you make a further ass out of yourself you worthless pile.

--
This e-mail was sent by Elliot to TheAlbinoOrc by the "E-mail user" function at UESPWiki.

I'd like to request that if there is any further continuation of this behavior Elliot be blocked permanently. This was presumably received in response to my change of vote and my comment on Nephele's talk page (which I would have clarified and expanded upon but I didn't feel like dealing with it at the time).--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']]
[[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 23:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
:In light of the recent email sent to TheAlbinoOrc I suggest that we extend Elliot's block to something like 6 months, maybe even block him indefinitely. It's behaviour like this that led him to his patroller status being stripped from him and another sad thing is that he appears to be continuing his childish behaviour even after Nephele blocked him not that long ago. So yeah, I suggest we extend Elliot's block by a considerable amount. --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|Contribs]] 16:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about being late in to the discussion, but [http://www.uesp.net/wiki/User_talk:Michaeldsuarez#Abusive_E-mail_by_Elliot I brought this issue up in May, but GK prevented me from taking action]. Elliot is clearly unable to handle the responsibility of the wiki's Email function. --'''[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Michaeldsuarez|Deeds]])''' 15:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

:Yeah I saw that whole thing unfold, sorry your thing was invalidated because of the privacy policy. At least now what people should do is clear though: Try to contact the Admins and then if they don't respond (or they tell you to bring it up on-wiki) do what was done here.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 19:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

::I don't know if this is grounds for an extension of the block. But Elliot, has just dismissed me as well as several other editors when he has been warned about doing that already. So if it okay with the wiki admins, I am requesting his block to be extended by another month. --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|Contribs]] 10:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

:::Elliot has the right to remove content from his talk page if he wants to, although saying "Go away" in the edit summary is definitely not helpful. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 13:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

::::Yeah it was the "go away" that I was referring to with my comment. --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|Contribs]] 14:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Question: Has Elliot attempted any kind of apology for this kind of behaviour, and entered some form of undertaking that he will not engage in such behaviour in future? [[User:Jadrax|Jadrax]] 19:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

:If you've looked at his {{Pl|User talk:Elliot|talk page|oldid=586076}} recently, you'll see that I encouraged him in that direction, but he ignored it. If he ''has'' done something along these lines, he hasn't done so publicly. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 21:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

::In that case, as the purpose of a block is to prevent abusive behaviour, it would only seem logical to extend the block in cases were the subject shows no understanding of why their behaviour is unacceptable. I would suggest extending the block until at the very least an apology is received. [[User:Jadrax|Jadrax]] 21:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

:::I can see your point- but I know that if I had done nothing further wrong after being blocked, and received an extension of the block simply because I hadn't apologized I'd be ready to tear someone's head off (not literally of course). Besides repeated warnings/blocks have had no effect. Why should an apology?--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 06:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

::::He's also just deleted the entire discussion on his talk page claimed it to be "gang warfare." --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|Contribs]] 15:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

== Possible Block Needed ==

I think the new user [[User:Cpl.CumInAHam]] falls under the inappropriate username category. --[[Special:Contributions/78.144.134.29|78.144.134.29]] 15:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
:By the way that was me who posted the above comment, I just forgot to log in. --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|Contribs]] 15:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard

2010-07-11T15:16:25Z

ModderElGrande: /* Possible Block Needed */ Slight Rewording

[[Category:Message Boards|{{PAGENAME}}]]
The '''administrator noticeboard''' is where we discuss and coordinate administrative tasks on the wiki. Although this page is intended for [[UESPWiki:Administrators|administrators]], all users are encouraged to participate in discussions. __NEWSECTIONLINK__
{{Archive Table|class=compress|title=Major Discussions
|UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Vandalism|Vandalism|Mostly spam, actually.
|!|Page Archives|
|Archive 1||February 2005 – June 2006
|Archive 2||June 2006 – August 2006
|Archive 3||September 2006 – June 2007
|Archive 4||June 2007 – July 2007
|Archive 5||August 2007 – October 2007
|Archive 6||October 2007 – November 2007
|Archive 7||December 2007 – January 2008
|Archive 8||January 2008 – February 2008
|Archive 9||February 2008 – August 2008
|Archive 10||September 2008 – October 2008
|Archive 11||November 2008 – December 2008
|Archive 12||December 2008 – March 2009
|Archive 13||April 2009 – December 2009
|Archive 14||January 2010 – May 2010
|!|Past Administrative Requests|
|User:Aristeo/RfA|Aristeo's Request for Adminstrator|''Approved Jun. 19, 2006''
|User:Nephele/RfA|Nephele's Request for Adminstrator|''Approved Aug. 13, 2006''
|User:Aristeo/RfB|Aristeo's Request for Bureaucrat|''Withdrawn by Aristeo Nov. 19, 2006''
|User:Ratwar/RfA|Ratwar's Request for Adminstrator|''Approved Jan. 31, 2007''
|User:TheRealLurlock/RfA|TheRealLurlock's Request for Adminstrator|''Approved Feb. 23, 2007''
|User:Rpeh/RfA|Rpeh's Request for Adminstrator|''Approved Oct. 1, 2007''
|UESPWiki:Archive/AN Request for Server Access|Nephele's Request for Server Access|''Approved Jan. 4, 2008''
|User:Eshe/RfA|Eshe's Request for Adminstrator|''Approved Mar. 31, 2008''
|User:GuildKnight/RfA|GuildKnight's Request for Adminstrator|''Approved Nov. 11, 2008''
|User:Timenn/RfA|Timenn's Request for Adminstrator|''Approved Aug. 7, 2009''
|User:Krusty/RfA|Krusty's Request for Adminstrator|''Approved May 3, 2010''
}}

== Semi Unprotected ==

I just noticed in my Watchlist that {{tl|Archive Header}} was recently vandalized by an IP address. It's supposed to be semi-protected based on the {{tl|Protection}} template in it. Can someone please check that? Thanks! ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 15:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

: Looks like the protection was temporary - it ran out on 6 Feb. In any case, it should use {{tl|TemProtect}} rather than {{tl|Protection}}. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 16:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

:: Just a reminder, this still needs to be fixed. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 15:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

== Ban For 98.126.56.178 ==

He/She has made multiple personal attacks on [[User:Nephele|Nephele]].
:And me and Timenn. Timenn just logged off so It'll be a while, we can make it for now.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 00:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

:agreed i agree!--[[User:GUM!!!|GUM!!!]] 00:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

::Done --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 02:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

== Virus found on site ==
{{dm|GuildKnight|Virus found on site|User talk|1}}

On Tuesday the 1 June 2010, my AVG encountered a virus on the following page:
http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Skyrim

AVG labeled it as "Exploit Neosploit Toolkit (Type 1109)"

I just wanted you to know ASAP! and I have no idea wehat to do or what this means.
Love your work
eid_broughton@yahoo.com
:GK will be gone for a while and that seems unlikely, are you sure it was from that page?--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 01:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

::According to a [http://www.bassresource.com/bass_fishing_forums/YaBB.pl?num=1275167508/6#6 forum] where a user had a similar experience:
:::''It means YOUR computer is infected with a virus (malware specifically). You'll get this error message regardless of what site you're on. It seems to only affect Firefox users.''
::Which definitely sounds more likely than UESP being the source of the virus. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 02:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

== Updates to Archived Discussions ==

To let everyone know, some quick feedback on assorted updates I've implemented based on old discussions:

* [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive_14#Database Corruption|Database Corruption]]
** I started the refreshLinks maintenance program running last night... it's made it about 80% of the way so far. It's fixing all of the issues with bad category links, etc. But I've also been struggling with an obscure code bug that's been adding a lot of bizarre entries to wanted categories and wanted pages -- things like Special-NPCs as a wanted category. Since it only happens when pages are processed by the job queue, it's really annoying to track down; I keep thinking that I've taken care of it, and then more start appearing. So I'll be continuing to try to deal with that situation. If there's still strange stuff in places like wanted categories by the end of the week, let me know; in the meantime, assume that I'm working on it.
* [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive_14#New User Group|New User Group]]
** Implemented. Blocker group has ability to block for up to four hours, and admins have the ability to add/remove from the group. I took the code Nx wrote and simply added it into UespCustomCode since that made the majority of the code unnecessary -- I'm assuming Nx doesn't mind, but if there is an issue, I can change the implementation.
* [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive_14#Skipcatcha_please|Skipcatcha please]]
** I did ''not'' follow through on this, pending the possible Userspace Patrollers group. That group has been given skipcatcha authority, and it's possible that membership in that group will be fairly widely available, in which case adding it to all confirmed users is probably unnecessary.

However, this probably is the end of my wikicode editing spree, short of dealing with new bugs that I may have introduced in the process.

<s>P.S. The one caveat with everything I've been doing so far is that it's only active on content1/2. I can't make any changes on content3 yet. If I don't hear from Daveh in the next few days, I might look into figuring out how to tell the squid server to not use content3. That would allow us to start making changes that rely on the new code. Then once I hear from Daveh, content3 would be updated and put back into the system.</s> --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 18:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

:I'm tentatively (cross my fingers) concluding that the bug creating all the wanted categories/pages has been fixed. It's been five hours since a buggy entry was created, and I've been throwing everything I can at the bug during that time. Nevertheless, it's still going to probably take a day for the wanted lists to get cleaned out. I'm also running a script that will make sure, eventually, to refresh any pages that have been processed strangely at any point in the last couple days. Again, it'll be about a day before it's done so in the meantime reports like [[#Quest_links_not_displaying_correctly|the following]] might continue to trickle in.
:One other point: some of you may have noticed the site not responding a few minutes ago (specifically content2 not responding). That was my fault, triggered by another bit of database updating I was taking care of. Basically I needed to monopolize the database for a couple of minutes for some reorganization, the upside of which is that now every time someone does a full-text search that search won't monopolize the database for a couple of seconds. In other words, 120 seconds of work now to fix a constant stream of little 2 second jobs. That should clear out one of the most common reasons why the database can be slow to respond to a request.
:Other than the above-mentioned cleanup scripts that will still be running for a while, that should be the last of my server disruptions for now. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 22:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

::So was that why for about 15-20 minutes everything kept timing out ?--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 22:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

:::TheAlbinoOrc: Yes. One of the servers became completely overloaded, to the point where I couldn't even force it to restart.
:::One hopefully final update: all changes have now been made live on all servers, and all the update scripts have finished running. So no more restrictions on making use of the new features. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 19:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

== Quest links not displaying correctly ==

Why aren't the links to the quests always being displayed correctly? When I bring up the Skingrad page, I get several lines like the following instead of quests and links.

[[{{{questpage}}}|{{{altname}}}]]: {{{description}}}

Skingrad isn't the only page like this. {{unsigned|99.175.93.246|2 June 2010}}

: There are various updates taking place at the moment (see the previous section on this page). [[Oblivion:Skingrad]] looks fine to me, which probably means you have a caching issue. I just purged that page: try again now. Otherwise, you'll just have to wait a little while. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 19:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I just checked [[OB:Skingrad]] also, it looked fine... except that the people were too far down in their section.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 20:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:Just a thought, I was getting lots of things like this with IE8. Whats your browser?.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 20:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Firefox.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 20:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:I meant the anon, but it looks fine for me on that page.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 21:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

== Proposed Policy: Abuse of Anonymous Editing ==

We've clearly had a problem, for far too long now, with editors abusing the wiki's open editing system so they can be disruptive and generally waste the community's time. [[#Second Opinion Please|Second Opinion Please]] is the latest example; the [[UESPWiki_talk:Administrator_Noticeboard#Time to Vote|talk page]] shows it's not a new problem. Therefore, I propose adding the following section to the [[UESPWiki:Vandalism|Vandalism]] policy, under [[UESPWiki:Vandalism#Types of Vandalism]]:
:'''Abuse of Anonymous Editing'''
:Deliberately hiding or falsifying your identity in order to make unwanted, controversial, or inappropriate comments is not tolerated. Regular UESP contributors are expected to contribute using their own account whenever participating in any community discussions. Therefore, an edit can be treated as vandalism if a site editor judges that it meets all three of the following criteria:
:* The edit is made by an anonymous IP or newly created account (one with no significant contribution history).
:* There is reason to believe that the person making the edit is familiar with UESP (e.g., person refers to community members or site policy).
:* The edit has no constructive value and/or is likely to be disruptive.

This would imply that such edits could be reverted on sight, and the anon could also be warned and blocked, if necessary. The wording is deliberately somewhat fuzzy: the targeted editors are already trying to exploit site policy, so they will inevitably try to take advantage of any loophole. As for including it on the vandalism page, as far as I'm concerned, these types of edits do far more damage to the site and its community than someone replacing a page with obscenities, so let's start dealing with them accordingly.

All ''community members'' are welcome to provide feedback; it helps if you can start your comment with '''Support''', '''Oppose''' (or '''Comment''', etc.) as appropriate.

{{Showhide|Votes|content=
* '''Support''' as proposer. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 05:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Strong Oppose''' Firstly, this would directly contradict the [[UESPWiki:Etiquette|Etiquette]] policy (esp. 7th point in the General section). Secondly, point 2 of the new policy involves excessive supposition on the part of editors. Thirdly, so does point 3 - "constructive" is in the eye of the beholder to a large extent. Fourthly, I agree that "hiding or falsifying your identity" is wrong, but the remedies suggested here use a far too-broad brush and will catch plenty of other people. Fifthly, I have said before, and still believe, that established, named editors have caused far more trouble in the past than all the anons put together. Finally, I managed to track down the relevant quote that I'm sure you've all heard without source. It's from William Blackstone, in ''Commentaries on the Laws of England'' (1769): ''"the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer."'' Similarly, it is better that we have to put up with the trouble caused by one rogue IP user than place unnecessary sanctions on all of them. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 05:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Support''' Though, we could just punish all people who make edits that have no constructive value and/or is likely to be disruptive. As for Rpeh's points: Laws may paint a large area and hit unwanted people, however people on the wiki should have enough judgment to know when to punish and when not to punish. As such, as long as I think that at least half the admins on the wiki have a lick of sense, this rule shouldn't hit anyone that it isn't supposed to hit. --[[User:Timmeh|Tim]] [[User_Talk:Timmeh|Talk]] 06:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Although not an admin, just wanted to say that this is a great idea :P [[User:Mikeyboy52|Mikeyboy52]] 06:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Support''' - We've had far too many troll-like edits made by Tor users and the like who are obviously just trying to conceal their identity and disrupt the site. We already revert non-constructive edits to old discussions, regardless of who they're by, and I think it's a step in the right direction to revert blatantly disruptive edits, particularly when there's reason to believe that it's an abuse situation. Productive or well-meaning users would still be entitled to all the same rights as everyone else, but those who are here solely to disrupt will no longer have a place here. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 06:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per nomination. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 09:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' Now, I like the proposition, and I would really like reality to be like this; unfortunately, it is not, and my motivation for opposing comes from the fact that we have numerous “established” members, who, and I’m sorry to say this, is really not capable of judging these things. I have seen numerous examples where anon users accidentally blanked a page and received vandalism warnings almost immediately, even if the edit was clearly an accident. I will not mention any names, nor will I give any examples but I fear that these new rules will hit several people who do not deserve it and make the Wiki a warning zone where we, as patrollers, will have to change warnings into “welcome and advice” all the time – wasting even more time than we do now. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 10:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*:Well, that is applicable to nearly every situation. You shouldn't avoid something because of ignorance; you should try to change that ignorance and push forward an intelligent community. The best way would be to lead by example. Inform users when they are doing something incorrectly. Some people need direct instructions; however, that shouldn't be reason enough to stop something. At a minimum, it would be best to at least try it out. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 11:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*::I'm not sure this is the best approach myself, but would you be more comfortable if we limited reverting questionable IP contributions to patrollers and admins? ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 15:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*:::Problem is, that is exactly what we have been doing all along. While patrollers can’s block people, they tend to be very quick to alert an admin if they notice a proxy or TOR-user making unconstructive edits to the site. This proposal will allow each and every registered member on the entire Wiki to hand out quick warnings in anger or nervousness, something that way too many editors suffer from. For the time being, I think we’re doing fine. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 09:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' I find point 2 too vague in my opinion. How can we know if an anon is familiar with UESP? They could just as easily referred to Wikipedia or another Wiki. I don't see why knowledge of UESPWiki's policies points directly to a vandal. It's the edit itself that matters, not one's supposed knowledge of policies or one's status (status as in: anon, newly-created account, established editor etc.) I think these points are unfavourable to anon editors while not giving anything in return. [[User_Talk:Wolok gro-Barok|Talk]] [[User:Wolok gro-Barok|Wolok gro-Barok]] [[Special:Contributions/Wolok gro-Barok|Contributions]] 12:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' I would tend to be Opposed to the second guideline as I fit it at one time since I'd been using the Wiki for several years without creating an account and then for several months as Mhira (until I forgot my password and created this account) therefore I had no significant contribution history but knew some of the Wiki's policy and knew of some of the community members.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 14:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*:''Responding to the above two points on the second requirement:'' That one also concerned me a bit. Would removing that point altogether be a better choice, do you think? ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 15:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

*::I think that would work. I also think that there should be at least two people that agree on removing the edit.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 15:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - Seems like it would be difficult to determine if an anon is "familiar with UESP", and I'm sure there would be arguments about an anon's identity if someone makes that assumption. The 3rd point seems obvious, but how do we differentiate personal oppinions and comments from outright disruptive vandalism? And also, it's important that the policy doesn't suggest that anons can't contribute to community discussions, or that they arent part of the "community" -- [[User:Jplatinum16|Jplatinum16]] 18:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' - I don't know if I agree with the sentiment behind this proposal. There have been and will continue to be situations where an editor's opinions may be taken a different way if the editor's identity is unknown, and my first thoughts are that each editor should have the right to anonymously express thoughts if he or she wishes. --'''[[User:GuildKnight|GK]]'''[[User_talk:GuildKnight|talk2me]] 21:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' - In one sense using an IP to edit and a user account is kind of like sock-puppetry. But in another sense, IP is the only way to remain anon, should we so choose at the time. [[User:Mikeyboy52|Mikeyboy52]] 16:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Support''' i like the idea but lets say someone forgets to login so mabye it would omly be considerd light vandalisem--[[User:GUM!!!|GUM!!!]] 17:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Oppose:''' Too vague and it allows Patrollers, sysops, and other editors to disregard Assume Good Faith. --'''[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Michaeldsuarez|Deeds]])''' 01:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Partial Support:''' I would like to see this limited to open proxies and any other deliberate attempt to conceal an identity. I think this will suffice, as so far practically all condescending arguments made that I have seen came from such an IP address. Adding the clause that edits from anonymous sources (open proxies and such) can always be reverted by another is a clause that would solve the most problems. People can try to make controversial statements if they want, but they shouldn't make one from a deliberately concealed IP. --[[User:Timenn|Timenn]]-<[[User talk:Timenn|talk]]> 08:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' per Krusty [[User:Arny|Arny]] 09:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
}}
{{Consensus|None|message=Votes were roughly equal. In the absence of consensus, existing policy stands. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 03:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)}}

== Proposed Policy: Prohibiting Interactions ==
{{Notice|Please note that the proposed policy has now been enacted. It can be found at [[UESPWiki:Interaction Ban]].|width=90%}}
I'd like to propose officially prohibiting [[User:Elliot|Elliot]] and [[User:rpeh|rpeh]] from interacting with each other, in any way, on the wiki. Both have been told as much, unofficially, many times. Given that past requests have failed to resolve the situation, a new approach is clearly needed. There is wikipedia precedent for the proposed restrictions, for example [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley#Motions this motion] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Abtract-Collectonian#Feuds_and_quarrels this finding] from their arbitration committee.

A secondary proposal, if the community first agrees with the interaction prohibition, is to remove all current warnings from rpeh and Elliot's talk pages that are related to past incidents between them (or sanction any past edits that have already removed such warnings, as appropriate). The removal would not be intended as any type of statement about the correctness of the original warning. Rather, it is to help both editors feel that they are being treated equally under the new policy. Furthermore, it allows existing discussions such as [[#Request_to_remove_warning|Request to remove warning]] to be closed; otherwise, this new policy will effectively bar the complainant from making any further contribution in his appeal process.

===Restriction Enforcement===
Under this proposal, the next time either Elliot or rpeh violates the restriction prohibiting any interaction, the violator gets an official warning. After the warning, any further violations by the same editor will result in the editor being blocked for a week. The editor will continue to be blocked for a week at a time, as many times as necessary.

As long as the other editor does not respond or do anything to violate the restriction, the other editor will receive no warning and won't be blocked -- this policy will result in no black marks on your record if you comply with the policy.

The primary purpose of the block is to enforce a time-out/cool-down period, and thus prevent the typical rapidly escalating back-and-forth edits. The warning/block is also critical to make it clear to the other editor that he does not need to take any action in response to the violation. Therefore, it's important that we (the administrators) intercede whenever there is a clear violation, even if it's relatively minor (especially given the hope that this policy will reduce the fallout produced by a violation). Furthermore, if other community members notice a violation that has not been addressed by an admin, they should report it here (a simple link to the questionable edit is sufficient; any type of additional explanation is likely to cause extra problems).

Personally, I don't think a pre-warning or advance notification of the new policy is necessary for either editor, given that it's clear that both editors monitor the Administrator Noticeboard. But it others feel differently, someone could post an unofficial notice on each editor's talk page as soon as this policy is considered official.

===Restriction Details===
Prohibited actions under the proposed restrictions would include:
* Making comments about the other editor, indirectly or directly, on articles, on discussion pages, or in edit summaries. Substitutes for names (e.g., "you know who") would count as making an indirect comment.
* Making any edit to the other editor's user page, user talk page, or user subpages.
* Undoing any edit made by the other editor.
* If these rules are violated to the point where one editor gets warned or blocked, then the other editor is also prohibited from making any references to that warning/block. Any type of comment seems likely to be interpreted as gloating or otherwise exacerbate future arguments. I want to stop this cycle, not create new ways to perpetuate it.

Furthermore:
* Elliot and rpeh must do everything possible to avoid derailing other community discussions with their conflicts. So if, for example, rpeh has already contributed to a discussion, Elliot needs to (a) think carefully about whether any contribution is appropriate (e.g., is the information new and important to the discussion) (b) wait long enough (e.g., 24 hours or more) before responding so that it's clear to everyone the comments are not being made hastily or emotionally (c) make absolutely sure that the comments are on topic and do not violate any of the above prohibitions. The same recommendations apply to rpeh if Elliot has already contributed to a discussion.
* Elliot and rpeh can edit an article previously edited by the other editor, but only if at least 24 hours has passed -- and even then, cannot simply undo the other's edit(s). This condition is to ensure that the restrictions don't effectively make every article on the site off-limits for editing, given both editors' extensive contribution history.

Finally, for this to have a realistic chance of working, I think some form of [[#Proposed Policy: Abuse of Anonymous Editing|the above proposal]] to prevent disruptive edits by anonymous editors needs to be in place. We need to be able to remove and prevent any external provocations that could possibly be interpreted as either editor trying to circumvent the restriction.

=== Discussion of Proposal ===
Before wrapping up, I'd like to suggest if rpeh or Elliot wish to respond to this discussion, that they limit themselves to constructive comments that are strictly on the topic of this proposal. I doubt it's necessary to discuss or even make any further reference to the events that have led up to this point. Regardless of who was right or wrong in the past, I believe the community primarily wants to prevent future incidents -- or, if that's not possible, allow clear action to be taken against the person truly responsible.

Again, all ''community members'' are welcome to provide feedback; it helps if you can start your comment with '''Support''', '''Oppose''' (or '''Comment''', etc.) as appropriate.

{{Showhide|Votes|content=
* '''Support''' as proposer. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 05:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' I'm not prepared to put up with this kind of restriction on my editing. I edit widely and this proposal means Elliot can stop me editing anything in which I have an interest by editing it himself. Quite simply, it's about time Elliot got the block he so richly deserves. He has a history of grossly-insulting comments both on- and off-wiki. To me, has has made comments such as "I'm sorry your mother is such a fucking failure" (I apologise for the language, but it's necessary to highlight what an obnoxious person Elliot is). To Corevette, he made threats like "Until then, I will follow you. Not like a cat following you. like a wasp". To Michaeldsuarez, we have "MDS, go back to your shitty ED and go fuck one of those dumbasses over there."
:: Any or all of these comments are grounds for a block yet no such action has been taken. With no Elliot threatening and abusing other editors, the problem goes away. He has been repeatedly blocked at Wikipedia for the same kind of behavior he has shown here (edit warring and insulting other users) and UESP is simply lagging behind the times.
:: Furthermore, the topic that seems to have spawned this proposal has been quiescent for a week. This entire discussion is therefore moot. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 06:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
:::''I'd like to suggest if rpeh or Elliot wish to respond to this discussion, that they limit themselves to constructive comments that are strictly on the topic of this proposal.'' Way to miss a point... And what you state is hearsay in terms of logs, which is why it is a policy to prohibit such posts. As well, e-mails have no grounds for punishment, especially since there is no way to validate them, barring someone else logging into your email account. And we shouldn't forget you part in that email skirmish, rpeh. Plus, it was quite some time ago. I've moved on. You should as well. However, it is funny that you consider yourself immune from criticism when it comes to personal attacks. This page itself is a shrine to those attacks you have made. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 09:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

::::It was a "suggestion". I chose not to follow it for the reason that Nephele has been away and probably doesn't know the kind of vitriol to which several editors have been subjected during that time.
::::But let's get down to cases here. During, and after, the last discussion, one of the two editors was doing research and adding information to Lore articles to back them up with facts and add new details that create a big improvement. The same editor has spent time checking edits, tweaking, adding and removing where necessary to make sure the site is as accurate as possible. The same editor has spent time answering the questions of a large number of people experiencing difficulty with the game and asking for help. The other editor has done ''nothing'' until another piece of controversy started.
::::Timenn has asked me not to use the "T" word so I won't, but I don't know what other word is suitable for somebody whose only contributions take place in moments of controversy.
::::The reason I object so strenuously to this proposal is that it gives the same sanction to both editors. One has always been, and continues to be, a huge help to this site. The other... isn't. Treating both editors the same is a gross, unforgivable injustice.
::::Lastly, the emails, IRC logs and other communications are admissible under [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:HARASS WP:HARASS], which states ''"off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking"''. Indeed it can.
::::I am not going to be taking any further part in this debate. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 10:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::And yet you fail to quote [[wikipedia:WP:NPA|WP:NPA]]. It doesn't matter who has done what. I have had some pretty big issues come up lately, and I have decided to cut my activity down to a bare minimum (including other reasons on the wiki). Also, my choice of participation is not under your jurisdiction of appropriate judgment. Furthermore, it truly isn't harassment when the other person (claiming harassment) returns comments with equal vigor. Lastly, you oppose the equal sanction because you believe you have done no wrong in this entire situation, which is gross in and of itself. The rules apply to everyone. Even you. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 11:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::If you do not have time to edit the site then how is it you have time to monitor and contribute to debates such as this and the other two that are currently active? It seems you are being economical with the truth, Elliot. [[Special:Contributions/80.239.242.95|80.239.242.95]] 05:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::::I can make time (about 10 minutes or so in a day) to respond to far reaching proposals, especially one about me. I don't have time to plan and constantly work on a wiki. Is that okay with you? '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 17:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

* '''Oppose''' This isn't really a solution though. This situation can and will happen again with other users. I suggest we find a more permanent policy for ongoing conflicts between users. --[[User:Timmeh|Tim]] [[User_Talk:Timmeh|Talk]] 07:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*: '''Furthermore''' Taping their mouths shut doesn't solve the problem. They still hate each other. If Elliot is truly a troll, then he'll just find another target. If Rpeh is truly... a major ass?... then he'll just find someone else to be a major ass to. I've actually got something in mind for a counter-solution and I'll put it up in a little bit (I've got more to read, apparently). --[[User:Timmeh|Tim]] [[User_Talk:Timmeh|Talk]] 16:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Support''' God am I gonna get flak for this. I say support, until they stop going nuts over each other. I do agree that a more permanent solution is needed, but... unless said soluton appears in the next few days, support. Sorry, rpeh. No appologies to Elliot, though. <3 •[[User:Atreus|A]][[User_Talk:Atreus|t]][[Special:Contributions/Atreus|r]][[Special:Emailuser/Atreus|e]][[User:Peregrine|u]][http://atreus.necrolounge.org/ s]• 07:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''<s>Support</s> Oppose''' This is the first time the field as actually been even, so I will support this. I am willing to follow the restrictions if rpeh is as well. And: ''Elliot can stop me editing anything in which I have an interest by editing it himself''; rpeh, this is a rather poor argument. I cannot read your mind to see what you will edit, and I have no intention of weaseling my way into such a position. And Timmeh, if you wish for something more solid, then precedence is the best way to go about that. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 09:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC) I have changed my vote after careful consideration of the circumstances. Nephele's (and other's) lack of knowledge of the situation is most troubling. She can see what has been said, but there are things only rpeh and I know. This will do nothing to stop it. If anything, ''it will cause more tension''. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 17:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' I’ll have to agree with Timmeh on this one. If any action should be taken, it is changing policy to include ongoing disputes between members. While I really like the stance Elliot shows on this matter, it is more than likely that it will happen between other members in the future. I think this proposal is a bit too “personal” for its own good and should be made more general. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 10:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*:This isn't a proposal of policy, per se. It is more of an arbitration represented and enforced by the community. You oppose for a merely semantic reason. I ask you to see it as arbitration and not policy and reconsider your vote. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 11:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*:: I know it is not a proposal of policy. I suggest it changes into that. Oppose it is. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 11:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*:::It's not something that can be a policy since the enforcement would be made on a case by case basis. The policy would be so vague that it would not even be effective. All it would be is a center for resolving such conflicts; AN is enough to fill that role. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 11:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*::::I'd have to agree; the policy would end up being something like "If a dispute between two editors becomes disruptive to the Wiki as a whole, it is possible to block interaction between them" which is what is implied by precedent here.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 14:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Per comment above.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 14:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Clearly, there needs to be something done, as it seems like at least once every week or two, I open up my RC or Watchlist and sigh when I see it filled with edits between Elliot and rpeh, both antagonizing the other, whether they're doing it deliberately or not. To address some points above:
**I don't think either rpeh or Elliot should feel significantly limited by the actions the other one might take in terms of editing. At the risk of sounding arrogant, I think I speak for everyone that if we saw tendentious behaviour directed towards disrupting the other one's contributions simply by contributing to a wide array of articles all of a sudden, it would be seen for what it is and appropriate sanctions would be taken. Elliot has already said he wouldn't do that, and I think at least at this point, it would be pretty obvious if he did (I don't mean that to be insulting in any way, just an observation that most of Elliot's recent contributions have been to the A/N so a change in pattern would stand out). It might be a bit harder to judge if rpeh were doing that, but if it became a major concern for Elliot, that could be discussed. If necessary, we could always re-word that to say something to the effect of "editing at cross-purposes" rather than having a strict time limit.
**While I agree that many of the things that have been said offsite could qualify under harassment policies, this arbitration is geared strictly towards the onsite interactions.
**I also agree that rpeh has been far more productive than Elliot in the past few months, but to be fair, Elliot has made a few productive edits such as the {{tl|od}} template and being bold with fixing the superscript in the {{tl|unsigned}} template. (He may have made others as well, but much of my recent work has been with templates.) Notwithstanding that, however, Wikipedia has a policy on bans that I think could reasonably be extended to an interaction ban, namely [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:BAN#Bans_apply_to_all_editing.2C_good_or_bad|this one]]. This is not to say that I believe that this is what rpeh is doing, however I think the policy must nevertheless apply.
**I agree that the specifics of this case should be seen an arbitration and not policy, however I also think that this could be turned into a more generic policy for how to handle users who clearly have repeated difficulties interacting civilly (perhaps with as little tweaking as replacing the user names by User A and User B). ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 15:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
:::Elliot steals from Wikipedia and posts on UESP, and even [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Template:Outdent&oldid=568415 admits it]. How does copying the work of other people compare to what Rpeh has been doing? And yeah he is a friend of mine but I don't care. Elliot is a troll and Rpeh is a useful user. To punish Rpeh because of Elliot's trolling is totally unfair. [[Special:Contributions/80.239.242.95|80.239.242.95]] 02:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::::"Friend"? Lol. And in case you missed it, a bunch of things on this wiki and plenty of others use WP as a backbone. And it really isn't stealing if I give them credit, now is it? (Also, everything is licensed under CC, so that is another hole in your theory.) Oh, and thanks for the personal attack. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 17:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::No, wiki sites use MediaWiki as a backbone, not Wikipedia. Taking material from Wikipedia and causing strife is ''all'' you do, and that was my point. I tried to find a contribution of yours that wasn't part of an argument, something taken from Wikipedia or a removal of other editors' work but gave up after the third page. I say again... compare that to rpeh and learn from the difference. [[Special:Contributions/80.239.242.95|80.239.242.95]] 19:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::You sure do know a lot for being a ''"friend of rpeh's"''. I have no intentions or need to answer to an IP. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 02:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Oppose:''' I agree with [[User:Timmeh|Timmeh]]: Censorship will only cover up the problem; it won't resolve the issue. --'''[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Michaeldsuarez|Deeds]])''' 01:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*:It ''won't'' be truly resolved. Ever. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 05:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Strong Oppose:''' I think you should just let them do anything they want as long as it is just between the two of them. And as Michaeldsuarez says abouve censorship wont do anything [[User:Arny|Arny]] 09:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
}}
{{Consensus|Oppose|message=There was, however, general support for a permanent change in policy rather than a one-time interaction ban. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 03:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)}}

=== Timmeh's Alternative Proposal ===
We could just give them a month to shape up or get out, with the punishment for not doing so is a 3 month block or something. It's not the nicest option, but honestly it's gotten to the point where a block for either/both of them may be better for the wiki in the long term. If I were to see them not at each others throats for a month, maybe my opinion might change. --[[User:Timmeh|Tim]] [[User_Talk:Timmeh|Talk]] 03:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

{{Showhide|Votes|content=
* '''Neutral'''. The bottom line, is that at this point I'm in favor of just about anything that changes the status quo. So, if the rest of the community supports Timmeh's proposal, I'll support it, too.
:However, I'm not outright voting in support of the idea because I personally don't think the proposal is workable. In every one of these incidents each of the editors blames the other one for provoking the situation. For the sake of argument, let's say that rpeh is right and Elliot is provoking rpeh. Timmeh's proposal implies that if Elliot places another warning on rpeh's talk page, both Elliot and rpeh will end up being blocked for three months -- so the site loses a valuable contributor for three months solely because another editor provoked a situation. Someone might respond that in that situation it was obvious Elliot was in the wrong and therefore only Elliot should be blocked -- but none of the past situations have been obvious, so I don't think any future ones will be. In other words, we'll either end up with another confused mess and do nothing, or else we'll impose blocks on both and both will complain that they're the victim. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 20:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' Being excessively blunt is not going to solve anything. Mediation is better than aggravation. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 02:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Strong Oppose''' This is too harsh maybe a 3 day block? --[[User:Arny|Arny]] 09:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Support''': It's not worth much at this point, but I'm a strong supporter of the simple-but-effective approach. I find this satisfies that. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 03:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
}}
{{Consensus|None|message=Votes were even (based on an assumption of support from Timmeh himself). In the absence of consensus, existing policy stands. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 03:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)}}

=== Modification to Original Proposal ===
In response to the above feedback, I've posted the proposed text for a new, more general policy at User:Nephele/Sandbox/6.

I'm guessing the most likely issue with the new text is whether it's sufficient to have two administrators agree. So I've highlighted that phrase in green as a semi-placeholder. Basically, I think that for it to be useful as an official policy, it has to be possible to enact the policy without a full community consensus -- otherwise we're effectively re-introducing the policy every time we try to use it, which defeats the purpose of creating a general policy in the first place. Two administrators seemed like a reasonable minimum requirement. However, that requirement can easily be changed without invalidating the rest of the proposal, so if the primary issue is that requirement, could we still get consensus on the rest of the text, and then spend more time refining the details?

I think that what I've posted is about as general as we can get and yet still have a policy that will help in the current situation. The fundamental problem here, as I see it, is that the Elliot-rpeh incidents always start with actions that are acceptable under wiki rules. That's basically why it's been so hard to take action in any of the past incidents. Any type of general solution, that affects all editors, will either be too vague to make a difference or else will prevent other editors from making necessary edits. Imagine, for example, trying to come up with a specific, enforceable set of rules about when it is acceptable to undo another editor's edit -- for any rule you could come up with a dozen exceptions when the rule should be broken. In normal situations, we need to give editors some latitude to judge what is best.

As a result, I think any proposal to deal with this situation has to acknowledge that it is not typical -- it has to place restrictions solely on Elliot and/or rpeh that do not apply to other editors. If we want to stop the incidents, we need some non-subjective way to say "this edit is going to provoke an incident" -- only then we can say the edit isn't allowed, and take action if someone breaks the rule. The most obvious way to identify a problematic edit is "if this edit involves both Elliot and rpeh".

My primary objective with this proposal is to find some way to make the next incident not be a repeat of the last few dozen incidents -- I'm not hoping for a universal solution. If I'm correctly understanding what's been said so far, everybody agrees that there is a problem here, and everyone agrees that the problem is likely to happen again unless something is done. But at the moment, nothing really has changed, and as long as that's the case I can't help but assume that this will keep happening over and over again. If anyone thinks that further policy changes, for example, to the [[UESPWiki:Etiquette|Etiquette]] page would be helpful, those suggestions can still be brought forward. Or if a future proposal makes this non-interaction restriction obsolete, we can revoke it. But we need to start somewhere.

--[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 20:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

=== Discussion of Modification ===
To help us make some forward progress, could contributors explicitly state their opinions on the following points:
# '''Overall''': Do you support/oppose the overall intent of the proposed policy?
# '''Requirements''': Do you support/oppose the specific requirements necessary before this policy can be enacted, in other words, is it enough for two administrators to agree that a pair of editors need this restriction? If not, what is the minimum requirement that you think should be necessary?
# '''Apply now''': Do you support/oppose applying this policy to rpeh and Elliot?
I think that increases the chances of being able to get this policy in place to handle our one current situation, after which we can spend more time refining the details of when/how it might next be needed.

{{Showhide|Votes|content=
* '''Overall: Support'''. '''Requirements: Support'''. '''Apply now: Support'''. As proposer --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 20:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
* Overall: '''Support'''. Requirements: '''Support'''. Apply now: '''Support'''. It may need some tweaking over time, but it's a good base for a general proposal that will handle both the current and any future situations like this. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 20:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

* '''Overall: Neutral'''. '''Requirements:Support'''. '''Apply now: Oppose'''. For a general rule, 1 week might not be bad (depending on what stage the rule is enforced). But for Rpeh and Elliot, the punishment needs to be way more strong than a one week block. Elliot has made personal attacks on Core in PM on IRC, twice. These PM's are free for everyone to see. Even if you ignore all of his other actions (which isn't a shining example of how to edit the wiki) he should have already have a block of at least a month, even if it isn't sanctioned by the rules, because it is a personal attack against one of our editors in response to actions on the wiki. The entire community should be ashamed that it hasn't done '''anything''' in response. Furthermore, Rpeh's behavior and Rpeh's contributions need to be separated in our minds. I cannot deny that his contributions are valuable, but his continued attitude with dealing with other editors (not just Elliot) is a cause for concern. He shares a great deal of blame for the current situation we are in, even if he hasn't done as much of the harm. Furthermore, a block of a week is called a vacation. There are very few circumstances where blocking someone for a week is anything more than a slap on the wrist and doesn't even reach close to being a deterrence for this kind of behavior. Furthermore, it isn't fair when compared to other punishments. At the very least, a one month block should be in place, with continued "Tape over the mouth" for a month after the block is done. --[[User:Timmeh|Tim]] [[User_Talk:Timmeh|Talk]] 21:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
**Addendum: Also, there is no reason to officially warn them if they break the rule. This is the warning. If it's gotten to the point where we have to invoke this rule, then they know already. --[[User:Timmeh|Tim]] [[User_Talk:Timmeh|Talk]] 21:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
**Another Addendum: I'm saying that if we need to use this rule on Rpeh and Elliot, that there be no official warning before we block them. We post that they're now restricted by this rule, and then we block them if they break it. But, as Krusty said, we shouldn't put them under this rule as soon as we've reached consensus, which is what I assume is meant by "Apply Now". We should see how they act after Elliot's current block is done, and if it is necessary to invoke this rule, then lay it on them. --[[User:Timmeh|Tim]] [[User_Talk:Timmeh|Talk]] 20:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

* '''Overall: Oppose'''. '''Requirements: Oppose'''. '''Apply now: Oppose'''. Almost everybody acknowledges that the current situation is the fault of one user more than the other and this attempt to tar both users with the same brush is a massive injustice. Elliot has personally attacked several users and has hidden behind the letter of the law rather than its spirit. On Wikipedia he would have received a lengthy block long ago for his actions, and did indeed receive a week-long block for his similar behavior there. Since this policy is being based on Wikipedia's own version, the same standard should apply. I'm well aware that I have pushed the boundaries during my interactions with Elliot but I'm afraid it has become necessary. Almost the entire administration team has been absent recently for various reasons (I do not wish to imply any criticism here - we all have lives off-wiki) and Elliot has been left to attack, disparage and harass other users to his heart's content. It is left to the rest of us to do whatever we can to limit Elliot's effect on the site. In my case, this has taken the form of removing him from IRC when he was present to do nothing other than argue (an action for which nobody except Elliot had anything other than praise) and try to stop responses to Elliot when it has become clear that he is more interested in the argument than in the outcome.

: I have already agreed to stop interacting with Elliot in an email to another administrator. If Nephele had consulted her fellow admins, who are in far better possession of the facts in this matter than she is, she would have known this. This policy is unnecessary, too wide in scope, and generally unhelpful. I oppose it strongly. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 22:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

* '''Overall: Support'''. '''Requirements: Support'''. '''Apply now: Support'''. I am not going to reason with some sanctimonious bullshit and finger pointing that others users happen to employ on a regular basis. I also won't try a pathetic move by trying to discredit the other editors in order to further my own argument. I also won't try to qualify it by saying ''it was necessary'', when none of our actions have been necessary (calling an established editor a troll over 20 times, referring to trolling in IRC the moment they enter, is definitely ''not necessary''). I was against it at first, but Nephele has managed to write a good version of such policy. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 02:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

* '''Comment''' I think that Elliot is more responsible for these fights than rpeh he seems to be always looking for a fight and is always fighting users (rpeh, half life) so I think a 1 week block for Elliot should settle things down [[User:Arny|Arny]] 09:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*:You '''''clearly''''' don't understand the situation. Please explain in great detail how I initiated any sort of fight (especially with HalfLife). If you cannot base your comments on facts and understanding of the situation or common sense, then you should keep out of such debates. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 09:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*:: [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HalfLife&diff=prev&oldid=576606 This], [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User:Elliot&diff=prev&oldid=576627 this]. Even though you dont always start the fight you always aggrevate it [[User:Arny|Arny]] 10:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*:::Actually Elliot should already have been blocked as the [[UESPWiki:Etiquette#When Conflict Arises|UESPWiki]] Etiquette policy states [[User:Arny|Arny]] 10:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

* '''Overall: Support'''. '''Requirements: Support'''. '''Apply now: Strong Oppose'''. I think the new policy is well written and the requirements are fine. I know that I am sick and tired of waking up to yet another nights’ bickering, name-calling and fighting on the AN (and so is the entire community) and it feels good to be able to hand out the appropriate warning before it escalates. It saddens me a great deal that we have to make a policy like this, but it seems necessary these days. But I hate the very thought about applying this new rule to Rpeh and Elliot now. It feels forced, it feels half-baked and rushed and very unfair, especially to those of us who knows the background story and have followed the feud closely for months. Timmeh wrote earlier: ''"This is the warning. If it's gotten to the point where we have to invoke this rule, then they know already."'' That sums it up. We can’t invent spontaneous policies to stop an on-going problem without at least giving the editors in question a chance to change their behavior. It just feels wrong and I sincerely hope that this rushed decision gets the Oppose stamp. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 09:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*:Krusty (and Timmeh), could you possibly clarify what you do think is appropriate for rpeh and Elliot? (Although with Elliot's block it's possibly now somewhat moot, on the other hand, a week from now we're back to the status quo, and I still think it would be prudent to have some restrictions in place.) I'm particularly confused because I understood Timmeh's comment to mean that we should essentially accelerate the restrictions -- apply them, but skip straight to a block for the first violation. So I don't see how that leads to the conclusion that no restrictions should be applied. Therefore, do you think no restrictions should ever placed on rpeh and Elliot? Or else under what conditions do you think the restrictions might be appropriate (e.g., how long after the policy is put in place)? In other words, if the general policy is put in place, I think it would help the other admins to understand your concerns, so that we know whether two of us can decide restrictions are necessary (in particular, if you're not around at the time). --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 19:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*::Can I just point out here that I've steered clear of Elliot since I was asked to do so by Timenn? There has been plenty of drama over the last couple of days, but it hasn't come from me. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 20:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*:::I will try to clarify, even if recent events have made it somewhat unnecessary. I do not think it is fair to invent a policy in the middle of an existing feud and hand out spontaneous warnings. The editors in question should at least be given the chance to think about the policy and improve their behavior before we start to block them. I’m all for the new policy but it is simply wrong to activate it right away, with such short notice. Even if Elliot took a block today, I think we should calm down, get the policy written and see what happens. I do not think we should apply the new rules to Rpeh or Elliot before we are sure that they will continue fighting. I know these arguments may sound a bit meaningless with Elliot gone and all, but that is my stance – I’m fairly sure that Rpeh will remain silent and ignore Elliot in the future, mostly because the feud seems to be over after today – but also because of this new policy. So: Let’s take a deep breath, get the policy going without any further action taken against Elliot or Rpeh – and cross our fingers for a more peaceful and friendly environment around here in the future. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 21:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Overall: Neutral, Requirements: Neutral, Apply Now: Neutral''' – The intent of the policy, which is to put a halt to not-so-civil behavior created by personal disputes, is something that I support. I also know that blocks are sometimes necessary to such stop disputes. When I was in conflict with [[User:HMSVictory]] over 2 years ago, the dispute became so bad that both of us were blocked (by [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] in a twist of fate). When we were blocked and couldn't edit any longer, we were given time to cool down and think. Nevertheless, the block that settled the conflict was only ''15 minutes long''. The proposal advocates a 1-week block, but an entire week may not be necessary, hence my neutrality on the Requirements. Of course, this is a special case. The dispute between rpeh and Elliot has disputed the community here (mostly in edit wars, edit summaries, and by derailing community discussions), and the dispute has been an extremely long one. rpeh was blocked for 2 weeks before, and Elliot was blocked for a week on Wikipedia, so a one-week block may not be that effective on them. ''It would have to be a month-long block''. Since "helpful" blocks for cooling-down can range from 1 minute to a month, I believe that the block duration should be flexible rather than set in stone. As someone formerly blocked in order to end a conflict, I hope that you respect my opinion. --'''[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Michaeldsuarez|Deeds]])''' 13:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*:How does my WP behavior have any bearing on this matter? '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 13:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*::I'm just saying that you already know what a week-long block feels like, so it may not be effective in ending the arguing here. As [[User:Timmeh|Timmeh]] has stated, ''a block of a week is called a vacation''. --'''[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Michaeldsuarez|Deeds]])''' 14:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*:::MDS makes a very good point here: I think a flexible block time based on the admin's judgement of what would be effective in a given situation is probably the better way to go. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 15:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*::::I'm fine with a flexible block time. The one-week was primarily inspired by Wikipedia. But I also wanted to make it clear that, unlike vandalism blocks, I don't think a second block should automatically be a permanent block. In the case of vandals, we're blocking people who have shown no potential to contribute productively to the site (and even if they did have a change of heart, they'd be better off starting with a new account). In this case, we're blocking editors who have made constructive edits, and therefore shouldn't necessarily be blocked permanently because of a disagreement with another editor. But leaving it up to the admin's judgement is probably the best way to figure out what is right in the specific circumstances. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 19:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

<s>*'''Overall: Support, Requirements: Oppose, Apply Now: Oppose''' There should definitely be a flexible block time; also if Editor A edits User B's talk page ''constructively'' that shouldn't cause problems. As for Apply Now I Oppose per [[User:Krusty|Krusty]].--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 18:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)</s>
*:Just to be clear, if the block time is made to be flexible, does that satisfy your concerns about the requirements? As for Editor A editing Editor B's talk page, I'm sorry, but I don't agree that it should be allowed in this particular situation. The restriction is for unusual situations, where I don't think it's safe to assume that Editor B will agree that the edit is constructive. In the case of vandalism or some other problem on Editor B's talk page, there are numerous people other than Editor A who can deal with the situation, without the risk of the edit being misinterpreted. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 19:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Overall: Support, Requirements: Support, Apply Now: <s>Support</s> Oppose''' <s>In light of relevant recent events (specifically me responding to [[User:Elliot|Elliot]] and [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AElliot&diff=577199&oldid=577194 his response]) I support this.</s> Please see my response to Elliot below.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 18:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
*:You do realize that I can ask for a user to stay off of my page right? Your change of vote in retaliation to that and my own change of vote, should be removed. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 18:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
*::I accept that you can ask for any user or group of users to stay off your page. However you asked for users to learn what was going on. I responded that I ''did'' know what was going on. I felt that you overreacted. But you're right (at least about the apply now part of ''my'' change of vote. I haven't seen your vote change yet though so I'm not sure about it ). Also I left the rest because I support the principle of being evenhanded and feel that for resolving other disputes (or any continuation of this one) the proposal is useful.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 19:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
*:::Elliot - Albino can change his vote if he so pleases, and you are in no position to tell him his vote should be deleted. There is absolutely no reason to remove either of your votes, unless you wish to remove your own and abstain from further helpful comments. --[[User:SerCenKing|SerCenKing]] [[User talk:SerCenKing|Talk]] 21:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
}}
{|
|'''Overall:'''||{{Consensus|Support}}
|-
|'''Requirements:'''||{{Consensus|Support}}
|-
|'''Apply Now:'''||{{Consensus|None|message=In the end, this weighed slightly in favor of Oppose, but not enough to call it a clear Oppose consensus.}}
|}

{{Consensus|Support|message=I interpret the above to mean that the policy is good and should be put into place. However, there is ambiguity as to whether this should be immediately enforced in regards to [[User:Elliot|Elliot]] and [[User:rpeh|rpeh]]. As such, no immediate action should be taken against either party, however any future interaction concerns between the two would fall under the new policy. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 04:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)}}

== Proposed Policy: Administrator Re-elections ==

{| style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce;" | This discussion has been closed by [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] - see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SNOWBALL WP:SNOWBALL]. Please do not modify it.
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
I think the time has come to put into effect a mechanism that ensures administrators continue to enjoy the support of the community.

Currently, UESP has ten administrators. Of these, three ([[User:Endareth|Endareth]], [[User:Garrett|Garrett]] and [[User:Wrye|Wrye]]) were never elected. One ([[User:Nephele|Nephele]]) was elected with the votes of only two users, neither of whom are active any more. Two ([[User:Ratwar|Ratwar]] and [[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]]) had only one vote from a currently-active member - somebody who just returned after a nine month break. The other four are more recent, but even in these cases, [[User:Eshe|Eshe]]'s support only contains three still-active users out of eight votes; less than 50% is not impressive.

Since the mandate for an administrator role is given by users, it is essential to ensure that the mandate is kept up to date and renewed when necessary. This offers both an easy way for an admin to step down, and for the community to remove them where necessary. It's clearly not acceptable that somebody retains the extra powers and responsibilities if the community no longer supports them.

To this end, I propose that each admin be automatically re-nominated on the anniversary of his or her election and a re-election vote is held using the same rules as for new admins. If he or she is no longer interested in holding the role, simply declining the renomination would be enough to close the election.

{{Showhide|Votes|content=
*'''Support''': as proposer. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 08:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': Not a terrible idea, but they need to be forewarned (as in, they know it's coming, and we know they know.). Also, I think Nephele and Wyre are exempt; Nephele's proven invaluable to the wiki, and Wrye.... well, okay, have no excuse there. but he's Wyre! I also think that a lot of the current admins will see this in a bad light, particularily Ratwar. Sorry, Ratwar, but it's true, you probably will. Can't really blame you, though. •[[User:Atreus|A]][[User_Talk:Atreus|t]][[Special:Contributions/Atreus|r]][[Special:Emailuser/Atreus|e]][[User:Peregrine|u]][http://atreus.necrolounge.org/ s]• 08:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
::Nobody would be exempt. I doubt Nephele would have a problem being reelected, and although Wrye might not be interested in the light of his last few posts, I doubt he would either. That doesn't mean that we should just ''assume'' the result. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 13:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Question''' How is keeping their status detrimental to the wiki? '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 09:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
::I didn't say it was detrimental. I'm saying that an admin who no longer has the support of the community shouldn't be an admin. It's exactly the same idea behind elections all over the world. Nothing in this new policy would stop somebody standing again if they decided they wanted the job back. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 13:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
:::It was a simple question, not an implication. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 19:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
::::And I gave a simple answer. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 06:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I think most of these shouldn't have any problem getting re-elected,and if they do... well that's what the community wants. I would add though that if there is a concesus to alter this by one vote (at least in the case of [[User:Nephele|Nephele]]) since this is a re-election and we ''really'' need admins that they be left with their current status for at least a week or two and then have a new re-election.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 14:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*:(Edit Conflict) All I meant was that there needs to be some margin; if one or two peoples votes tip it then we need to wait for a bit before doing anything because that isn't a significant majority. (As far as Nephele being exempt she does a lot of the server things that are necessary to keep the site running)--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 16:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose for now:''' I think the idea is sound in principle, but there are some details I'd like to see worked out first. If they can be, I would support the proposal. For example, if an administrator is up for reelection but happens to be away on vacation at that time, the vote should be delayed. Similarly, if an administrator has left, I don't feel a vote should occur ''in absentia'' since they may not be aware of, or wish to respond to, anything said about them. I realize that may not fit with the original proposal, though. Assuming that admins weren't voted on ''in absentia'', I would want to see some kind of re-acclimation period before an administrator is voted on. For example, supposing that a clear-cut vandal came along today and coincidentally, someone like [[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] or [[User:Endareth|Endareth]] returned to block the vandal, I'd have no qualms with that. If they stayed around, then we could give them a month or two before voting so that all users could get a feel for the returning admin. I certainly couldn't speak to Endareth's suitability as an administrator, for example, since he (she?) hasn't been significantly active since the end of 2006. If he was considered suitable as an admin at one point, though, I'd be willing to give him a couple of months "on trust" and see how he did. Finally, I also agree that this should apply across the board. Even though I doubt Nephele would have any difficulties, it's not fair to say that some admins are exempt (except [[User:Daveh|Daveh]], of course...it'd be kinda hard to vote him off the island <g>). (Point of clarification: I'm equally fine with the status quo as I am with voting once a year; the above comments were made from the POV of the proposal going through.)
**'''Question:''' If we do this for admins, should we also do it for patrollers? ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 16:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
:::I don't think an absence of a couple of weeks would make a difference. An admin who doesn't realise he or she isn't going to be around during their re-election can't be a very good admin, but I'm sure some scope for variation should be allowed - eg, during the launch of TESV I'd rather concentrate on getting the content in place than having elections. For the moment, let's concentrate on the basics then we can work out the details. Second, patrollers are less important but yes, I don't see why the same rules shouldn't apply there too. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 06:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::::Okay, that seems fair. I'm still not big on voting inactive admins out, but let's see how the overall vote goes before we worry about the specifics. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 14:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Simply enough, I do not think it will benefit the wiki in any way. We can call for a vote of confidence anytime to get rid of admins, and that's bound to stir up plenty of debate. But forcing a vote when there's really no need for removing the admin? Unnecessary. Furthermore, of the admins now, I believe all of them all still capable of administration, even if they've been inactive for quite a while. --[[User:Timmeh|Tim]] [[User_Talk:Timmeh|Talk]] 16:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' A vote once a year for each administrator? It seems it would get rather busy and undoubtedly controversial. I don't think removing admins is really a good policy, and neither does Wikipedia. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 19:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I don't see why this would be necessary. Something like this can be handled perfectly fine on a case-by-case basis. To echo Timmeh a little, a vote can be called for if an admin's suitability for the role comes into question. --'''[[User:GuildKnight|GK]]'''[[User_talk:GuildKnight|talk2me]] 21:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''75%opposse''' admins can be denouced any time but still...if someone who has a problem with a admin might be afraid to say something but wiht this they may report there problem--[[User:GUM!!!|GUM!!!]] 23:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

* '''Comment''' I don't think some of the people voting so far realise the state of the problem. '''Forty Percent''' of our admins have never received the vote of an active member of the site. A month ago, that figure would have been an astonishing '''SIXTY PERCENT'''! This is clearly not acceptable in a community that claims to be governed by consensus. The site's administrators need to be able to demonstrate that they have the support of the community. At the moment, this is clearly not the case. A simple re-election would remove the need for an embarrassing de-admin vote: in 4 cases, admins would simply be removed due to inactivity. Other cases would be decided on merit as and when they became eligible for renewal. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 05:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
*:So since the voting age in America is 18, the President has to be reelected each year to include the newly eligible voters? (Not a perfect analogy, but still.) '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 17:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
:::That's a terrible analogy. Presidents '''are''' re-elected, every four years. Part of the reason for that is the changing electorate, so it sounds like you're now supporting rpeh's proposal. [[Special:Contributions/80.239.242.95|80.239.242.95]] 18:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::::Which is why I said ''every year''. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 18:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Oppose.''' This has been discussed a couple previous times on UESP ([[UESPWiki:Archive/AN_Things_That_Need_to_Happen|Things That Need to Happen]]; [[UESPWiki:Archive/AN_De-adminship_for_inactive_admins|De-adminship for inactive admins]]). However, I refused to participate in either of those discussions because I had many reasons to suspect the discussions were primarily intended to disrupt the community. I'm responding this time because the proposal was initiated by a respected member of the community and therefore deserves a full response. The length is because I'd like to summarize my opinion for once and for all, and also probably because there's some amount of accumulated back log from my past non-contributions.

:On Wikipedia, this is tagged as a perennial proposal -- two, in fact [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PEREN#Demote_inactive_admins Demote inactive admins] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PEREN#Reconfirm_administrators Reconfirm administrators] -- which they've discussed and rejected multiple times. There are links at WP leading to several very long discussions covering nearly every possible opinion; FWIW, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Admin_accountability_poll#All_admins_should_be_subject_to_periodic_reconfirmation_of_their_admin_status this poll] seems to provide the most complete list of arguments and counterarguments. WP's summary of the counterargument basically describes my main reactions:
::''In general, this policy has been opposed both by administrators who themselves tend to go through periods of inactivity and do not wish to be forced to maintain token levels of activity to maintain adminship, and by people who believe that there is no substantive security concern. The developers have pointed out that an active account is in far greater danger of becoming compromised than an inactive account. A side effect is that this may raise a barrier for inactive admins to become active again.''

:I'd be tempted to leave my response at that, except that UESP is not Wikipedia. I also think my recent experiences provide useful examples of this policy's implications -- examples that have more direct relevance to UESP than Wikipedia's examples.

:While mandatory re-elections might be a bad idea on Wikipedia, I think the specifics of UESP mean that they would be even worse here. Two specific reasons are:
:* On UESP there are constantly comments / complaints about the shortage of available admins. At UESP's size, we'll probably always be at risk of gaps in admin coverage. A policy to arbitrarily remove admins will inevitably lead to a situation where a vandal cannot be blocked because the only available person is a recently-returned admin who has lost his/her privileges for no reason other than being absent from the site at the wrong time. Therefore, I'm certain this policy will harm the site, while also seeing no apparent benefit.
:* Perhaps I'm an optimist, but I'm convinced TESV is going to be released -- and then be followed by one, maybe two, expansions. Which means UESP policies can't ignore the implications of the instant chaos produced by the release of a new game/expansion. It's obvious that the number of UESP editors will go up dramatically -- not just new editors, but also many old editors and admins are likely to return. Furthermore, my experience with SI's release says that a significant fraction of the previously active editors are likely to leave, scale back their contributions, or avoid the new game's namespace -- after all, we all want to play the game before learning spoilers from UESP. Which is a long-winded lead-in to the main point: a very likely time for inactive admins to reappear is after the release of a new game. At which point, UESP is likely to be desperate for experienced editors, in particular admins. Furthermore, any nomination under such conditions is likely to be nearly superficial -- a ton of new members; no time for anyone to properly research/evaluate the nomination -- or at least far less meaningful than their original nomination. In which case, how does a new nomination accomplish anything useful? I don't want our hands to be tied by policy written under the assumption that there's always time to leisurely repeat an approval process.

:Beyond that, I personally think that my recent experiences provide a perfect example of why this is a bad idea. Basically, this proposal means that I would have had no admin powers when I returned to the wiki a few weeks ago. Suggesting I should be exempt, as in a previous comment, seems somewhat meaningless. First, my experience could just as easily happen to a regular admin -- I'm bringing this up as an example, after all. Second, I don't think I'd want to be exempt. Passing such a policy would be a statement that the majority of the community needs first-hand interaction with an admin before the admin can be trusted and, furthermore, that trust must be explicitly given. My additional user rights mean that the community's trust is even more important: because there is no log monitoring my server activities, I can't provide distrustful editors with evidence if questions arise. Yet somehow this supposedly critical need to review all admins doesn't apply to me?

:Therefore, during these last couple weeks I would have, for example, been unable to do any of the blocks listed in [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block the logs]. In many of those cases the vandals/spammers would have been left unblocked for hours, because there have been several occasions when I have been the only available admin, sometimes for half of the day.

:Furthermore, the practical reality is that this proposal would imply that I'd be unlikely to be restored as admin until about July (in my particular situation any renewal of my [[UESPWiki:Archive/AN Request for Server Access|server access]] might not be possible until September, but I'll stick to what would apply to any admin).

:Why so long? First, it would be at least a month before I would even start a new admin request. A small factor is that I wouldn't want to waste anyone's time with the request until I felt confident I had really returned. Far more importantly is that the entire point of the proposal is for the admin to be approved by the currently active wiki members -- and the majority of those members know nothing about me. They would need a month to have a fair chance of participating in any admin nomination. Even now, the newer editors impression of me is probably based primarily on my admin-type activities. Without my admin privileges, they'd be forced to base their opinions largely on a series of edits to obscure [[Tes4Mod:Save File Format]] subpages -- a year's worth of such edits might not even be enough ;)

:Second, in past cases it has taken as long as 47 days (for [[User:Timenn/RfA|Timenn]]) from the time a nomination starts to the time it is made effective; a 20-day interval seems typical. Policies about UESP admins can't ignore the fact that UESP adminship requests do not, and probably never will, happen overnight. Daveh has never been involved in UESPWiki on a daily basis -- which I think is probably essential as part of Daveh's long-term commitment to ensure that UESP stays alive for years to come.

:Which is why I say it realistically will be two months from the time an ex-admin returns before that admin can return to helping with admin duties. Two months during which they could otherwise be helping out -- and providing new editors with direct evidence that they're trustworthy, which is far more meaningful as evidence than any nomination discussion.

:Furthermore, there's the real possibility that de-adminship would discourage an admin from returning to UESP -- and, no, not out of spite at losing their privileges. Two primary motivations for my return to the site were to (a) help cover any admin shortages and (b) help with issues that need server access. Take away my privileges, and I would have felt like there was little reason to return -- I'd feel more productive pursuing other projects/interests. Alternatively, ex-admins might find it easier to simply start a new account -- why go back to the old account with its inevitable baggage/dirty laundry if you have to effectively start over again no matter what? Either way, someone who was once considered to be one of the most valuable members of the community is effectively lost permanently instead of temporarily.

:For the record, I'm not the only example of an admin returning after a lengthy absence -- Eshe, for example, was active for several months last year after a year-plus absence. Her return, and her ability to act as an admin when she returned, unequivocally helped the site. Again, a case where this policy would have harmed the site without any justification.

:In general, if any of the people on the inactive admin list were to return tomorrow, I would welcome the help, unconditionally. Of course that's true of the admins with whom I've worked in the past. But it's also true of Garrett and Endareth, both of whom had basically left the site before I became actively involved. First and foremost, I trust Daveh, and therefore I'm willing to trust his selections. To some extent, insisting that I be given the right to reapprove decisions about Garrett and Endareth would be comparable to insisting that Krusty's nomination be redone just because I wasn't here when the vote was made. In both cases, I trust the people who made the decision, and therefore see no reason to question the decision unless I have some type of evidence to the contrary. Beyond that, their entire wiki contribution history can be reviewed by anyone who is interested -- not to mention their contributions to other wikis (e.g., is Garrett is an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Master_Thief_Garrett admin at Wikipedia] and a [http://strategywiki.org/wiki/User:Garrett bureaucrat at StrategyWiki]). In every case, I trust the inactive admin's judgment to determine the best course of action upon returning: whether to simply step down; whether to voluntarily seek re-nomination; whether site policies need to be learned/re-learned; whether he/she is ready to just dive straight in; or any other possibility.

:As far as arguments comparing admin nominations to political elections, they're fallacious, besides the obvious [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy Wikipedia is not a democracy] guideline. There is no limit on the number of possible wiki admins. Since keeping inactive admins on the list does nothing to prevent new admins from being added, regular re-elections are not a necessary mechanism for guaranteeing turnover. Furthermore, politicians are elected based in large part on their agenda -- their opinions on specific issues and whether voters agree with those opinions. Issues change, politicians' opinions change, and voters' opinions change, so re-elections are necessary. On the other hand, admins are approved primarily based on their impartiality and whether they can be trusted to enforce wiki policy -- characteristics that don't change overnight. The basic facts in each year's re-election would be largely the same, with the potential for the "discussion" to be dominated by comments stating effectively "Support: see original nomination".

:I don't see any inherent value to periodically polling current site members about the admins, inactive or active. We don't put every policy on the site up for re-election periodically, or throw out old policies simply because the people who contributed to the original discussion are no longer active. Instead members are free to start discussions about any policy if they feel something needs to be changed, clarified, or revoked. I think the policy system works, and I think that same basic system also works for admins. Furthermore, based on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy Wikipedia is not a democracy], the purpose of nomination discussions is not to hold a vote. We don't insist that any fixed number or percentage of current members must state their opinion before closing the discussion. We don't tally the numbers and declare a winner; there have even been cases on Wikipedia where admin nominees received more opposing than supporting "votes" but yet were still give the adminship. Instead the discussion is about getting a representative range of opinions, and, ideally, reaching a unanimous community consensus. In other words, the specific names attached to the opinions aren't what matter, so a new set of names doesn't need to be added to the opinions.

:No arguments that have been presented demonstrating how or why re-elections would benefit the community. The primary visible effect of such re-elections would be the constant required discussions -- regardless of whether anyone in the community has anything to say or even has any interest in the discussion. And the only changes that I see coming out of such discussions have many potential ways of harming the site. So why keep bringing it up? --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 15:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

:: I think the arguments are clear and that you are the one making fallacious arguments. Your point about Krusty's election misses the point impressively. Under this proposal, you '''would''' get a chance to vote on Krusty's role - in just under a year's time. You say that admins' characteristics that don't change overnight, so you are admitting that they can and do change. With no mechanism for renewal, there is no opportunity for people to decide if the changes are beneficial or not. [[Special:Contributions/80.239.242.95|80.239.242.95]] 18:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
:::If an administrator needs to be reevaluated, then a discussion can take place (which has happened before, such as rpeh's case). There is no reason to create problems where there are none. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 18:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::::There '''are''' problems. Having unelected administrators and other administrators who have not received the support of current site members is an anomalous situation. Let's take your bad analogy and use it in a more sensible way. I don't have to put up with a president I never voted for because I get a chance to vote every four years. On UESP I have to put up with whatever administrators people I have never heard of decided to elect/appoint. And knock off this "suspiciously anonymous" crap in your edit summaries. I don't believe UESP has any policy that prevents me from expressing my opinions anonymously. If I was voting, I'd use my name, but I'm not. I'm commenting because I agree with rpeh's proposal. [[Special:Contributions/80.239.242.95|80.239.242.95]] 19:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' I'm changing my vote because I hadn't realized that these would be periodic; I had thought that this was a one time thing limited to admins that ''had not received (widespread) concensus'' as such their elections had not had a representative cross-section of the wiki community. You would have kept your admin rights also; the proposer stated that inactive admins returning would keep their rights for a month or two to allow everyone to become comfortable with this persons editing style.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 16:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' My vote shouldn't matter here. I believe that my worth in this community has greatly diminished since I stopped (unofficially) patrolling and paying attention. I'm not unpopular, but the idea of giving someone with no time or invested effort any more responsibility is without reason. If we consider the efforts which many of our current and past admins have given freely to the community, we find that even with sufficient cause to demote them, they still hold a great influence on the community if not by their past deeds, then by their continuing contributions.

:Achieving authority in this group project shouldn't be by popularity. We contribute because we love to, and we take on responsibility when we need to. We work best as a culture of deeds. By proving that we can handle a job and fulfill its duties, we attain respect and trust. When the power structure is reversed, and we let the new recruits promote us rather than the boss, we have well respected contributers without the proportionate voice in proper decision making and people like me telling everyone what to do. There wouldn't be proper trust in authority. We would also have a bit more drive and possibly destructive activity from those seeking personal gain instead of site improvements.

:Now I'm just providing some (hopefully lucid) feedback. I can only imagine the horrors which an evil admin could incur upon this centralized project which has had random server problems in the past including the '''smoking backup server'''. Without piling elections on to the worry-plates of our currently underfunded admins, let's get some more bigshot patrollers who can be admins in a few bagillion good edits. As for when the trusted authority goes against the grain of the community, there really is only the respect of feats which gives them that power, if leadership goes where the community is not willing to follow, we simply loose the community which hasn't invested so much in the project and might take another project the way they want to go. I think there are enough policies about ranks of admins/patrollers already without elections. [[User:Lukish|Lukish_]] [[User talk:Lukish|Tlk]] [[Special:Contributions/Lukish|Cnt]] 19:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
}}
|}

== Scorpio ==

What should be done with scorpio? Hes using bad language deleting pages removing warnings but I dont want to be hash so what else can be done to him other than a block (warnings have no effect on him) --[[User:Arny|Arny]] 19:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
:Just give things time to cool down. If he's willing to stop a block is not needed. [[User:Mikeyboy52|Mike]][[User_talk:Mikeyboy52|<nowiki>/|\</nowiki>]] 19:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

== search ==

Hey I just wanted to ask that when you search for something why does the search show you the script of the page? Why doesnt it show you the text that is on the page instead? [[User:Arny|Arny]] 10:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
:By script, I'm assuming that you mean the page source and wikitext. How's how the MediaWiki search engine works. I personally prefer wikitext being used in the searches, since links tend to be piped (eg. <code><nowiki>[[link|text]]</nowiki></code>). This sort of search also makes it easier to find and view external links. --'''[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Michaeldsuarez|Deeds]])''' 13:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

::An additional problem is that it can give problems if you start parsing an article in the middle, instead of the beginning. Imagine having to create a table from only the middle section, you need the whole of it to show the correct layout. --[[User:Timenn|Timenn]]-<[[User talk:Timenn|talk]]> 14:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

== Adjustments to template subsections ==

After some experiments (and a few mistakes) I've found out that editing a section of a page with a template directly edits the template's original page. The effects can be described as followed: [[Lore:Places_A#Anvil]] is divided into a section (County Anvil} which is divided into a sub-section (The City of Anvil) which is further divided into sub sub-sections (the districts). Editing just regular Anvil brings up [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Lore:Places_A&action=edit&section=15 the template], while editing the section County Anvil brings up [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Lore:Anvil&action=edit&section=T-1 its section text]. Editing the City of Anvil allows one to edit its [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Lore:Anvil&action=edit&section=T-2 section and sub-section]. This causes obvious problems as if someone wanted to add namespace specific info to Oblivion, it will also affect the Lore Anvil and any page that uses template Anvil. Basically, it shouldn't be possible to edit a template's subsections besides on its template page, as this could lead to a big mess. Is it somewhat possible to integrate an almost <code><nowiki>__NOEDITSECTION__</nowiki></code> into a template, so that only a temp's sections can be edited on the temp's page? Or, is it possible to merge all sections to a template, taking the option of editing it away? I probably sound confusing, so if anyone needs it I'll be happy to clarify -- [[User:Jplatinum16|Jplatinum16]] 03:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
:That wouldn't fix the "problem". Even if you add <nowiki>__NOEDITSECTION__</nowiki></code> to the article, users could still edit articles in the "Lore" namespaces (by simply editing the Lore namespace articles). In addition, we have RecentChanges patrollers who could find problems within the Lore namespace. Also, namespace-specific data and templates aren't really things new users know about, so I can't see inexperienced users causing such a problem. I don't see any reason to change anything. --'''[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Michaeldsuarez|Deeds]])''' 12:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
::The problem is not allowing editors to edit the Lore section; the problem is that editing a template section on one page will edit the template's orginal page. If I make an edit on one page, save, and end up on another, that seems like a problem. This problem can affect inexperienced and experienced users, cause I doubt most (if any) users know this. True, our trusty patrollers are always on the lookout for namespace specific info, but this affects:
#A template's page
#A page's (with the template) info
#A potentially useful namespace specific edit
Example: I want to add under the [[Oblivion:Leyawiin#Chapel District|Oblivion Leyawiin Chapel District section]] that "the Best Goods and Guarantees general store can be found here, next to The Dividing Line". I click [edit] for that section, edit it accordingly, and then save. I am now on the '''Lore:Leyawiin''' page, instead of the Oblivion one. Now, Lore:Leyawiin has Oblivion specific info. A patroller sees this, and reverts it, saying it's not lore specific. Now, the '''Oblivion:Leyawiin''' page doesn't have that info. All of this could have been avoided if a template's sections weren't editable on ''other'' pages. May not be the biggest problem, but it's one nonetheless. -- [[User:Jplatinum16|Jplatinum16]] 00:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

== Vandal ==

:{{Vandal|Mike484}}
We currently appear to have a vandal at work. Would an administrator please block him as soon as possible. Thanks! ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 23:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

:Also, while undoing the vandalism, I accidentally patrolled {{Pl|Morrowind:Starting_out|this edit|diff=581078&oldid=580985}} which makes major changes to a paragraph in a Morrowind article, and I have no ready way to confirm. Can someone double-check it and take appropriate action, please? Thanks! ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 23:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

::(Edit conflict) Yep it's fine (far better than the one it changed) the only thing I need to change is that the ebony dart only appears at higher levels.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 23:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

:::i was going to put one of these please blok him--[[User:GUM!!!|GUM!!!]] 00:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

::::Thanks for the confirmation, TAO. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 01:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::I'm not sure if just adding the template works but I tried to full-protect the warning since he was vandalizing it.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 01:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::Yeah that doesn't work (It'd be darn useful though) by the way thanks for blocking him Nephele.--[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|''Arch-Mage Matt'']][[User talk:Arch-Mage Matt|Talk]] 01:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

== Blockers ==

In regards to [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive_14#New_User_Group|this discussion]] and the [[UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard#Updates to Archived Discussions|update to it]], I'm not sure if any agreement was ever established on what admission requirements would be for the new group. In the absence of a formal policy, I'm just going to ask for that right for myself and let others fend for themselves. :) That brings back up the question of how to do it, keeping in mind that whatever is done for me will probably set a precedent:

#Do I just ask and if one (or maybe all) admins agree, I get the rights?
#Do we want a formal Request for Block Permissions discussion, the same as we would for Patroller or Administrator?
#Do we want to hammer out a formal requirements list?
#Do we want to have a requirements list ''and'' a vote (like Patrollers are now).
#Alternatively, if a requirements list is wanted, but we don't want to wait, we can put the cart before the horse and grant permissions by one of the first two methods, ''then'' put a requirements list in place at a later date.

Also, semi off-topic, when someone has a chance, I think we can remove Krusty from the Blockers group, as he already has those rights as an Administrator anyway. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 03:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

:I've created a stub of a page at [[UESPWiki:Blockuser]] (with a redirect at [[UESPWiki:Blockers]]) and added pertinent info to [[UESPWiki:Blocking Policy]], [[UESPWiki:Administrators]], and [[UESPWiki:User Group Rights]]. I've intentionally tried to avoid describing the process, since we haven't decided.
:My opinions on the matter are that we don't need a formal requirements list or a vote. I ''do'' think, however, that it should be an agreement between at least two admins that an editor is suitable for blockuser rights. It's definitely something we should decide before assigning the rights, though. --'''[[User:GuildKnight|GK]]'''[[User_talk:GuildKnight|talk2me]] 19:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

:: I agree with GK. I recall that the entire reason to get the role assignable by admins was to allow the rights to be given quickly and easily when required. If an admin knows that he or she will be away for some time and that no other admin is likely to be around, it should be allowable to simply give the right to some user who is on IRC or obviously active on wiki. The idea is to ensure that there's always somebody around who can block as required. When the admin returns - or another becomes active, the rights could be removed if there's no need for them any more, or they could be left in place - I don't think it matters too much.
:: We definitely don't want a procedural rigmarole over this because it would eliminate the point of the group. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 14:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

== Policy Discussions ==

The various policy discussions currently on the page have been languishing, as near as I can tell because they're a mess of inter-related proposals and it's difficult to separate them. In the interests of moving forward, I'm about to do my best to call consensus (or lack thereof) on the various discussions. If further action is warranted, I will indicate what I believe the appropriate action to be based on the discussions. Even so, it may be best to wait a day or two in case there are objections to my interpretations of what to do.

As I said, this is a mess, so I won't take it hard if anybody thinks my interpretation of consensus or the actions to be taken are incorrect. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 03:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

:Okay, all done, I think. There were two discussions that I simply archived as old, but '''the second one may need further action''':
:#[[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive_14#Request for Block of Rpeh|'''Request for Block of Rpeh''']] lacked support, nor was it a formal vote. Since it's entirely an Admin decision in any event, I saw no point in providing a consensus to it.
:#[[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive_14#Request to remove warning|'''Request to remove warning''']] was slightly in favour of removing Corevette's warning from [[User_talk:Elliot|Elliot's talk page]] (the other warning and block would remain since they were from an unrelated incident), but there was very little input overall and it was implied that there may have been a behind-the-scenes discussion amongst some of the Admins to let it stand. Other comments in the various related discussions were also mixed as to what should be done, but there was an overall feeling that both parties shared the blame to some degree. Since there is no warning on rpeh's page, I suggest that Corevette's warning also be removed from Elliot's, but clearly, there are divided feelings and I'm not about to take action under these circumstances. I'd recommend the Admins hash it out, but in the absence of action or an agreement at that level, it lacks a clear consensus from the community, so existing policy of leaving the warning would prevail.
:‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 04:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

== Block Needed ==

[[User:ChampionQQ]]

Obviously, Mike needs another blocking and I suspect he's not done. --[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|''Arch-Mage Matt'']][[User talk:Arch-Mage Matt|Talk]] 03:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
:If ChampionQQ needs to be blocked, then how come he hasn't been given a warning? The blocking policy is pretty clear about warning users before blocking them. When I'm checking the site from my iPhone (as I am right now) it is very inconvenient to do extra research into whether this is one of the few exceptions where blocking without warning is appropriate. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 03:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
::But not if he has A.) Vandalized many pages or B.) Doesn't seem to be stopping or C.) Has made personal attacks. --[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|''Arch-Mage Matt'']][[User talk:Arch-Mage Matt|Talk]] 03:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
:::What I'm primarily trying to say is that if you think someone needs to be blocked, the most useful course of action is to warn the user rather than post an unnecessary message here. It would take me 30 minutes or more right now to check your A, B, or C conditions -- but only a minute to see that the user has been warned. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 03:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Since the nature of the edits makes it clear that ChampionQQ is the same person as [[User talk:mike484|mike484]] (who is permanently blocked), isn't the warning stage unnecessary? Furthermore, shouldn't the new account receive the same permanent block as the initial account? [[User:Dlarsh|Dlarsh]]([[User_talk:Dlarsh|T]],[[Special:Contributions/Dlarsh|C]]) 04:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
:{{ec}}That may be my fault, since I set a bad example and took steps out of order yesterday — I asked for a block a couple of minutes before realizing that nobody had yet issued a warning.

:Also, on that note, I've verified that all recent edits have been reverted and patrolled any that were unpatrolled. I also moved the offending file to a new location to make patrolling...I'd say "easier", but it's more like making it "not a nightmare". ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 04:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

== Innappropriate Username? ==

Would [[User_talk:Asseater9000|AssEater9000]] be an unacceptable username? Because someone has signed up with that name. --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|Contribs]] 17:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

:Based on the discussion on policy [[UESPWiki:Archive/CP_Unacceptable_Usernames|here]] that would depend on [[Special:Contributions/Asseater9000|their contributions]]. The user that was pointed out had a username of about the same potential unacceptability but made a valid contribution; since the username wasn't prohibited by law, harassing, spam, or gibberish, there was no reason to block them. I think that that applies here also.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 18:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

::TAO; while those things are all true, with some good references I might add, it is blatant profanity for the sake of being profane. This user has no contributions either, so a block or a forced username change would be in order in my opinion.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 01:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

:::While it's profanity, it's not harassment toward any person or group of people and doesn't make any type of explicit or implicit threat (unlike the username that was recently blocked), so I don't think any action is necessary. --'''[[User:GuildKnight|GK]]'''[[User_talk:GuildKnight|talk2me]] 02:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
::::(Edit Conflict) All true- potentially. But I'd still prefer to ask them to accept a namechange; after all as long as they don't do anything except on their talk page it doesn't hurt anything.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 02:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

== Block Needed 2 ==

[[User:Demons fiery]] needs a block not only has he ignored a warning, made personal attacks he has said that he is the same person as a known vandal.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 23:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
:He has been blocked for a while now.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 23:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
::Braska (Dragon Age:Origins there. Elven swearing.). I didn't realize that. Sorry for putting this up here.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 22:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

== Block Appeal: [[User:Ranger]] / [[User:Scorpio]] ==

[[User:Ranger|Ranger]] had the following to say:
:I believe it is fair enough to keep the block however instead of a month could you shorten the block to one week ([[User:Ranger|Ranger]] 16:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC))
:oh and if possible could you delete scorpio i would like a fresh start on this account thanks ([[User:Ranger|Ranger]] 16:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC))

It should be noted that Ranger is the same user as Scorpio, but the user wishes to continue as User:Ranger instead of User:Scorpio. I've swapped the indefinite block for Ranger with the current month block of Scorpio.

I'm neutral on this one, and I'll leave it others to decide. --[[User:Timenn|Timenn]]-<[[User talk:Timenn|talk]]> 09:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

:from the looks of it seems that they want to restart. so i suport his blok removel. but i would keep a eye on him ;)--[[User:GUM!!!|GUM!!!]] 13:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

::Yeah I would tend to agree here- his contributions to the wiki since the whole thing with Scorpio (at least the ones I've seen) have been mostly apologies. I personally don't see why Ranger was blocked in the first place.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 19:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

:::ranger was bolcked for being a sock puppet--[[User:GUM!!!|GUM!!!]] 19:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

:::: No, Ranger was blocked for using an alternate account to circumvent a block, which is different from sockpuppetry. Given that Ranger's [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User:Ranger&diff=prev&oldid=579948 first edit] admitted a connection with Scorpio, another edit a few minutes later [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Krusty&diff=prev&oldid=580241 also admitted a connection] and a [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Community_Portal&diff=prev&oldid=580509 third] confirms it, there's no concern that this was an attempt to create an alter ego. Ditto [[Special:Contributions/Scorpi0|his other account]]. It looks to me as if the user has had a chance to calm down, as I [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AScorpio&diff=578205&oldid=578204 asked], and I would support an unblock given edits such as [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ranger&diff=prev&oldid=581379], [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ranger&diff=prev&oldid=581383], [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ranger&diff=prev&oldid=583047] and [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ranger&diff=prev&oldid=583251], which seem to indicate a more measured approach to editing. Obviously, any return to the sort of editing that caused the warnings and blocks should immediately warrant at least the full month block that is currently in effect. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 21:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I oppose complete removal of the block, but I do think it should be shortened to about a week, maybe slightly less. But after what he did as [[Special:Contributions/Scorpio|Scorpio]] and what he did as [[Special:Contributions/Scorpi0|Scorpi0]] I think a complete removal of the block is too lenient. --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|Contribs]] 20:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

:From what I've seen, changing the block to one week seems appropriate in this situation. --'''[[User:GuildKnight|GK]]'''[[User_talk:GuildKnight|talk2me]] 18:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

::I think we can abort this appeal. Seeing the actions of [[Special:Contributions/Popopopo|Popopopo]] yesterday, an identified alternate account of Ranger, made it clear this user hasn't given up yet on harassing other editors, and vandalizing the site. --[[User:Timenn|Timenn]]-<[[User talk:Timenn|talk]]> 16:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

::: I'm afraid you're right. So much for giving him the benefit of the doubt. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 17:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

== Block Request - [[User:Elliot]] ==

First of all, I ''am'' aware that this is quite late but bear in mind I was very busy with exams and was therefore unable to post anything till now. I am asking to once again block Elliot, and this time for a month. Below is an email I received on June 18th from Elliot's uesp email, I'm guessing in response to [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard&diff=580278&oldid=580232 this] comment.

:"''Do not involve yourself in matters that concern me you little prick.''

:--
:''This e-mail was sent by Elliot to SerCenKing by the "E-mail user" function at UESPWiki.''"

This is a clear violation of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment WP:HARASS], but not only that: Elliot had been [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elliot&diff=577166&oldid=577146 blocked] [http://uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Michaeldsuarez&curid=45995&diff=577160&oldid=569531&rcid=597526 for exactly this kind of behaviour]. It appears as if he has yet again '''not''' learnt a lesson from his week long block and I therefore ask for a month-long block in the hope that it will help him understand that this behaviour is unacceptable here at UESP. --[[User:SerCenKing|SerCenKing]] [[User talk:SerCenKing|Talk]] 18:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
:It might not be my place, but I support disciplinary action against Elliot. I'm sorry you were harassed like that SerCenKing [[User:Corvus|Corvus]] 18:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
::His block has expired and he has not returned to the site afterward. Some of you may know I was subject to the same thing earlier, but even so, I am going to remain neutral because he has shown no interest in returning.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 18:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
:::Core, yes he has. See [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard&action=history here]. The email was sent ''after'' his block had expired. --[[User:SerCenKing|SerCenKing]] [[User talk:SerCenKing|Talk]] 18:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
::::Done. Ideally, I would have preferred to only block Elliot from using the wiki's email features, given that the immediate cause of the block is solely related to email. However, after looking at the wiki code it doesn't seem possible to do an email block without also blocking the user. Furthermore, I didn't think it was worth wasting my time on finding/creating a way to do an email-only block. In particular, there is no evidence that Elliot plans to make constructive wiki contributions (and in fact he has made statements specifically saying the opposite). --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 19:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::Thanks Neph :) --[[User:SerCenKing|SerCenKing]] [[User talk:SerCenKing|Talk]] 22:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
::::::I'm not sure if Krusty got my e-mail about this same issue, but since posting the text above isn't a violation of the privacy policy, I received this e-mail from Elliot on June 17:

Are you a fucking baby?

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! He told me to stay off of his page! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH Nephele do something! I am too stupid and incompetent to even comprehend rules! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH He hurt my feelings!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH.

Grow up you fucking idiot. A retaliatory move like this shows your incompetence on a new level. Just leave the site. You are too retarded to contribute positively to it.

Leave before you make a further ass out of yourself you worthless pile.

--
This e-mail was sent by Elliot to TheAlbinoOrc by the "E-mail user" function at UESPWiki.

I'd like to request that if there is any further continuation of this behavior Elliot be blocked permanently. This was presumably received in response to my change of vote and my comment on Nephele's talk page (which I would have clarified and expanded upon but I didn't feel like dealing with it at the time).--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']]
[[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 23:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
:In light of the recent email sent to TheAlbinoOrc I suggest that we extend Elliot's block to something like 6 months, maybe even block him indefinitely. It's behaviour like this that led him to his patroller status being stripped from him and another sad thing is that he appears to be continuing his childish behaviour even after Nephele blocked him not that long ago. So yeah, I suggest we extend Elliot's block by a considerable amount. --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|Contribs]] 16:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about being late in to the discussion, but [http://www.uesp.net/wiki/User_talk:Michaeldsuarez#Abusive_E-mail_by_Elliot I brought this issue up in May, but GK prevented me from taking action]. Elliot is clearly unable to handle the responsibility of the wiki's Email function. --'''[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Michaeldsuarez|Deeds]])''' 15:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

:Yeah I saw that whole thing unfold, sorry your thing was invalidated because of the privacy policy. At least now what people should do is clear though: Try to contact the Admins and then if they don't respond (or they tell you to bring it up on-wiki) do what was done here.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 19:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

::I don't know if this is grounds for an extension of the block. But Elliot, has just dismissed me as well as several other editors when he has been warned about doing that already. So if it okay with the wiki admins, I am requesting his block to be extended by another month. --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|Contribs]] 10:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

:::Elliot has the right to remove content from his talk page if he wants to, although saying "Go away" in the edit summary is definitely not helpful. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 13:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

::::Yeah it was the "go away" that I was referring to with my comment. --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|Contribs]] 14:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Question: Has Elliot attempted any kind of apology for this kind of behaviour, and entered some form of undertaking that he will not engage in such behaviour in future? [[User:Jadrax|Jadrax]] 19:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

:If you've looked at his {{Pl|User talk:Elliot|talk page|oldid=586076}} recently, you'll see that I encouraged him in that direction, but he ignored it. If he ''has'' done something along these lines, he hasn't done so publicly. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 21:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

::In that case, as the purpose of a block is to prevent abusive behaviour, it would only seem logical to extend the block in cases were the subject shows no understanding of why their behaviour is unacceptable. I would suggest extending the block until at the very least an apology is received. [[User:Jadrax|Jadrax]] 21:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

:::I can see your point- but I know that if I had done nothing further wrong after being blocked, and received an extension of the block simply because I hadn't apologized I'd be ready to tear someone's head off (not literally of course). Besides repeated warnings/blocks have had no effect. Why should an apology?--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 06:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

== Possible Block Needed ==

I think the new user [[User:Cpl.CumInAHam]] falls under the inappropriate username category. --[[Special:Contributions/78.144.134.29|78.144.134.29]] 15:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
:By the way that was me who posted the above comment, I just forgot to log in. --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|Contribs]] 15:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard

2010-07-11T15:13:56Z

ModderElGrande: /* Possible Block Needed */

[[Category:Message Boards|{{PAGENAME}}]]
The '''administrator noticeboard''' is where we discuss and coordinate administrative tasks on the wiki. Although this page is intended for [[UESPWiki:Administrators|administrators]], all users are encouraged to participate in discussions. __NEWSECTIONLINK__
{{Archive Table|class=compress|title=Major Discussions
|UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Vandalism|Vandalism|Mostly spam, actually.
|!|Page Archives|
|Archive 1||February 2005 – June 2006
|Archive 2||June 2006 – August 2006
|Archive 3||September 2006 – June 2007
|Archive 4||June 2007 – July 2007
|Archive 5||August 2007 – October 2007
|Archive 6||October 2007 – November 2007
|Archive 7||December 2007 – January 2008
|Archive 8||January 2008 – February 2008
|Archive 9||February 2008 – August 2008
|Archive 10||September 2008 – October 2008
|Archive 11||November 2008 – December 2008
|Archive 12||December 2008 – March 2009
|Archive 13||April 2009 – December 2009
|Archive 14||January 2010 – May 2010
|!|Past Administrative Requests|
|User:Aristeo/RfA|Aristeo's Request for Adminstrator|''Approved Jun. 19, 2006''
|User:Nephele/RfA|Nephele's Request for Adminstrator|''Approved Aug. 13, 2006''
|User:Aristeo/RfB|Aristeo's Request for Bureaucrat|''Withdrawn by Aristeo Nov. 19, 2006''
|User:Ratwar/RfA|Ratwar's Request for Adminstrator|''Approved Jan. 31, 2007''
|User:TheRealLurlock/RfA|TheRealLurlock's Request for Adminstrator|''Approved Feb. 23, 2007''
|User:Rpeh/RfA|Rpeh's Request for Adminstrator|''Approved Oct. 1, 2007''
|UESPWiki:Archive/AN Request for Server Access|Nephele's Request for Server Access|''Approved Jan. 4, 2008''
|User:Eshe/RfA|Eshe's Request for Adminstrator|''Approved Mar. 31, 2008''
|User:GuildKnight/RfA|GuildKnight's Request for Adminstrator|''Approved Nov. 11, 2008''
|User:Timenn/RfA|Timenn's Request for Adminstrator|''Approved Aug. 7, 2009''
|User:Krusty/RfA|Krusty's Request for Adminstrator|''Approved May 3, 2010''
}}

== Semi Unprotected ==

I just noticed in my Watchlist that {{tl|Archive Header}} was recently vandalized by an IP address. It's supposed to be semi-protected based on the {{tl|Protection}} template in it. Can someone please check that? Thanks! ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 15:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

: Looks like the protection was temporary - it ran out on 6 Feb. In any case, it should use {{tl|TemProtect}} rather than {{tl|Protection}}. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 16:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

:: Just a reminder, this still needs to be fixed. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 15:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

== Ban For 98.126.56.178 ==

He/She has made multiple personal attacks on [[User:Nephele|Nephele]].
:And me and Timenn. Timenn just logged off so It'll be a while, we can make it for now.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 00:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

:agreed i agree!--[[User:GUM!!!|GUM!!!]] 00:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

::Done --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 02:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

== Virus found on site ==
{{dm|GuildKnight|Virus found on site|User talk|1}}

On Tuesday the 1 June 2010, my AVG encountered a virus on the following page:
http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Skyrim

AVG labeled it as "Exploit Neosploit Toolkit (Type 1109)"

I just wanted you to know ASAP! and I have no idea wehat to do or what this means.
Love your work
eid_broughton@yahoo.com
:GK will be gone for a while and that seems unlikely, are you sure it was from that page?--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 01:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

::According to a [http://www.bassresource.com/bass_fishing_forums/YaBB.pl?num=1275167508/6#6 forum] where a user had a similar experience:
:::''It means YOUR computer is infected with a virus (malware specifically). You'll get this error message regardless of what site you're on. It seems to only affect Firefox users.''
::Which definitely sounds more likely than UESP being the source of the virus. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 02:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

== Updates to Archived Discussions ==

To let everyone know, some quick feedback on assorted updates I've implemented based on old discussions:

* [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive_14#Database Corruption|Database Corruption]]
** I started the refreshLinks maintenance program running last night... it's made it about 80% of the way so far. It's fixing all of the issues with bad category links, etc. But I've also been struggling with an obscure code bug that's been adding a lot of bizarre entries to wanted categories and wanted pages -- things like Special-NPCs as a wanted category. Since it only happens when pages are processed by the job queue, it's really annoying to track down; I keep thinking that I've taken care of it, and then more start appearing. So I'll be continuing to try to deal with that situation. If there's still strange stuff in places like wanted categories by the end of the week, let me know; in the meantime, assume that I'm working on it.
* [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive_14#New User Group|New User Group]]
** Implemented. Blocker group has ability to block for up to four hours, and admins have the ability to add/remove from the group. I took the code Nx wrote and simply added it into UespCustomCode since that made the majority of the code unnecessary -- I'm assuming Nx doesn't mind, but if there is an issue, I can change the implementation.
* [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive_14#Skipcatcha_please|Skipcatcha please]]
** I did ''not'' follow through on this, pending the possible Userspace Patrollers group. That group has been given skipcatcha authority, and it's possible that membership in that group will be fairly widely available, in which case adding it to all confirmed users is probably unnecessary.

However, this probably is the end of my wikicode editing spree, short of dealing with new bugs that I may have introduced in the process.

<s>P.S. The one caveat with everything I've been doing so far is that it's only active on content1/2. I can't make any changes on content3 yet. If I don't hear from Daveh in the next few days, I might look into figuring out how to tell the squid server to not use content3. That would allow us to start making changes that rely on the new code. Then once I hear from Daveh, content3 would be updated and put back into the system.</s> --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 18:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

:I'm tentatively (cross my fingers) concluding that the bug creating all the wanted categories/pages has been fixed. It's been five hours since a buggy entry was created, and I've been throwing everything I can at the bug during that time. Nevertheless, it's still going to probably take a day for the wanted lists to get cleaned out. I'm also running a script that will make sure, eventually, to refresh any pages that have been processed strangely at any point in the last couple days. Again, it'll be about a day before it's done so in the meantime reports like [[#Quest_links_not_displaying_correctly|the following]] might continue to trickle in.
:One other point: some of you may have noticed the site not responding a few minutes ago (specifically content2 not responding). That was my fault, triggered by another bit of database updating I was taking care of. Basically I needed to monopolize the database for a couple of minutes for some reorganization, the upside of which is that now every time someone does a full-text search that search won't monopolize the database for a couple of seconds. In other words, 120 seconds of work now to fix a constant stream of little 2 second jobs. That should clear out one of the most common reasons why the database can be slow to respond to a request.
:Other than the above-mentioned cleanup scripts that will still be running for a while, that should be the last of my server disruptions for now. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 22:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

::So was that why for about 15-20 minutes everything kept timing out ?--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 22:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

:::TheAlbinoOrc: Yes. One of the servers became completely overloaded, to the point where I couldn't even force it to restart.
:::One hopefully final update: all changes have now been made live on all servers, and all the update scripts have finished running. So no more restrictions on making use of the new features. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 19:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

== Quest links not displaying correctly ==

Why aren't the links to the quests always being displayed correctly? When I bring up the Skingrad page, I get several lines like the following instead of quests and links.

[[{{{questpage}}}|{{{altname}}}]]: {{{description}}}

Skingrad isn't the only page like this. {{unsigned|99.175.93.246|2 June 2010}}

: There are various updates taking place at the moment (see the previous section on this page). [[Oblivion:Skingrad]] looks fine to me, which probably means you have a caching issue. I just purged that page: try again now. Otherwise, you'll just have to wait a little while. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 19:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I just checked [[OB:Skingrad]] also, it looked fine... except that the people were too far down in their section.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 20:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:Just a thought, I was getting lots of things like this with IE8. Whats your browser?.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 20:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Firefox.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 20:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:I meant the anon, but it looks fine for me on that page.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 21:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

== Proposed Policy: Abuse of Anonymous Editing ==

We've clearly had a problem, for far too long now, with editors abusing the wiki's open editing system so they can be disruptive and generally waste the community's time. [[#Second Opinion Please|Second Opinion Please]] is the latest example; the [[UESPWiki_talk:Administrator_Noticeboard#Time to Vote|talk page]] shows it's not a new problem. Therefore, I propose adding the following section to the [[UESPWiki:Vandalism|Vandalism]] policy, under [[UESPWiki:Vandalism#Types of Vandalism]]:
:'''Abuse of Anonymous Editing'''
:Deliberately hiding or falsifying your identity in order to make unwanted, controversial, or inappropriate comments is not tolerated. Regular UESP contributors are expected to contribute using their own account whenever participating in any community discussions. Therefore, an edit can be treated as vandalism if a site editor judges that it meets all three of the following criteria:
:* The edit is made by an anonymous IP or newly created account (one with no significant contribution history).
:* There is reason to believe that the person making the edit is familiar with UESP (e.g., person refers to community members or site policy).
:* The edit has no constructive value and/or is likely to be disruptive.

This would imply that such edits could be reverted on sight, and the anon could also be warned and blocked, if necessary. The wording is deliberately somewhat fuzzy: the targeted editors are already trying to exploit site policy, so they will inevitably try to take advantage of any loophole. As for including it on the vandalism page, as far as I'm concerned, these types of edits do far more damage to the site and its community than someone replacing a page with obscenities, so let's start dealing with them accordingly.

All ''community members'' are welcome to provide feedback; it helps if you can start your comment with '''Support''', '''Oppose''' (or '''Comment''', etc.) as appropriate.

{{Showhide|Votes|content=
* '''Support''' as proposer. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 05:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Strong Oppose''' Firstly, this would directly contradict the [[UESPWiki:Etiquette|Etiquette]] policy (esp. 7th point in the General section). Secondly, point 2 of the new policy involves excessive supposition on the part of editors. Thirdly, so does point 3 - "constructive" is in the eye of the beholder to a large extent. Fourthly, I agree that "hiding or falsifying your identity" is wrong, but the remedies suggested here use a far too-broad brush and will catch plenty of other people. Fifthly, I have said before, and still believe, that established, named editors have caused far more trouble in the past than all the anons put together. Finally, I managed to track down the relevant quote that I'm sure you've all heard without source. It's from William Blackstone, in ''Commentaries on the Laws of England'' (1769): ''"the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer."'' Similarly, it is better that we have to put up with the trouble caused by one rogue IP user than place unnecessary sanctions on all of them. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 05:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Support''' Though, we could just punish all people who make edits that have no constructive value and/or is likely to be disruptive. As for Rpeh's points: Laws may paint a large area and hit unwanted people, however people on the wiki should have enough judgment to know when to punish and when not to punish. As such, as long as I think that at least half the admins on the wiki have a lick of sense, this rule shouldn't hit anyone that it isn't supposed to hit. --[[User:Timmeh|Tim]] [[User_Talk:Timmeh|Talk]] 06:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Although not an admin, just wanted to say that this is a great idea :P [[User:Mikeyboy52|Mikeyboy52]] 06:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Support''' - We've had far too many troll-like edits made by Tor users and the like who are obviously just trying to conceal their identity and disrupt the site. We already revert non-constructive edits to old discussions, regardless of who they're by, and I think it's a step in the right direction to revert blatantly disruptive edits, particularly when there's reason to believe that it's an abuse situation. Productive or well-meaning users would still be entitled to all the same rights as everyone else, but those who are here solely to disrupt will no longer have a place here. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 06:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per nomination. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 09:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' Now, I like the proposition, and I would really like reality to be like this; unfortunately, it is not, and my motivation for opposing comes from the fact that we have numerous “established” members, who, and I’m sorry to say this, is really not capable of judging these things. I have seen numerous examples where anon users accidentally blanked a page and received vandalism warnings almost immediately, even if the edit was clearly an accident. I will not mention any names, nor will I give any examples but I fear that these new rules will hit several people who do not deserve it and make the Wiki a warning zone where we, as patrollers, will have to change warnings into “welcome and advice” all the time – wasting even more time than we do now. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 10:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*:Well, that is applicable to nearly every situation. You shouldn't avoid something because of ignorance; you should try to change that ignorance and push forward an intelligent community. The best way would be to lead by example. Inform users when they are doing something incorrectly. Some people need direct instructions; however, that shouldn't be reason enough to stop something. At a minimum, it would be best to at least try it out. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 11:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*::I'm not sure this is the best approach myself, but would you be more comfortable if we limited reverting questionable IP contributions to patrollers and admins? ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 15:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*:::Problem is, that is exactly what we have been doing all along. While patrollers can’s block people, they tend to be very quick to alert an admin if they notice a proxy or TOR-user making unconstructive edits to the site. This proposal will allow each and every registered member on the entire Wiki to hand out quick warnings in anger or nervousness, something that way too many editors suffer from. For the time being, I think we’re doing fine. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 09:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' I find point 2 too vague in my opinion. How can we know if an anon is familiar with UESP? They could just as easily referred to Wikipedia or another Wiki. I don't see why knowledge of UESPWiki's policies points directly to a vandal. It's the edit itself that matters, not one's supposed knowledge of policies or one's status (status as in: anon, newly-created account, established editor etc.) I think these points are unfavourable to anon editors while not giving anything in return. [[User_Talk:Wolok gro-Barok|Talk]] [[User:Wolok gro-Barok|Wolok gro-Barok]] [[Special:Contributions/Wolok gro-Barok|Contributions]] 12:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' I would tend to be Opposed to the second guideline as I fit it at one time since I'd been using the Wiki for several years without creating an account and then for several months as Mhira (until I forgot my password and created this account) therefore I had no significant contribution history but knew some of the Wiki's policy and knew of some of the community members.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 14:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*:''Responding to the above two points on the second requirement:'' That one also concerned me a bit. Would removing that point altogether be a better choice, do you think? ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 15:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

*::I think that would work. I also think that there should be at least two people that agree on removing the edit.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 15:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - Seems like it would be difficult to determine if an anon is "familiar with UESP", and I'm sure there would be arguments about an anon's identity if someone makes that assumption. The 3rd point seems obvious, but how do we differentiate personal oppinions and comments from outright disruptive vandalism? And also, it's important that the policy doesn't suggest that anons can't contribute to community discussions, or that they arent part of the "community" -- [[User:Jplatinum16|Jplatinum16]] 18:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' - I don't know if I agree with the sentiment behind this proposal. There have been and will continue to be situations where an editor's opinions may be taken a different way if the editor's identity is unknown, and my first thoughts are that each editor should have the right to anonymously express thoughts if he or she wishes. --'''[[User:GuildKnight|GK]]'''[[User_talk:GuildKnight|talk2me]] 21:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' - In one sense using an IP to edit and a user account is kind of like sock-puppetry. But in another sense, IP is the only way to remain anon, should we so choose at the time. [[User:Mikeyboy52|Mikeyboy52]] 16:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Support''' i like the idea but lets say someone forgets to login so mabye it would omly be considerd light vandalisem--[[User:GUM!!!|GUM!!!]] 17:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Oppose:''' Too vague and it allows Patrollers, sysops, and other editors to disregard Assume Good Faith. --'''[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Michaeldsuarez|Deeds]])''' 01:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Partial Support:''' I would like to see this limited to open proxies and any other deliberate attempt to conceal an identity. I think this will suffice, as so far practically all condescending arguments made that I have seen came from such an IP address. Adding the clause that edits from anonymous sources (open proxies and such) can always be reverted by another is a clause that would solve the most problems. People can try to make controversial statements if they want, but they shouldn't make one from a deliberately concealed IP. --[[User:Timenn|Timenn]]-<[[User talk:Timenn|talk]]> 08:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' per Krusty [[User:Arny|Arny]] 09:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
}}
{{Consensus|None|message=Votes were roughly equal. In the absence of consensus, existing policy stands. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 03:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)}}

== Proposed Policy: Prohibiting Interactions ==
{{Notice|Please note that the proposed policy has now been enacted. It can be found at [[UESPWiki:Interaction Ban]].|width=90%}}
I'd like to propose officially prohibiting [[User:Elliot|Elliot]] and [[User:rpeh|rpeh]] from interacting with each other, in any way, on the wiki. Both have been told as much, unofficially, many times. Given that past requests have failed to resolve the situation, a new approach is clearly needed. There is wikipedia precedent for the proposed restrictions, for example [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley#Motions this motion] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Abtract-Collectonian#Feuds_and_quarrels this finding] from their arbitration committee.

A secondary proposal, if the community first agrees with the interaction prohibition, is to remove all current warnings from rpeh and Elliot's talk pages that are related to past incidents between them (or sanction any past edits that have already removed such warnings, as appropriate). The removal would not be intended as any type of statement about the correctness of the original warning. Rather, it is to help both editors feel that they are being treated equally under the new policy. Furthermore, it allows existing discussions such as [[#Request_to_remove_warning|Request to remove warning]] to be closed; otherwise, this new policy will effectively bar the complainant from making any further contribution in his appeal process.

===Restriction Enforcement===
Under this proposal, the next time either Elliot or rpeh violates the restriction prohibiting any interaction, the violator gets an official warning. After the warning, any further violations by the same editor will result in the editor being blocked for a week. The editor will continue to be blocked for a week at a time, as many times as necessary.

As long as the other editor does not respond or do anything to violate the restriction, the other editor will receive no warning and won't be blocked -- this policy will result in no black marks on your record if you comply with the policy.

The primary purpose of the block is to enforce a time-out/cool-down period, and thus prevent the typical rapidly escalating back-and-forth edits. The warning/block is also critical to make it clear to the other editor that he does not need to take any action in response to the violation. Therefore, it's important that we (the administrators) intercede whenever there is a clear violation, even if it's relatively minor (especially given the hope that this policy will reduce the fallout produced by a violation). Furthermore, if other community members notice a violation that has not been addressed by an admin, they should report it here (a simple link to the questionable edit is sufficient; any type of additional explanation is likely to cause extra problems).

Personally, I don't think a pre-warning or advance notification of the new policy is necessary for either editor, given that it's clear that both editors monitor the Administrator Noticeboard. But it others feel differently, someone could post an unofficial notice on each editor's talk page as soon as this policy is considered official.

===Restriction Details===
Prohibited actions under the proposed restrictions would include:
* Making comments about the other editor, indirectly or directly, on articles, on discussion pages, or in edit summaries. Substitutes for names (e.g., "you know who") would count as making an indirect comment.
* Making any edit to the other editor's user page, user talk page, or user subpages.
* Undoing any edit made by the other editor.
* If these rules are violated to the point where one editor gets warned or blocked, then the other editor is also prohibited from making any references to that warning/block. Any type of comment seems likely to be interpreted as gloating or otherwise exacerbate future arguments. I want to stop this cycle, not create new ways to perpetuate it.

Furthermore:
* Elliot and rpeh must do everything possible to avoid derailing other community discussions with their conflicts. So if, for example, rpeh has already contributed to a discussion, Elliot needs to (a) think carefully about whether any contribution is appropriate (e.g., is the information new and important to the discussion) (b) wait long enough (e.g., 24 hours or more) before responding so that it's clear to everyone the comments are not being made hastily or emotionally (c) make absolutely sure that the comments are on topic and do not violate any of the above prohibitions. The same recommendations apply to rpeh if Elliot has already contributed to a discussion.
* Elliot and rpeh can edit an article previously edited by the other editor, but only if at least 24 hours has passed -- and even then, cannot simply undo the other's edit(s). This condition is to ensure that the restrictions don't effectively make every article on the site off-limits for editing, given both editors' extensive contribution history.

Finally, for this to have a realistic chance of working, I think some form of [[#Proposed Policy: Abuse of Anonymous Editing|the above proposal]] to prevent disruptive edits by anonymous editors needs to be in place. We need to be able to remove and prevent any external provocations that could possibly be interpreted as either editor trying to circumvent the restriction.

=== Discussion of Proposal ===
Before wrapping up, I'd like to suggest if rpeh or Elliot wish to respond to this discussion, that they limit themselves to constructive comments that are strictly on the topic of this proposal. I doubt it's necessary to discuss or even make any further reference to the events that have led up to this point. Regardless of who was right or wrong in the past, I believe the community primarily wants to prevent future incidents -- or, if that's not possible, allow clear action to be taken against the person truly responsible.

Again, all ''community members'' are welcome to provide feedback; it helps if you can start your comment with '''Support''', '''Oppose''' (or '''Comment''', etc.) as appropriate.

{{Showhide|Votes|content=
* '''Support''' as proposer. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 05:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' I'm not prepared to put up with this kind of restriction on my editing. I edit widely and this proposal means Elliot can stop me editing anything in which I have an interest by editing it himself. Quite simply, it's about time Elliot got the block he so richly deserves. He has a history of grossly-insulting comments both on- and off-wiki. To me, has has made comments such as "I'm sorry your mother is such a fucking failure" (I apologise for the language, but it's necessary to highlight what an obnoxious person Elliot is). To Corevette, he made threats like "Until then, I will follow you. Not like a cat following you. like a wasp". To Michaeldsuarez, we have "MDS, go back to your shitty ED and go fuck one of those dumbasses over there."
:: Any or all of these comments are grounds for a block yet no such action has been taken. With no Elliot threatening and abusing other editors, the problem goes away. He has been repeatedly blocked at Wikipedia for the same kind of behavior he has shown here (edit warring and insulting other users) and UESP is simply lagging behind the times.
:: Furthermore, the topic that seems to have spawned this proposal has been quiescent for a week. This entire discussion is therefore moot. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 06:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
:::''I'd like to suggest if rpeh or Elliot wish to respond to this discussion, that they limit themselves to constructive comments that are strictly on the topic of this proposal.'' Way to miss a point... And what you state is hearsay in terms of logs, which is why it is a policy to prohibit such posts. As well, e-mails have no grounds for punishment, especially since there is no way to validate them, barring someone else logging into your email account. And we shouldn't forget you part in that email skirmish, rpeh. Plus, it was quite some time ago. I've moved on. You should as well. However, it is funny that you consider yourself immune from criticism when it comes to personal attacks. This page itself is a shrine to those attacks you have made. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 09:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

::::It was a "suggestion". I chose not to follow it for the reason that Nephele has been away and probably doesn't know the kind of vitriol to which several editors have been subjected during that time.
::::But let's get down to cases here. During, and after, the last discussion, one of the two editors was doing research and adding information to Lore articles to back them up with facts and add new details that create a big improvement. The same editor has spent time checking edits, tweaking, adding and removing where necessary to make sure the site is as accurate as possible. The same editor has spent time answering the questions of a large number of people experiencing difficulty with the game and asking for help. The other editor has done ''nothing'' until another piece of controversy started.
::::Timenn has asked me not to use the "T" word so I won't, but I don't know what other word is suitable for somebody whose only contributions take place in moments of controversy.
::::The reason I object so strenuously to this proposal is that it gives the same sanction to both editors. One has always been, and continues to be, a huge help to this site. The other... isn't. Treating both editors the same is a gross, unforgivable injustice.
::::Lastly, the emails, IRC logs and other communications are admissible under [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:HARASS WP:HARASS], which states ''"off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking"''. Indeed it can.
::::I am not going to be taking any further part in this debate. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 10:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::And yet you fail to quote [[wikipedia:WP:NPA|WP:NPA]]. It doesn't matter who has done what. I have had some pretty big issues come up lately, and I have decided to cut my activity down to a bare minimum (including other reasons on the wiki). Also, my choice of participation is not under your jurisdiction of appropriate judgment. Furthermore, it truly isn't harassment when the other person (claiming harassment) returns comments with equal vigor. Lastly, you oppose the equal sanction because you believe you have done no wrong in this entire situation, which is gross in and of itself. The rules apply to everyone. Even you. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 11:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::If you do not have time to edit the site then how is it you have time to monitor and contribute to debates such as this and the other two that are currently active? It seems you are being economical with the truth, Elliot. [[Special:Contributions/80.239.242.95|80.239.242.95]] 05:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::::I can make time (about 10 minutes or so in a day) to respond to far reaching proposals, especially one about me. I don't have time to plan and constantly work on a wiki. Is that okay with you? '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 17:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

* '''Oppose''' This isn't really a solution though. This situation can and will happen again with other users. I suggest we find a more permanent policy for ongoing conflicts between users. --[[User:Timmeh|Tim]] [[User_Talk:Timmeh|Talk]] 07:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*: '''Furthermore''' Taping their mouths shut doesn't solve the problem. They still hate each other. If Elliot is truly a troll, then he'll just find another target. If Rpeh is truly... a major ass?... then he'll just find someone else to be a major ass to. I've actually got something in mind for a counter-solution and I'll put it up in a little bit (I've got more to read, apparently). --[[User:Timmeh|Tim]] [[User_Talk:Timmeh|Talk]] 16:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Support''' God am I gonna get flak for this. I say support, until they stop going nuts over each other. I do agree that a more permanent solution is needed, but... unless said soluton appears in the next few days, support. Sorry, rpeh. No appologies to Elliot, though. <3 •[[User:Atreus|A]][[User_Talk:Atreus|t]][[Special:Contributions/Atreus|r]][[Special:Emailuser/Atreus|e]][[User:Peregrine|u]][http://atreus.necrolounge.org/ s]• 07:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''<s>Support</s> Oppose''' This is the first time the field as actually been even, so I will support this. I am willing to follow the restrictions if rpeh is as well. And: ''Elliot can stop me editing anything in which I have an interest by editing it himself''; rpeh, this is a rather poor argument. I cannot read your mind to see what you will edit, and I have no intention of weaseling my way into such a position. And Timmeh, if you wish for something more solid, then precedence is the best way to go about that. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 09:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC) I have changed my vote after careful consideration of the circumstances. Nephele's (and other's) lack of knowledge of the situation is most troubling. She can see what has been said, but there are things only rpeh and I know. This will do nothing to stop it. If anything, ''it will cause more tension''. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 17:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' I’ll have to agree with Timmeh on this one. If any action should be taken, it is changing policy to include ongoing disputes between members. While I really like the stance Elliot shows on this matter, it is more than likely that it will happen between other members in the future. I think this proposal is a bit too “personal” for its own good and should be made more general. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 10:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*:This isn't a proposal of policy, per se. It is more of an arbitration represented and enforced by the community. You oppose for a merely semantic reason. I ask you to see it as arbitration and not policy and reconsider your vote. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 11:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*:: I know it is not a proposal of policy. I suggest it changes into that. Oppose it is. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 11:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*:::It's not something that can be a policy since the enforcement would be made on a case by case basis. The policy would be so vague that it would not even be effective. All it would be is a center for resolving such conflicts; AN is enough to fill that role. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 11:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*::::I'd have to agree; the policy would end up being something like "If a dispute between two editors becomes disruptive to the Wiki as a whole, it is possible to block interaction between them" which is what is implied by precedent here.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 14:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Per comment above.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 14:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Clearly, there needs to be something done, as it seems like at least once every week or two, I open up my RC or Watchlist and sigh when I see it filled with edits between Elliot and rpeh, both antagonizing the other, whether they're doing it deliberately or not. To address some points above:
**I don't think either rpeh or Elliot should feel significantly limited by the actions the other one might take in terms of editing. At the risk of sounding arrogant, I think I speak for everyone that if we saw tendentious behaviour directed towards disrupting the other one's contributions simply by contributing to a wide array of articles all of a sudden, it would be seen for what it is and appropriate sanctions would be taken. Elliot has already said he wouldn't do that, and I think at least at this point, it would be pretty obvious if he did (I don't mean that to be insulting in any way, just an observation that most of Elliot's recent contributions have been to the A/N so a change in pattern would stand out). It might be a bit harder to judge if rpeh were doing that, but if it became a major concern for Elliot, that could be discussed. If necessary, we could always re-word that to say something to the effect of "editing at cross-purposes" rather than having a strict time limit.
**While I agree that many of the things that have been said offsite could qualify under harassment policies, this arbitration is geared strictly towards the onsite interactions.
**I also agree that rpeh has been far more productive than Elliot in the past few months, but to be fair, Elliot has made a few productive edits such as the {{tl|od}} template and being bold with fixing the superscript in the {{tl|unsigned}} template. (He may have made others as well, but much of my recent work has been with templates.) Notwithstanding that, however, Wikipedia has a policy on bans that I think could reasonably be extended to an interaction ban, namely [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:BAN#Bans_apply_to_all_editing.2C_good_or_bad|this one]]. This is not to say that I believe that this is what rpeh is doing, however I think the policy must nevertheless apply.
**I agree that the specifics of this case should be seen an arbitration and not policy, however I also think that this could be turned into a more generic policy for how to handle users who clearly have repeated difficulties interacting civilly (perhaps with as little tweaking as replacing the user names by User A and User B). ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 15:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
:::Elliot steals from Wikipedia and posts on UESP, and even [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Template:Outdent&oldid=568415 admits it]. How does copying the work of other people compare to what Rpeh has been doing? And yeah he is a friend of mine but I don't care. Elliot is a troll and Rpeh is a useful user. To punish Rpeh because of Elliot's trolling is totally unfair. [[Special:Contributions/80.239.242.95|80.239.242.95]] 02:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::::"Friend"? Lol. And in case you missed it, a bunch of things on this wiki and plenty of others use WP as a backbone. And it really isn't stealing if I give them credit, now is it? (Also, everything is licensed under CC, so that is another hole in your theory.) Oh, and thanks for the personal attack. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 17:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::No, wiki sites use MediaWiki as a backbone, not Wikipedia. Taking material from Wikipedia and causing strife is ''all'' you do, and that was my point. I tried to find a contribution of yours that wasn't part of an argument, something taken from Wikipedia or a removal of other editors' work but gave up after the third page. I say again... compare that to rpeh and learn from the difference. [[Special:Contributions/80.239.242.95|80.239.242.95]] 19:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::You sure do know a lot for being a ''"friend of rpeh's"''. I have no intentions or need to answer to an IP. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 02:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Oppose:''' I agree with [[User:Timmeh|Timmeh]]: Censorship will only cover up the problem; it won't resolve the issue. --'''[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Michaeldsuarez|Deeds]])''' 01:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*:It ''won't'' be truly resolved. Ever. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 05:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Strong Oppose:''' I think you should just let them do anything they want as long as it is just between the two of them. And as Michaeldsuarez says abouve censorship wont do anything [[User:Arny|Arny]] 09:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
}}
{{Consensus|Oppose|message=There was, however, general support for a permanent change in policy rather than a one-time interaction ban. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 03:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)}}

=== Timmeh's Alternative Proposal ===
We could just give them a month to shape up or get out, with the punishment for not doing so is a 3 month block or something. It's not the nicest option, but honestly it's gotten to the point where a block for either/both of them may be better for the wiki in the long term. If I were to see them not at each others throats for a month, maybe my opinion might change. --[[User:Timmeh|Tim]] [[User_Talk:Timmeh|Talk]] 03:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

{{Showhide|Votes|content=
* '''Neutral'''. The bottom line, is that at this point I'm in favor of just about anything that changes the status quo. So, if the rest of the community supports Timmeh's proposal, I'll support it, too.
:However, I'm not outright voting in support of the idea because I personally don't think the proposal is workable. In every one of these incidents each of the editors blames the other one for provoking the situation. For the sake of argument, let's say that rpeh is right and Elliot is provoking rpeh. Timmeh's proposal implies that if Elliot places another warning on rpeh's talk page, both Elliot and rpeh will end up being blocked for three months -- so the site loses a valuable contributor for three months solely because another editor provoked a situation. Someone might respond that in that situation it was obvious Elliot was in the wrong and therefore only Elliot should be blocked -- but none of the past situations have been obvious, so I don't think any future ones will be. In other words, we'll either end up with another confused mess and do nothing, or else we'll impose blocks on both and both will complain that they're the victim. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 20:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' Being excessively blunt is not going to solve anything. Mediation is better than aggravation. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 02:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Strong Oppose''' This is too harsh maybe a 3 day block? --[[User:Arny|Arny]] 09:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Support''': It's not worth much at this point, but I'm a strong supporter of the simple-but-effective approach. I find this satisfies that. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 03:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
}}
{{Consensus|None|message=Votes were even (based on an assumption of support from Timmeh himself). In the absence of consensus, existing policy stands. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 03:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)}}

=== Modification to Original Proposal ===
In response to the above feedback, I've posted the proposed text for a new, more general policy at User:Nephele/Sandbox/6.

I'm guessing the most likely issue with the new text is whether it's sufficient to have two administrators agree. So I've highlighted that phrase in green as a semi-placeholder. Basically, I think that for it to be useful as an official policy, it has to be possible to enact the policy without a full community consensus -- otherwise we're effectively re-introducing the policy every time we try to use it, which defeats the purpose of creating a general policy in the first place. Two administrators seemed like a reasonable minimum requirement. However, that requirement can easily be changed without invalidating the rest of the proposal, so if the primary issue is that requirement, could we still get consensus on the rest of the text, and then spend more time refining the details?

I think that what I've posted is about as general as we can get and yet still have a policy that will help in the current situation. The fundamental problem here, as I see it, is that the Elliot-rpeh incidents always start with actions that are acceptable under wiki rules. That's basically why it's been so hard to take action in any of the past incidents. Any type of general solution, that affects all editors, will either be too vague to make a difference or else will prevent other editors from making necessary edits. Imagine, for example, trying to come up with a specific, enforceable set of rules about when it is acceptable to undo another editor's edit -- for any rule you could come up with a dozen exceptions when the rule should be broken. In normal situations, we need to give editors some latitude to judge what is best.

As a result, I think any proposal to deal with this situation has to acknowledge that it is not typical -- it has to place restrictions solely on Elliot and/or rpeh that do not apply to other editors. If we want to stop the incidents, we need some non-subjective way to say "this edit is going to provoke an incident" -- only then we can say the edit isn't allowed, and take action if someone breaks the rule. The most obvious way to identify a problematic edit is "if this edit involves both Elliot and rpeh".

My primary objective with this proposal is to find some way to make the next incident not be a repeat of the last few dozen incidents -- I'm not hoping for a universal solution. If I'm correctly understanding what's been said so far, everybody agrees that there is a problem here, and everyone agrees that the problem is likely to happen again unless something is done. But at the moment, nothing really has changed, and as long as that's the case I can't help but assume that this will keep happening over and over again. If anyone thinks that further policy changes, for example, to the [[UESPWiki:Etiquette|Etiquette]] page would be helpful, those suggestions can still be brought forward. Or if a future proposal makes this non-interaction restriction obsolete, we can revoke it. But we need to start somewhere.

--[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 20:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

=== Discussion of Modification ===
To help us make some forward progress, could contributors explicitly state their opinions on the following points:
# '''Overall''': Do you support/oppose the overall intent of the proposed policy?
# '''Requirements''': Do you support/oppose the specific requirements necessary before this policy can be enacted, in other words, is it enough for two administrators to agree that a pair of editors need this restriction? If not, what is the minimum requirement that you think should be necessary?
# '''Apply now''': Do you support/oppose applying this policy to rpeh and Elliot?
I think that increases the chances of being able to get this policy in place to handle our one current situation, after which we can spend more time refining the details of when/how it might next be needed.

{{Showhide|Votes|content=
* '''Overall: Support'''. '''Requirements: Support'''. '''Apply now: Support'''. As proposer --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 20:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
* Overall: '''Support'''. Requirements: '''Support'''. Apply now: '''Support'''. It may need some tweaking over time, but it's a good base for a general proposal that will handle both the current and any future situations like this. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 20:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

* '''Overall: Neutral'''. '''Requirements:Support'''. '''Apply now: Oppose'''. For a general rule, 1 week might not be bad (depending on what stage the rule is enforced). But for Rpeh and Elliot, the punishment needs to be way more strong than a one week block. Elliot has made personal attacks on Core in PM on IRC, twice. These PM's are free for everyone to see. Even if you ignore all of his other actions (which isn't a shining example of how to edit the wiki) he should have already have a block of at least a month, even if it isn't sanctioned by the rules, because it is a personal attack against one of our editors in response to actions on the wiki. The entire community should be ashamed that it hasn't done '''anything''' in response. Furthermore, Rpeh's behavior and Rpeh's contributions need to be separated in our minds. I cannot deny that his contributions are valuable, but his continued attitude with dealing with other editors (not just Elliot) is a cause for concern. He shares a great deal of blame for the current situation we are in, even if he hasn't done as much of the harm. Furthermore, a block of a week is called a vacation. There are very few circumstances where blocking someone for a week is anything more than a slap on the wrist and doesn't even reach close to being a deterrence for this kind of behavior. Furthermore, it isn't fair when compared to other punishments. At the very least, a one month block should be in place, with continued "Tape over the mouth" for a month after the block is done. --[[User:Timmeh|Tim]] [[User_Talk:Timmeh|Talk]] 21:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
**Addendum: Also, there is no reason to officially warn them if they break the rule. This is the warning. If it's gotten to the point where we have to invoke this rule, then they know already. --[[User:Timmeh|Tim]] [[User_Talk:Timmeh|Talk]] 21:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
**Another Addendum: I'm saying that if we need to use this rule on Rpeh and Elliot, that there be no official warning before we block them. We post that they're now restricted by this rule, and then we block them if they break it. But, as Krusty said, we shouldn't put them under this rule as soon as we've reached consensus, which is what I assume is meant by "Apply Now". We should see how they act after Elliot's current block is done, and if it is necessary to invoke this rule, then lay it on them. --[[User:Timmeh|Tim]] [[User_Talk:Timmeh|Talk]] 20:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

* '''Overall: Oppose'''. '''Requirements: Oppose'''. '''Apply now: Oppose'''. Almost everybody acknowledges that the current situation is the fault of one user more than the other and this attempt to tar both users with the same brush is a massive injustice. Elliot has personally attacked several users and has hidden behind the letter of the law rather than its spirit. On Wikipedia he would have received a lengthy block long ago for his actions, and did indeed receive a week-long block for his similar behavior there. Since this policy is being based on Wikipedia's own version, the same standard should apply. I'm well aware that I have pushed the boundaries during my interactions with Elliot but I'm afraid it has become necessary. Almost the entire administration team has been absent recently for various reasons (I do not wish to imply any criticism here - we all have lives off-wiki) and Elliot has been left to attack, disparage and harass other users to his heart's content. It is left to the rest of us to do whatever we can to limit Elliot's effect on the site. In my case, this has taken the form of removing him from IRC when he was present to do nothing other than argue (an action for which nobody except Elliot had anything other than praise) and try to stop responses to Elliot when it has become clear that he is more interested in the argument than in the outcome.

: I have already agreed to stop interacting with Elliot in an email to another administrator. If Nephele had consulted her fellow admins, who are in far better possession of the facts in this matter than she is, she would have known this. This policy is unnecessary, too wide in scope, and generally unhelpful. I oppose it strongly. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 22:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

* '''Overall: Support'''. '''Requirements: Support'''. '''Apply now: Support'''. I am not going to reason with some sanctimonious bullshit and finger pointing that others users happen to employ on a regular basis. I also won't try a pathetic move by trying to discredit the other editors in order to further my own argument. I also won't try to qualify it by saying ''it was necessary'', when none of our actions have been necessary (calling an established editor a troll over 20 times, referring to trolling in IRC the moment they enter, is definitely ''not necessary''). I was against it at first, but Nephele has managed to write a good version of such policy. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 02:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

* '''Comment''' I think that Elliot is more responsible for these fights than rpeh he seems to be always looking for a fight and is always fighting users (rpeh, half life) so I think a 1 week block for Elliot should settle things down [[User:Arny|Arny]] 09:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*:You '''''clearly''''' don't understand the situation. Please explain in great detail how I initiated any sort of fight (especially with HalfLife). If you cannot base your comments on facts and understanding of the situation or common sense, then you should keep out of such debates. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 09:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*:: [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HalfLife&diff=prev&oldid=576606 This], [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User:Elliot&diff=prev&oldid=576627 this]. Even though you dont always start the fight you always aggrevate it [[User:Arny|Arny]] 10:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*:::Actually Elliot should already have been blocked as the [[UESPWiki:Etiquette#When Conflict Arises|UESPWiki]] Etiquette policy states [[User:Arny|Arny]] 10:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

* '''Overall: Support'''. '''Requirements: Support'''. '''Apply now: Strong Oppose'''. I think the new policy is well written and the requirements are fine. I know that I am sick and tired of waking up to yet another nights’ bickering, name-calling and fighting on the AN (and so is the entire community) and it feels good to be able to hand out the appropriate warning before it escalates. It saddens me a great deal that we have to make a policy like this, but it seems necessary these days. But I hate the very thought about applying this new rule to Rpeh and Elliot now. It feels forced, it feels half-baked and rushed and very unfair, especially to those of us who knows the background story and have followed the feud closely for months. Timmeh wrote earlier: ''"This is the warning. If it's gotten to the point where we have to invoke this rule, then they know already."'' That sums it up. We can’t invent spontaneous policies to stop an on-going problem without at least giving the editors in question a chance to change their behavior. It just feels wrong and I sincerely hope that this rushed decision gets the Oppose stamp. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 09:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*:Krusty (and Timmeh), could you possibly clarify what you do think is appropriate for rpeh and Elliot? (Although with Elliot's block it's possibly now somewhat moot, on the other hand, a week from now we're back to the status quo, and I still think it would be prudent to have some restrictions in place.) I'm particularly confused because I understood Timmeh's comment to mean that we should essentially accelerate the restrictions -- apply them, but skip straight to a block for the first violation. So I don't see how that leads to the conclusion that no restrictions should be applied. Therefore, do you think no restrictions should ever placed on rpeh and Elliot? Or else under what conditions do you think the restrictions might be appropriate (e.g., how long after the policy is put in place)? In other words, if the general policy is put in place, I think it would help the other admins to understand your concerns, so that we know whether two of us can decide restrictions are necessary (in particular, if you're not around at the time). --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 19:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*::Can I just point out here that I've steered clear of Elliot since I was asked to do so by Timenn? There has been plenty of drama over the last couple of days, but it hasn't come from me. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 20:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*:::I will try to clarify, even if recent events have made it somewhat unnecessary. I do not think it is fair to invent a policy in the middle of an existing feud and hand out spontaneous warnings. The editors in question should at least be given the chance to think about the policy and improve their behavior before we start to block them. I’m all for the new policy but it is simply wrong to activate it right away, with such short notice. Even if Elliot took a block today, I think we should calm down, get the policy written and see what happens. I do not think we should apply the new rules to Rpeh or Elliot before we are sure that they will continue fighting. I know these arguments may sound a bit meaningless with Elliot gone and all, but that is my stance – I’m fairly sure that Rpeh will remain silent and ignore Elliot in the future, mostly because the feud seems to be over after today – but also because of this new policy. So: Let’s take a deep breath, get the policy going without any further action taken against Elliot or Rpeh – and cross our fingers for a more peaceful and friendly environment around here in the future. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 21:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Overall: Neutral, Requirements: Neutral, Apply Now: Neutral''' – The intent of the policy, which is to put a halt to not-so-civil behavior created by personal disputes, is something that I support. I also know that blocks are sometimes necessary to such stop disputes. When I was in conflict with [[User:HMSVictory]] over 2 years ago, the dispute became so bad that both of us were blocked (by [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] in a twist of fate). When we were blocked and couldn't edit any longer, we were given time to cool down and think. Nevertheless, the block that settled the conflict was only ''15 minutes long''. The proposal advocates a 1-week block, but an entire week may not be necessary, hence my neutrality on the Requirements. Of course, this is a special case. The dispute between rpeh and Elliot has disputed the community here (mostly in edit wars, edit summaries, and by derailing community discussions), and the dispute has been an extremely long one. rpeh was blocked for 2 weeks before, and Elliot was blocked for a week on Wikipedia, so a one-week block may not be that effective on them. ''It would have to be a month-long block''. Since "helpful" blocks for cooling-down can range from 1 minute to a month, I believe that the block duration should be flexible rather than set in stone. As someone formerly blocked in order to end a conflict, I hope that you respect my opinion. --'''[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Michaeldsuarez|Deeds]])''' 13:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*:How does my WP behavior have any bearing on this matter? '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 13:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*::I'm just saying that you already know what a week-long block feels like, so it may not be effective in ending the arguing here. As [[User:Timmeh|Timmeh]] has stated, ''a block of a week is called a vacation''. --'''[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Michaeldsuarez|Deeds]])''' 14:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*:::MDS makes a very good point here: I think a flexible block time based on the admin's judgement of what would be effective in a given situation is probably the better way to go. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 15:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*::::I'm fine with a flexible block time. The one-week was primarily inspired by Wikipedia. But I also wanted to make it clear that, unlike vandalism blocks, I don't think a second block should automatically be a permanent block. In the case of vandals, we're blocking people who have shown no potential to contribute productively to the site (and even if they did have a change of heart, they'd be better off starting with a new account). In this case, we're blocking editors who have made constructive edits, and therefore shouldn't necessarily be blocked permanently because of a disagreement with another editor. But leaving it up to the admin's judgement is probably the best way to figure out what is right in the specific circumstances. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 19:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

<s>*'''Overall: Support, Requirements: Oppose, Apply Now: Oppose''' There should definitely be a flexible block time; also if Editor A edits User B's talk page ''constructively'' that shouldn't cause problems. As for Apply Now I Oppose per [[User:Krusty|Krusty]].--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 18:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)</s>
*:Just to be clear, if the block time is made to be flexible, does that satisfy your concerns about the requirements? As for Editor A editing Editor B's talk page, I'm sorry, but I don't agree that it should be allowed in this particular situation. The restriction is for unusual situations, where I don't think it's safe to assume that Editor B will agree that the edit is constructive. In the case of vandalism or some other problem on Editor B's talk page, there are numerous people other than Editor A who can deal with the situation, without the risk of the edit being misinterpreted. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 19:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Overall: Support, Requirements: Support, Apply Now: <s>Support</s> Oppose''' <s>In light of relevant recent events (specifically me responding to [[User:Elliot|Elliot]] and [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AElliot&diff=577199&oldid=577194 his response]) I support this.</s> Please see my response to Elliot below.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 18:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
*:You do realize that I can ask for a user to stay off of my page right? Your change of vote in retaliation to that and my own change of vote, should be removed. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 18:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
*::I accept that you can ask for any user or group of users to stay off your page. However you asked for users to learn what was going on. I responded that I ''did'' know what was going on. I felt that you overreacted. But you're right (at least about the apply now part of ''my'' change of vote. I haven't seen your vote change yet though so I'm not sure about it ). Also I left the rest because I support the principle of being evenhanded and feel that for resolving other disputes (or any continuation of this one) the proposal is useful.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 19:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
*:::Elliot - Albino can change his vote if he so pleases, and you are in no position to tell him his vote should be deleted. There is absolutely no reason to remove either of your votes, unless you wish to remove your own and abstain from further helpful comments. --[[User:SerCenKing|SerCenKing]] [[User talk:SerCenKing|Talk]] 21:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
}}
{|
|'''Overall:'''||{{Consensus|Support}}
|-
|'''Requirements:'''||{{Consensus|Support}}
|-
|'''Apply Now:'''||{{Consensus|None|message=In the end, this weighed slightly in favor of Oppose, but not enough to call it a clear Oppose consensus.}}
|}

{{Consensus|Support|message=I interpret the above to mean that the policy is good and should be put into place. However, there is ambiguity as to whether this should be immediately enforced in regards to [[User:Elliot|Elliot]] and [[User:rpeh|rpeh]]. As such, no immediate action should be taken against either party, however any future interaction concerns between the two would fall under the new policy. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 04:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)}}

== Proposed Policy: Administrator Re-elections ==

{| style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce;" | This discussion has been closed by [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] - see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SNOWBALL WP:SNOWBALL]. Please do not modify it.
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
I think the time has come to put into effect a mechanism that ensures administrators continue to enjoy the support of the community.

Currently, UESP has ten administrators. Of these, three ([[User:Endareth|Endareth]], [[User:Garrett|Garrett]] and [[User:Wrye|Wrye]]) were never elected. One ([[User:Nephele|Nephele]]) was elected with the votes of only two users, neither of whom are active any more. Two ([[User:Ratwar|Ratwar]] and [[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]]) had only one vote from a currently-active member - somebody who just returned after a nine month break. The other four are more recent, but even in these cases, [[User:Eshe|Eshe]]'s support only contains three still-active users out of eight votes; less than 50% is not impressive.

Since the mandate for an administrator role is given by users, it is essential to ensure that the mandate is kept up to date and renewed when necessary. This offers both an easy way for an admin to step down, and for the community to remove them where necessary. It's clearly not acceptable that somebody retains the extra powers and responsibilities if the community no longer supports them.

To this end, I propose that each admin be automatically re-nominated on the anniversary of his or her election and a re-election vote is held using the same rules as for new admins. If he or she is no longer interested in holding the role, simply declining the renomination would be enough to close the election.

{{Showhide|Votes|content=
*'''Support''': as proposer. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 08:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': Not a terrible idea, but they need to be forewarned (as in, they know it's coming, and we know they know.). Also, I think Nephele and Wyre are exempt; Nephele's proven invaluable to the wiki, and Wrye.... well, okay, have no excuse there. but he's Wyre! I also think that a lot of the current admins will see this in a bad light, particularily Ratwar. Sorry, Ratwar, but it's true, you probably will. Can't really blame you, though. •[[User:Atreus|A]][[User_Talk:Atreus|t]][[Special:Contributions/Atreus|r]][[Special:Emailuser/Atreus|e]][[User:Peregrine|u]][http://atreus.necrolounge.org/ s]• 08:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
::Nobody would be exempt. I doubt Nephele would have a problem being reelected, and although Wrye might not be interested in the light of his last few posts, I doubt he would either. That doesn't mean that we should just ''assume'' the result. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 13:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Question''' How is keeping their status detrimental to the wiki? '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 09:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
::I didn't say it was detrimental. I'm saying that an admin who no longer has the support of the community shouldn't be an admin. It's exactly the same idea behind elections all over the world. Nothing in this new policy would stop somebody standing again if they decided they wanted the job back. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 13:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
:::It was a simple question, not an implication. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 19:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
::::And I gave a simple answer. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 06:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I think most of these shouldn't have any problem getting re-elected,and if they do... well that's what the community wants. I would add though that if there is a concesus to alter this by one vote (at least in the case of [[User:Nephele|Nephele]]) since this is a re-election and we ''really'' need admins that they be left with their current status for at least a week or two and then have a new re-election.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 14:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*:(Edit Conflict) All I meant was that there needs to be some margin; if one or two peoples votes tip it then we need to wait for a bit before doing anything because that isn't a significant majority. (As far as Nephele being exempt she does a lot of the server things that are necessary to keep the site running)--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 16:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose for now:''' I think the idea is sound in principle, but there are some details I'd like to see worked out first. If they can be, I would support the proposal. For example, if an administrator is up for reelection but happens to be away on vacation at that time, the vote should be delayed. Similarly, if an administrator has left, I don't feel a vote should occur ''in absentia'' since they may not be aware of, or wish to respond to, anything said about them. I realize that may not fit with the original proposal, though. Assuming that admins weren't voted on ''in absentia'', I would want to see some kind of re-acclimation period before an administrator is voted on. For example, supposing that a clear-cut vandal came along today and coincidentally, someone like [[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] or [[User:Endareth|Endareth]] returned to block the vandal, I'd have no qualms with that. If they stayed around, then we could give them a month or two before voting so that all users could get a feel for the returning admin. I certainly couldn't speak to Endareth's suitability as an administrator, for example, since he (she?) hasn't been significantly active since the end of 2006. If he was considered suitable as an admin at one point, though, I'd be willing to give him a couple of months "on trust" and see how he did. Finally, I also agree that this should apply across the board. Even though I doubt Nephele would have any difficulties, it's not fair to say that some admins are exempt (except [[User:Daveh|Daveh]], of course...it'd be kinda hard to vote him off the island <g>). (Point of clarification: I'm equally fine with the status quo as I am with voting once a year; the above comments were made from the POV of the proposal going through.)
**'''Question:''' If we do this for admins, should we also do it for patrollers? ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 16:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
:::I don't think an absence of a couple of weeks would make a difference. An admin who doesn't realise he or she isn't going to be around during their re-election can't be a very good admin, but I'm sure some scope for variation should be allowed - eg, during the launch of TESV I'd rather concentrate on getting the content in place than having elections. For the moment, let's concentrate on the basics then we can work out the details. Second, patrollers are less important but yes, I don't see why the same rules shouldn't apply there too. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 06:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::::Okay, that seems fair. I'm still not big on voting inactive admins out, but let's see how the overall vote goes before we worry about the specifics. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 14:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Simply enough, I do not think it will benefit the wiki in any way. We can call for a vote of confidence anytime to get rid of admins, and that's bound to stir up plenty of debate. But forcing a vote when there's really no need for removing the admin? Unnecessary. Furthermore, of the admins now, I believe all of them all still capable of administration, even if they've been inactive for quite a while. --[[User:Timmeh|Tim]] [[User_Talk:Timmeh|Talk]] 16:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' A vote once a year for each administrator? It seems it would get rather busy and undoubtedly controversial. I don't think removing admins is really a good policy, and neither does Wikipedia. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 19:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I don't see why this would be necessary. Something like this can be handled perfectly fine on a case-by-case basis. To echo Timmeh a little, a vote can be called for if an admin's suitability for the role comes into question. --'''[[User:GuildKnight|GK]]'''[[User_talk:GuildKnight|talk2me]] 21:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''75%opposse''' admins can be denouced any time but still...if someone who has a problem with a admin might be afraid to say something but wiht this they may report there problem--[[User:GUM!!!|GUM!!!]] 23:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

* '''Comment''' I don't think some of the people voting so far realise the state of the problem. '''Forty Percent''' of our admins have never received the vote of an active member of the site. A month ago, that figure would have been an astonishing '''SIXTY PERCENT'''! This is clearly not acceptable in a community that claims to be governed by consensus. The site's administrators need to be able to demonstrate that they have the support of the community. At the moment, this is clearly not the case. A simple re-election would remove the need for an embarrassing de-admin vote: in 4 cases, admins would simply be removed due to inactivity. Other cases would be decided on merit as and when they became eligible for renewal. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 05:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
*:So since the voting age in America is 18, the President has to be reelected each year to include the newly eligible voters? (Not a perfect analogy, but still.) '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 17:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
:::That's a terrible analogy. Presidents '''are''' re-elected, every four years. Part of the reason for that is the changing electorate, so it sounds like you're now supporting rpeh's proposal. [[Special:Contributions/80.239.242.95|80.239.242.95]] 18:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::::Which is why I said ''every year''. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 18:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Oppose.''' This has been discussed a couple previous times on UESP ([[UESPWiki:Archive/AN_Things_That_Need_to_Happen|Things That Need to Happen]]; [[UESPWiki:Archive/AN_De-adminship_for_inactive_admins|De-adminship for inactive admins]]). However, I refused to participate in either of those discussions because I had many reasons to suspect the discussions were primarily intended to disrupt the community. I'm responding this time because the proposal was initiated by a respected member of the community and therefore deserves a full response. The length is because I'd like to summarize my opinion for once and for all, and also probably because there's some amount of accumulated back log from my past non-contributions.

:On Wikipedia, this is tagged as a perennial proposal -- two, in fact [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PEREN#Demote_inactive_admins Demote inactive admins] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PEREN#Reconfirm_administrators Reconfirm administrators] -- which they've discussed and rejected multiple times. There are links at WP leading to several very long discussions covering nearly every possible opinion; FWIW, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Admin_accountability_poll#All_admins_should_be_subject_to_periodic_reconfirmation_of_their_admin_status this poll] seems to provide the most complete list of arguments and counterarguments. WP's summary of the counterargument basically describes my main reactions:
::''In general, this policy has been opposed both by administrators who themselves tend to go through periods of inactivity and do not wish to be forced to maintain token levels of activity to maintain adminship, and by people who believe that there is no substantive security concern. The developers have pointed out that an active account is in far greater danger of becoming compromised than an inactive account. A side effect is that this may raise a barrier for inactive admins to become active again.''

:I'd be tempted to leave my response at that, except that UESP is not Wikipedia. I also think my recent experiences provide useful examples of this policy's implications -- examples that have more direct relevance to UESP than Wikipedia's examples.

:While mandatory re-elections might be a bad idea on Wikipedia, I think the specifics of UESP mean that they would be even worse here. Two specific reasons are:
:* On UESP there are constantly comments / complaints about the shortage of available admins. At UESP's size, we'll probably always be at risk of gaps in admin coverage. A policy to arbitrarily remove admins will inevitably lead to a situation where a vandal cannot be blocked because the only available person is a recently-returned admin who has lost his/her privileges for no reason other than being absent from the site at the wrong time. Therefore, I'm certain this policy will harm the site, while also seeing no apparent benefit.
:* Perhaps I'm an optimist, but I'm convinced TESV is going to be released -- and then be followed by one, maybe two, expansions. Which means UESP policies can't ignore the implications of the instant chaos produced by the release of a new game/expansion. It's obvious that the number of UESP editors will go up dramatically -- not just new editors, but also many old editors and admins are likely to return. Furthermore, my experience with SI's release says that a significant fraction of the previously active editors are likely to leave, scale back their contributions, or avoid the new game's namespace -- after all, we all want to play the game before learning spoilers from UESP. Which is a long-winded lead-in to the main point: a very likely time for inactive admins to reappear is after the release of a new game. At which point, UESP is likely to be desperate for experienced editors, in particular admins. Furthermore, any nomination under such conditions is likely to be nearly superficial -- a ton of new members; no time for anyone to properly research/evaluate the nomination -- or at least far less meaningful than their original nomination. In which case, how does a new nomination accomplish anything useful? I don't want our hands to be tied by policy written under the assumption that there's always time to leisurely repeat an approval process.

:Beyond that, I personally think that my recent experiences provide a perfect example of why this is a bad idea. Basically, this proposal means that I would have had no admin powers when I returned to the wiki a few weeks ago. Suggesting I should be exempt, as in a previous comment, seems somewhat meaningless. First, my experience could just as easily happen to a regular admin -- I'm bringing this up as an example, after all. Second, I don't think I'd want to be exempt. Passing such a policy would be a statement that the majority of the community needs first-hand interaction with an admin before the admin can be trusted and, furthermore, that trust must be explicitly given. My additional user rights mean that the community's trust is even more important: because there is no log monitoring my server activities, I can't provide distrustful editors with evidence if questions arise. Yet somehow this supposedly critical need to review all admins doesn't apply to me?

:Therefore, during these last couple weeks I would have, for example, been unable to do any of the blocks listed in [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block the logs]. In many of those cases the vandals/spammers would have been left unblocked for hours, because there have been several occasions when I have been the only available admin, sometimes for half of the day.

:Furthermore, the practical reality is that this proposal would imply that I'd be unlikely to be restored as admin until about July (in my particular situation any renewal of my [[UESPWiki:Archive/AN Request for Server Access|server access]] might not be possible until September, but I'll stick to what would apply to any admin).

:Why so long? First, it would be at least a month before I would even start a new admin request. A small factor is that I wouldn't want to waste anyone's time with the request until I felt confident I had really returned. Far more importantly is that the entire point of the proposal is for the admin to be approved by the currently active wiki members -- and the majority of those members know nothing about me. They would need a month to have a fair chance of participating in any admin nomination. Even now, the newer editors impression of me is probably based primarily on my admin-type activities. Without my admin privileges, they'd be forced to base their opinions largely on a series of edits to obscure [[Tes4Mod:Save File Format]] subpages -- a year's worth of such edits might not even be enough ;)

:Second, in past cases it has taken as long as 47 days (for [[User:Timenn/RfA|Timenn]]) from the time a nomination starts to the time it is made effective; a 20-day interval seems typical. Policies about UESP admins can't ignore the fact that UESP adminship requests do not, and probably never will, happen overnight. Daveh has never been involved in UESPWiki on a daily basis -- which I think is probably essential as part of Daveh's long-term commitment to ensure that UESP stays alive for years to come.

:Which is why I say it realistically will be two months from the time an ex-admin returns before that admin can return to helping with admin duties. Two months during which they could otherwise be helping out -- and providing new editors with direct evidence that they're trustworthy, which is far more meaningful as evidence than any nomination discussion.

:Furthermore, there's the real possibility that de-adminship would discourage an admin from returning to UESP -- and, no, not out of spite at losing their privileges. Two primary motivations for my return to the site were to (a) help cover any admin shortages and (b) help with issues that need server access. Take away my privileges, and I would have felt like there was little reason to return -- I'd feel more productive pursuing other projects/interests. Alternatively, ex-admins might find it easier to simply start a new account -- why go back to the old account with its inevitable baggage/dirty laundry if you have to effectively start over again no matter what? Either way, someone who was once considered to be one of the most valuable members of the community is effectively lost permanently instead of temporarily.

:For the record, I'm not the only example of an admin returning after a lengthy absence -- Eshe, for example, was active for several months last year after a year-plus absence. Her return, and her ability to act as an admin when she returned, unequivocally helped the site. Again, a case where this policy would have harmed the site without any justification.

:In general, if any of the people on the inactive admin list were to return tomorrow, I would welcome the help, unconditionally. Of course that's true of the admins with whom I've worked in the past. But it's also true of Garrett and Endareth, both of whom had basically left the site before I became actively involved. First and foremost, I trust Daveh, and therefore I'm willing to trust his selections. To some extent, insisting that I be given the right to reapprove decisions about Garrett and Endareth would be comparable to insisting that Krusty's nomination be redone just because I wasn't here when the vote was made. In both cases, I trust the people who made the decision, and therefore see no reason to question the decision unless I have some type of evidence to the contrary. Beyond that, their entire wiki contribution history can be reviewed by anyone who is interested -- not to mention their contributions to other wikis (e.g., is Garrett is an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Master_Thief_Garrett admin at Wikipedia] and a [http://strategywiki.org/wiki/User:Garrett bureaucrat at StrategyWiki]). In every case, I trust the inactive admin's judgment to determine the best course of action upon returning: whether to simply step down; whether to voluntarily seek re-nomination; whether site policies need to be learned/re-learned; whether he/she is ready to just dive straight in; or any other possibility.

:As far as arguments comparing admin nominations to political elections, they're fallacious, besides the obvious [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy Wikipedia is not a democracy] guideline. There is no limit on the number of possible wiki admins. Since keeping inactive admins on the list does nothing to prevent new admins from being added, regular re-elections are not a necessary mechanism for guaranteeing turnover. Furthermore, politicians are elected based in large part on their agenda -- their opinions on specific issues and whether voters agree with those opinions. Issues change, politicians' opinions change, and voters' opinions change, so re-elections are necessary. On the other hand, admins are approved primarily based on their impartiality and whether they can be trusted to enforce wiki policy -- characteristics that don't change overnight. The basic facts in each year's re-election would be largely the same, with the potential for the "discussion" to be dominated by comments stating effectively "Support: see original nomination".

:I don't see any inherent value to periodically polling current site members about the admins, inactive or active. We don't put every policy on the site up for re-election periodically, or throw out old policies simply because the people who contributed to the original discussion are no longer active. Instead members are free to start discussions about any policy if they feel something needs to be changed, clarified, or revoked. I think the policy system works, and I think that same basic system also works for admins. Furthermore, based on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy Wikipedia is not a democracy], the purpose of nomination discussions is not to hold a vote. We don't insist that any fixed number or percentage of current members must state their opinion before closing the discussion. We don't tally the numbers and declare a winner; there have even been cases on Wikipedia where admin nominees received more opposing than supporting "votes" but yet were still give the adminship. Instead the discussion is about getting a representative range of opinions, and, ideally, reaching a unanimous community consensus. In other words, the specific names attached to the opinions aren't what matter, so a new set of names doesn't need to be added to the opinions.

:No arguments that have been presented demonstrating how or why re-elections would benefit the community. The primary visible effect of such re-elections would be the constant required discussions -- regardless of whether anyone in the community has anything to say or even has any interest in the discussion. And the only changes that I see coming out of such discussions have many potential ways of harming the site. So why keep bringing it up? --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 15:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

:: I think the arguments are clear and that you are the one making fallacious arguments. Your point about Krusty's election misses the point impressively. Under this proposal, you '''would''' get a chance to vote on Krusty's role - in just under a year's time. You say that admins' characteristics that don't change overnight, so you are admitting that they can and do change. With no mechanism for renewal, there is no opportunity for people to decide if the changes are beneficial or not. [[Special:Contributions/80.239.242.95|80.239.242.95]] 18:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
:::If an administrator needs to be reevaluated, then a discussion can take place (which has happened before, such as rpeh's case). There is no reason to create problems where there are none. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 18:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::::There '''are''' problems. Having unelected administrators and other administrators who have not received the support of current site members is an anomalous situation. Let's take your bad analogy and use it in a more sensible way. I don't have to put up with a president I never voted for because I get a chance to vote every four years. On UESP I have to put up with whatever administrators people I have never heard of decided to elect/appoint. And knock off this "suspiciously anonymous" crap in your edit summaries. I don't believe UESP has any policy that prevents me from expressing my opinions anonymously. If I was voting, I'd use my name, but I'm not. I'm commenting because I agree with rpeh's proposal. [[Special:Contributions/80.239.242.95|80.239.242.95]] 19:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' I'm changing my vote because I hadn't realized that these would be periodic; I had thought that this was a one time thing limited to admins that ''had not received (widespread) concensus'' as such their elections had not had a representative cross-section of the wiki community. You would have kept your admin rights also; the proposer stated that inactive admins returning would keep their rights for a month or two to allow everyone to become comfortable with this persons editing style.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 16:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' My vote shouldn't matter here. I believe that my worth in this community has greatly diminished since I stopped (unofficially) patrolling and paying attention. I'm not unpopular, but the idea of giving someone with no time or invested effort any more responsibility is without reason. If we consider the efforts which many of our current and past admins have given freely to the community, we find that even with sufficient cause to demote them, they still hold a great influence on the community if not by their past deeds, then by their continuing contributions.

:Achieving authority in this group project shouldn't be by popularity. We contribute because we love to, and we take on responsibility when we need to. We work best as a culture of deeds. By proving that we can handle a job and fulfill its duties, we attain respect and trust. When the power structure is reversed, and we let the new recruits promote us rather than the boss, we have well respected contributers without the proportionate voice in proper decision making and people like me telling everyone what to do. There wouldn't be proper trust in authority. We would also have a bit more drive and possibly destructive activity from those seeking personal gain instead of site improvements.

:Now I'm just providing some (hopefully lucid) feedback. I can only imagine the horrors which an evil admin could incur upon this centralized project which has had random server problems in the past including the '''smoking backup server'''. Without piling elections on to the worry-plates of our currently underfunded admins, let's get some more bigshot patrollers who can be admins in a few bagillion good edits. As for when the trusted authority goes against the grain of the community, there really is only the respect of feats which gives them that power, if leadership goes where the community is not willing to follow, we simply loose the community which hasn't invested so much in the project and might take another project the way they want to go. I think there are enough policies about ranks of admins/patrollers already without elections. [[User:Lukish|Lukish_]] [[User talk:Lukish|Tlk]] [[Special:Contributions/Lukish|Cnt]] 19:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
}}
|}

== Scorpio ==

What should be done with scorpio? Hes using bad language deleting pages removing warnings but I dont want to be hash so what else can be done to him other than a block (warnings have no effect on him) --[[User:Arny|Arny]] 19:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
:Just give things time to cool down. If he's willing to stop a block is not needed. [[User:Mikeyboy52|Mike]][[User_talk:Mikeyboy52|<nowiki>/|\</nowiki>]] 19:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

== search ==

Hey I just wanted to ask that when you search for something why does the search show you the script of the page? Why doesnt it show you the text that is on the page instead? [[User:Arny|Arny]] 10:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
:By script, I'm assuming that you mean the page source and wikitext. How's how the MediaWiki search engine works. I personally prefer wikitext being used in the searches, since links tend to be piped (eg. <code><nowiki>[[link|text]]</nowiki></code>). This sort of search also makes it easier to find and view external links. --'''[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Michaeldsuarez|Deeds]])''' 13:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

::An additional problem is that it can give problems if you start parsing an article in the middle, instead of the beginning. Imagine having to create a table from only the middle section, you need the whole of it to show the correct layout. --[[User:Timenn|Timenn]]-<[[User talk:Timenn|talk]]> 14:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

== Adjustments to template subsections ==

After some experiments (and a few mistakes) I've found out that editing a section of a page with a template directly edits the template's original page. The effects can be described as followed: [[Lore:Places_A#Anvil]] is divided into a section (County Anvil} which is divided into a sub-section (The City of Anvil) which is further divided into sub sub-sections (the districts). Editing just regular Anvil brings up [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Lore:Places_A&action=edit&section=15 the template], while editing the section County Anvil brings up [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Lore:Anvil&action=edit&section=T-1 its section text]. Editing the City of Anvil allows one to edit its [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Lore:Anvil&action=edit&section=T-2 section and sub-section]. This causes obvious problems as if someone wanted to add namespace specific info to Oblivion, it will also affect the Lore Anvil and any page that uses template Anvil. Basically, it shouldn't be possible to edit a template's subsections besides on its template page, as this could lead to a big mess. Is it somewhat possible to integrate an almost <code><nowiki>__NOEDITSECTION__</nowiki></code> into a template, so that only a temp's sections can be edited on the temp's page? Or, is it possible to merge all sections to a template, taking the option of editing it away? I probably sound confusing, so if anyone needs it I'll be happy to clarify -- [[User:Jplatinum16|Jplatinum16]] 03:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
:That wouldn't fix the "problem". Even if you add <nowiki>__NOEDITSECTION__</nowiki></code> to the article, users could still edit articles in the "Lore" namespaces (by simply editing the Lore namespace articles). In addition, we have RecentChanges patrollers who could find problems within the Lore namespace. Also, namespace-specific data and templates aren't really things new users know about, so I can't see inexperienced users causing such a problem. I don't see any reason to change anything. --'''[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Michaeldsuarez|Deeds]])''' 12:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
::The problem is not allowing editors to edit the Lore section; the problem is that editing a template section on one page will edit the template's orginal page. If I make an edit on one page, save, and end up on another, that seems like a problem. This problem can affect inexperienced and experienced users, cause I doubt most (if any) users know this. True, our trusty patrollers are always on the lookout for namespace specific info, but this affects:
#A template's page
#A page's (with the template) info
#A potentially useful namespace specific edit
Example: I want to add under the [[Oblivion:Leyawiin#Chapel District|Oblivion Leyawiin Chapel District section]] that "the Best Goods and Guarantees general store can be found here, next to The Dividing Line". I click [edit] for that section, edit it accordingly, and then save. I am now on the '''Lore:Leyawiin''' page, instead of the Oblivion one. Now, Lore:Leyawiin has Oblivion specific info. A patroller sees this, and reverts it, saying it's not lore specific. Now, the '''Oblivion:Leyawiin''' page doesn't have that info. All of this could have been avoided if a template's sections weren't editable on ''other'' pages. May not be the biggest problem, but it's one nonetheless. -- [[User:Jplatinum16|Jplatinum16]] 00:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

== Vandal ==

:{{Vandal|Mike484}}
We currently appear to have a vandal at work. Would an administrator please block him as soon as possible. Thanks! ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 23:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

:Also, while undoing the vandalism, I accidentally patrolled {{Pl|Morrowind:Starting_out|this edit|diff=581078&oldid=580985}} which makes major changes to a paragraph in a Morrowind article, and I have no ready way to confirm. Can someone double-check it and take appropriate action, please? Thanks! ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 23:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

::(Edit conflict) Yep it's fine (far better than the one it changed) the only thing I need to change is that the ebony dart only appears at higher levels.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 23:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

:::i was going to put one of these please blok him--[[User:GUM!!!|GUM!!!]] 00:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

::::Thanks for the confirmation, TAO. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 01:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::I'm not sure if just adding the template works but I tried to full-protect the warning since he was vandalizing it.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 01:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::Yeah that doesn't work (It'd be darn useful though) by the way thanks for blocking him Nephele.--[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|''Arch-Mage Matt'']][[User talk:Arch-Mage Matt|Talk]] 01:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

== Blockers ==

In regards to [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive_14#New_User_Group|this discussion]] and the [[UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard#Updates to Archived Discussions|update to it]], I'm not sure if any agreement was ever established on what admission requirements would be for the new group. In the absence of a formal policy, I'm just going to ask for that right for myself and let others fend for themselves. :) That brings back up the question of how to do it, keeping in mind that whatever is done for me will probably set a precedent:

#Do I just ask and if one (or maybe all) admins agree, I get the rights?
#Do we want a formal Request for Block Permissions discussion, the same as we would for Patroller or Administrator?
#Do we want to hammer out a formal requirements list?
#Do we want to have a requirements list ''and'' a vote (like Patrollers are now).
#Alternatively, if a requirements list is wanted, but we don't want to wait, we can put the cart before the horse and grant permissions by one of the first two methods, ''then'' put a requirements list in place at a later date.

Also, semi off-topic, when someone has a chance, I think we can remove Krusty from the Blockers group, as he already has those rights as an Administrator anyway. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 03:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

:I've created a stub of a page at [[UESPWiki:Blockuser]] (with a redirect at [[UESPWiki:Blockers]]) and added pertinent info to [[UESPWiki:Blocking Policy]], [[UESPWiki:Administrators]], and [[UESPWiki:User Group Rights]]. I've intentionally tried to avoid describing the process, since we haven't decided.
:My opinions on the matter are that we don't need a formal requirements list or a vote. I ''do'' think, however, that it should be an agreement between at least two admins that an editor is suitable for blockuser rights. It's definitely something we should decide before assigning the rights, though. --'''[[User:GuildKnight|GK]]'''[[User_talk:GuildKnight|talk2me]] 19:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

:: I agree with GK. I recall that the entire reason to get the role assignable by admins was to allow the rights to be given quickly and easily when required. If an admin knows that he or she will be away for some time and that no other admin is likely to be around, it should be allowable to simply give the right to some user who is on IRC or obviously active on wiki. The idea is to ensure that there's always somebody around who can block as required. When the admin returns - or another becomes active, the rights could be removed if there's no need for them any more, or they could be left in place - I don't think it matters too much.
:: We definitely don't want a procedural rigmarole over this because it would eliminate the point of the group. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 14:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

== Policy Discussions ==

The various policy discussions currently on the page have been languishing, as near as I can tell because they're a mess of inter-related proposals and it's difficult to separate them. In the interests of moving forward, I'm about to do my best to call consensus (or lack thereof) on the various discussions. If further action is warranted, I will indicate what I believe the appropriate action to be based on the discussions. Even so, it may be best to wait a day or two in case there are objections to my interpretations of what to do.

As I said, this is a mess, so I won't take it hard if anybody thinks my interpretation of consensus or the actions to be taken are incorrect. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 03:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

:Okay, all done, I think. There were two discussions that I simply archived as old, but '''the second one may need further action''':
:#[[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive_14#Request for Block of Rpeh|'''Request for Block of Rpeh''']] lacked support, nor was it a formal vote. Since it's entirely an Admin decision in any event, I saw no point in providing a consensus to it.
:#[[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive_14#Request to remove warning|'''Request to remove warning''']] was slightly in favour of removing Corevette's warning from [[User_talk:Elliot|Elliot's talk page]] (the other warning and block would remain since they were from an unrelated incident), but there was very little input overall and it was implied that there may have been a behind-the-scenes discussion amongst some of the Admins to let it stand. Other comments in the various related discussions were also mixed as to what should be done, but there was an overall feeling that both parties shared the blame to some degree. Since there is no warning on rpeh's page, I suggest that Corevette's warning also be removed from Elliot's, but clearly, there are divided feelings and I'm not about to take action under these circumstances. I'd recommend the Admins hash it out, but in the absence of action or an agreement at that level, it lacks a clear consensus from the community, so existing policy of leaving the warning would prevail.
:‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 04:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

== Block Needed ==

[[User:ChampionQQ]]

Obviously, Mike needs another blocking and I suspect he's not done. --[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|''Arch-Mage Matt'']][[User talk:Arch-Mage Matt|Talk]] 03:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
:If ChampionQQ needs to be blocked, then how come he hasn't been given a warning? The blocking policy is pretty clear about warning users before blocking them. When I'm checking the site from my iPhone (as I am right now) it is very inconvenient to do extra research into whether this is one of the few exceptions where blocking without warning is appropriate. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 03:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
::But not if he has A.) Vandalized many pages or B.) Doesn't seem to be stopping or C.) Has made personal attacks. --[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|''Arch-Mage Matt'']][[User talk:Arch-Mage Matt|Talk]] 03:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
:::What I'm primarily trying to say is that if you think someone needs to be blocked, the most useful course of action is to warn the user rather than post an unnecessary message here. It would take me 30 minutes or more right now to check your A, B, or C conditions -- but only a minute to see that the user has been warned. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 03:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Since the nature of the edits makes it clear that ChampionQQ is the same person as [[User talk:mike484|mike484]] (who is permanently blocked), isn't the warning stage unnecessary? Furthermore, shouldn't the new account receive the same permanent block as the initial account? [[User:Dlarsh|Dlarsh]]([[User_talk:Dlarsh|T]],[[Special:Contributions/Dlarsh|C]]) 04:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
:{{ec}}That may be my fault, since I set a bad example and took steps out of order yesterday — I asked for a block a couple of minutes before realizing that nobody had yet issued a warning.

:Also, on that note, I've verified that all recent edits have been reverted and patrolled any that were unpatrolled. I also moved the offending file to a new location to make patrolling...I'd say "easier", but it's more like making it "not a nightmare". ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 04:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

== Innappropriate Username? ==

Would [[User_talk:Asseater9000|AssEater9000]] be an unacceptable username? Because someone has signed up with that name. --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|Contribs]] 17:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

:Based on the discussion on policy [[UESPWiki:Archive/CP_Unacceptable_Usernames|here]] that would depend on [[Special:Contributions/Asseater9000|their contributions]]. The user that was pointed out had a username of about the same potential unacceptability but made a valid contribution; since the username wasn't prohibited by law, harassing, spam, or gibberish, there was no reason to block them. I think that that applies here also.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 18:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

::TAO; while those things are all true, with some good references I might add, it is blatant profanity for the sake of being profane. This user has no contributions either, so a block or a forced username change would be in order in my opinion.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 01:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

:::While it's profanity, it's not harassment toward any person or group of people and doesn't make any type of explicit or implicit threat (unlike the username that was recently blocked), so I don't think any action is necessary. --'''[[User:GuildKnight|GK]]'''[[User_talk:GuildKnight|talk2me]] 02:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
::::(Edit Conflict) All true- potentially. But I'd still prefer to ask them to accept a namechange; after all as long as they don't do anything except on their talk page it doesn't hurt anything.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 02:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

== Block Needed 2 ==

[[User:Demons fiery]] needs a block not only has he ignored a warning, made personal attacks he has said that he is the same person as a known vandal.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 23:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
:He has been blocked for a while now.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 23:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
::Braska (Dragon Age:Origins there. Elven swearing.). I didn't realize that. Sorry for putting this up here.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 22:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

== Block Appeal: [[User:Ranger]] / [[User:Scorpio]] ==

[[User:Ranger|Ranger]] had the following to say:
:I believe it is fair enough to keep the block however instead of a month could you shorten the block to one week ([[User:Ranger|Ranger]] 16:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC))
:oh and if possible could you delete scorpio i would like a fresh start on this account thanks ([[User:Ranger|Ranger]] 16:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC))

It should be noted that Ranger is the same user as Scorpio, but the user wishes to continue as User:Ranger instead of User:Scorpio. I've swapped the indefinite block for Ranger with the current month block of Scorpio.

I'm neutral on this one, and I'll leave it others to decide. --[[User:Timenn|Timenn]]-<[[User talk:Timenn|talk]]> 09:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

:from the looks of it seems that they want to restart. so i suport his blok removel. but i would keep a eye on him ;)--[[User:GUM!!!|GUM!!!]] 13:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

::Yeah I would tend to agree here- his contributions to the wiki since the whole thing with Scorpio (at least the ones I've seen) have been mostly apologies. I personally don't see why Ranger was blocked in the first place.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 19:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

:::ranger was bolcked for being a sock puppet--[[User:GUM!!!|GUM!!!]] 19:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

:::: No, Ranger was blocked for using an alternate account to circumvent a block, which is different from sockpuppetry. Given that Ranger's [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User:Ranger&diff=prev&oldid=579948 first edit] admitted a connection with Scorpio, another edit a few minutes later [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Krusty&diff=prev&oldid=580241 also admitted a connection] and a [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Community_Portal&diff=prev&oldid=580509 third] confirms it, there's no concern that this was an attempt to create an alter ego. Ditto [[Special:Contributions/Scorpi0|his other account]]. It looks to me as if the user has had a chance to calm down, as I [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AScorpio&diff=578205&oldid=578204 asked], and I would support an unblock given edits such as [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ranger&diff=prev&oldid=581379], [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ranger&diff=prev&oldid=581383], [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ranger&diff=prev&oldid=583047] and [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ranger&diff=prev&oldid=583251], which seem to indicate a more measured approach to editing. Obviously, any return to the sort of editing that caused the warnings and blocks should immediately warrant at least the full month block that is currently in effect. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 21:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I oppose complete removal of the block, but I do think it should be shortened to about a week, maybe slightly less. But after what he did as [[Special:Contributions/Scorpio|Scorpio]] and what he did as [[Special:Contributions/Scorpi0|Scorpi0]] I think a complete removal of the block is too lenient. --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|Contribs]] 20:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

:From what I've seen, changing the block to one week seems appropriate in this situation. --'''[[User:GuildKnight|GK]]'''[[User_talk:GuildKnight|talk2me]] 18:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

::I think we can abort this appeal. Seeing the actions of [[Special:Contributions/Popopopo|Popopopo]] yesterday, an identified alternate account of Ranger, made it clear this user hasn't given up yet on harassing other editors, and vandalizing the site. --[[User:Timenn|Timenn]]-<[[User talk:Timenn|talk]]> 16:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

::: I'm afraid you're right. So much for giving him the benefit of the doubt. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 17:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

== Block Request - [[User:Elliot]] ==

First of all, I ''am'' aware that this is quite late but bear in mind I was very busy with exams and was therefore unable to post anything till now. I am asking to once again block Elliot, and this time for a month. Below is an email I received on June 18th from Elliot's uesp email, I'm guessing in response to [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard&diff=580278&oldid=580232 this] comment.

:"''Do not involve yourself in matters that concern me you little prick.''

:--
:''This e-mail was sent by Elliot to SerCenKing by the "E-mail user" function at UESPWiki.''"

This is a clear violation of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment WP:HARASS], but not only that: Elliot had been [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elliot&diff=577166&oldid=577146 blocked] [http://uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Michaeldsuarez&curid=45995&diff=577160&oldid=569531&rcid=597526 for exactly this kind of behaviour]. It appears as if he has yet again '''not''' learnt a lesson from his week long block and I therefore ask for a month-long block in the hope that it will help him understand that this behaviour is unacceptable here at UESP. --[[User:SerCenKing|SerCenKing]] [[User talk:SerCenKing|Talk]] 18:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
:It might not be my place, but I support disciplinary action against Elliot. I'm sorry you were harassed like that SerCenKing [[User:Corvus|Corvus]] 18:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
::His block has expired and he has not returned to the site afterward. Some of you may know I was subject to the same thing earlier, but even so, I am going to remain neutral because he has shown no interest in returning.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 18:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
:::Core, yes he has. See [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard&action=history here]. The email was sent ''after'' his block had expired. --[[User:SerCenKing|SerCenKing]] [[User talk:SerCenKing|Talk]] 18:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
::::Done. Ideally, I would have preferred to only block Elliot from using the wiki's email features, given that the immediate cause of the block is solely related to email. However, after looking at the wiki code it doesn't seem possible to do an email block without also blocking the user. Furthermore, I didn't think it was worth wasting my time on finding/creating a way to do an email-only block. In particular, there is no evidence that Elliot plans to make constructive wiki contributions (and in fact he has made statements specifically saying the opposite). --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 19:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::Thanks Neph :) --[[User:SerCenKing|SerCenKing]] [[User talk:SerCenKing|Talk]] 22:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
::::::I'm not sure if Krusty got my e-mail about this same issue, but since posting the text above isn't a violation of the privacy policy, I received this e-mail from Elliot on June 17:

Are you a fucking baby?

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! He told me to stay off of his page! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH Nephele do something! I am too stupid and incompetent to even comprehend rules! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH He hurt my feelings!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH.

Grow up you fucking idiot. A retaliatory move like this shows your incompetence on a new level. Just leave the site. You are too retarded to contribute positively to it.

Leave before you make a further ass out of yourself you worthless pile.

--
This e-mail was sent by Elliot to TheAlbinoOrc by the "E-mail user" function at UESPWiki.

I'd like to request that if there is any further continuation of this behavior Elliot be blocked permanently. This was presumably received in response to my change of vote and my comment on Nephele's talk page (which I would have clarified and expanded upon but I didn't feel like dealing with it at the time).--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']]
[[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 23:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
:In light of the recent email sent to TheAlbinoOrc I suggest that we extend Elliot's block to something like 6 months, maybe even block him indefinitely. It's behaviour like this that led him to his patroller status being stripped from him and another sad thing is that he appears to be continuing his childish behaviour even after Nephele blocked him not that long ago. So yeah, I suggest we extend Elliot's block by a considerable amount. --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|Contribs]] 16:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about being late in to the discussion, but [http://www.uesp.net/wiki/User_talk:Michaeldsuarez#Abusive_E-mail_by_Elliot I brought this issue up in May, but GK prevented me from taking action]. Elliot is clearly unable to handle the responsibility of the wiki's Email function. --'''[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Michaeldsuarez|Deeds]])''' 15:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

:Yeah I saw that whole thing unfold, sorry your thing was invalidated because of the privacy policy. At least now what people should do is clear though: Try to contact the Admins and then if they don't respond (or they tell you to bring it up on-wiki) do what was done here.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 19:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

::I don't know if this is grounds for an extension of the block. But Elliot, has just dismissed me as well as several other editors when he has been warned about doing that already. So if it okay with the wiki admins, I am requesting his block to be extended by another month. --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|Contribs]] 10:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

:::Elliot has the right to remove content from his talk page if he wants to, although saying "Go away" in the edit summary is definitely not helpful. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 13:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

::::Yeah it was the "go away" that I was referring to with my comment. --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|Contribs]] 14:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Question: Has Elliot attempted any kind of apology for this kind of behaviour, and entered some form of undertaking that he will not engage in such behaviour in future? [[User:Jadrax|Jadrax]] 19:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

:If you've looked at his {{Pl|User talk:Elliot|talk page|oldid=586076}} recently, you'll see that I encouraged him in that direction, but he ignored it. If he ''has'' done something along these lines, he hasn't done so publicly. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 21:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

::In that case, as the purpose of a block is to prevent abusive behaviour, it would only seem logical to extend the block in cases were the subject shows no understanding of why their behaviour is unacceptable. I would suggest extending the block until at the very least an apology is received. [[User:Jadrax|Jadrax]] 21:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

:::I can see your point- but I know that if I had done nothing further wrong after being blocked, and received an extension of the block simply because I hadn't apologized I'd be ready to tear someone's head off (not literally of course). Besides repeated warnings/blocks have had no effect. Why should an apology?--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 06:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

== Possible Block Needed ==

I think the new user [[User:Cpl.CumInAHam]] falls under the inappropriate username category. --[[Special:Contributions/78.144.134.29|78.144.134.29]] 15:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
:By the way that was me who posted that, I forgot to log in. --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|Contribs]] 15:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Popopopo

2010-07-10T14:45:52Z

ModderElGrande:

== Warning ==

{| style="border: 1px solid #AA9999; background-color: #FFCCCC; width: 80%; margin: 0 auto 1em auto; padding: .2em;"
| width="69" | [[Image:Stop_hand.png]]
| Please do not add nonsense and obscenities to UESPWiki, as it is considered to be '''[[UESPWiki:Vandalism|vandalism]]'''. If you continue to abuse your editing privileges, this IP address will be '''[[UESPWiki:Blocking Policy|blocked]]''' from editing. Please consider improving the work of others, not harming it. —[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 13:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
|}

== Blocked ==

{| style="margin:0 5%; padding:.5em; background:#FFFFEE; border: 1px solid #CCCCAA; background-color: #FFFFEA; text-align:left"
|
[[File:Stop_x.png]]
|
This IP address has been '''[[UESPWiki:Blocking Policy|blocked]]''' from editing UESPWiki for repeatedly [[UESPWiki:Vandalism|vandalizing]] the site, despite being warned to stop. If you wish to [[UESPWiki:Blocking Policy#Appealing Blocks|appeal the block]], you may make your request on your talk page, which you can still edit even while being blocked. —[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 13:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
|}
On top of being a vandal, the wiki admins have confirmed that this is an alt account of [[User:Scorpio]]. --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|Contribs]] 14:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard

2010-07-10T14:40:19Z

ModderElGrande: /* Block Request - User:Elliot */

UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard

2010-07-10T14:39:37Z

ModderElGrande: /* Block Request - User:Elliot */

[[Category:Message Boards|{{PAGENAME}}]]
The '''administrator noticeboard''' is where we discuss and coordinate administrative tasks on the wiki. Although this page is intended for [[UESPWiki:Administrators|administrators]], all users are encouraged to participate in discussions. __NEWSECTIONLINK__
{{Archive Table|class=compress|title=Major Discussions
|UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Vandalism|Vandalism|Mostly spam, actually.
|!|Page Archives|
|Archive 1||February 2005 – June 2006
|Archive 2||June 2006 – August 2006
|Archive 3||September 2006 – June 2007
|Archive 4||June 2007 – July 2007
|Archive 5||August 2007 – October 2007
|Archive 6||October 2007 – November 2007
|Archive 7||December 2007 – January 2008
|Archive 8||January 2008 – February 2008
|Archive 9||February 2008 – August 2008
|Archive 10||September 2008 – October 2008
|Archive 11||November 2008 – December 2008
|Archive 12||December 2008 – March 2009
|Archive 13||April 2009 – December 2009
|Archive 14||January 2010 – May 2010
|!|Past Administrative Requests|
|User:Aristeo/RfA|Aristeo's Request for Adminstrator|''Approved Jun. 19, 2006''
|User:Nephele/RfA|Nephele's Request for Adminstrator|''Approved Aug. 13, 2006''
|User:Aristeo/RfB|Aristeo's Request for Bureaucrat|''Withdrawn by Aristeo Nov. 19, 2006''
|User:Ratwar/RfA|Ratwar's Request for Adminstrator|''Approved Jan. 31, 2007''
|User:TheRealLurlock/RfA|TheRealLurlock's Request for Adminstrator|''Approved Feb. 23, 2007''
|User:Rpeh/RfA|Rpeh's Request for Adminstrator|''Approved Oct. 1, 2007''
|UESPWiki:Archive/AN Request for Server Access|Nephele's Request for Server Access|''Approved Jan. 4, 2008''
|User:Eshe/RfA|Eshe's Request for Adminstrator|''Approved Mar. 31, 2008''
|User:GuildKnight/RfA|GuildKnight's Request for Adminstrator|''Approved Nov. 11, 2008''
|User:Timenn/RfA|Timenn's Request for Adminstrator|''Approved Aug. 7, 2009''
|User:Krusty/RfA|Krusty's Request for Adminstrator|''Approved May 3, 2010''
}}

== Semi Unprotected ==

I just noticed in my Watchlist that {{tl|Archive Header}} was recently vandalized by an IP address. It's supposed to be semi-protected based on the {{tl|Protection}} template in it. Can someone please check that? Thanks! ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 15:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

: Looks like the protection was temporary - it ran out on 6 Feb. In any case, it should use {{tl|TemProtect}} rather than {{tl|Protection}}. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 16:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

:: Just a reminder, this still needs to be fixed. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 15:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

== Ban For 98.126.56.178 ==

He/She has made multiple personal attacks on [[User:Nephele|Nephele]].
:And me and Timenn. Timenn just logged off so It'll be a while, we can make it for now.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 00:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

:agreed i agree!--[[User:GUM!!!|GUM!!!]] 00:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

::Done --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 02:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

== Virus found on site ==
{{dm|GuildKnight|Virus found on site|User talk|1}}

On Tuesday the 1 June 2010, my AVG encountered a virus on the following page:
http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Skyrim

AVG labeled it as "Exploit Neosploit Toolkit (Type 1109)"

I just wanted you to know ASAP! and I have no idea wehat to do or what this means.
Love your work
eid_broughton@yahoo.com
:GK will be gone for a while and that seems unlikely, are you sure it was from that page?--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 01:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

::According to a [http://www.bassresource.com/bass_fishing_forums/YaBB.pl?num=1275167508/6#6 forum] where a user had a similar experience:
:::''It means YOUR computer is infected with a virus (malware specifically). You'll get this error message regardless of what site you're on. It seems to only affect Firefox users.''
::Which definitely sounds more likely than UESP being the source of the virus. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 02:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

== Updates to Archived Discussions ==

To let everyone know, some quick feedback on assorted updates I've implemented based on old discussions:

* [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive_14#Database Corruption|Database Corruption]]
** I started the refreshLinks maintenance program running last night... it's made it about 80% of the way so far. It's fixing all of the issues with bad category links, etc. But I've also been struggling with an obscure code bug that's been adding a lot of bizarre entries to wanted categories and wanted pages -- things like Special-NPCs as a wanted category. Since it only happens when pages are processed by the job queue, it's really annoying to track down; I keep thinking that I've taken care of it, and then more start appearing. So I'll be continuing to try to deal with that situation. If there's still strange stuff in places like wanted categories by the end of the week, let me know; in the meantime, assume that I'm working on it.
* [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive_14#New User Group|New User Group]]
** Implemented. Blocker group has ability to block for up to four hours, and admins have the ability to add/remove from the group. I took the code Nx wrote and simply added it into UespCustomCode since that made the majority of the code unnecessary -- I'm assuming Nx doesn't mind, but if there is an issue, I can change the implementation.
* [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive_14#Skipcatcha_please|Skipcatcha please]]
** I did ''not'' follow through on this, pending the possible Userspace Patrollers group. That group has been given skipcatcha authority, and it's possible that membership in that group will be fairly widely available, in which case adding it to all confirmed users is probably unnecessary.

However, this probably is the end of my wikicode editing spree, short of dealing with new bugs that I may have introduced in the process.

<s>P.S. The one caveat with everything I've been doing so far is that it's only active on content1/2. I can't make any changes on content3 yet. If I don't hear from Daveh in the next few days, I might look into figuring out how to tell the squid server to not use content3. That would allow us to start making changes that rely on the new code. Then once I hear from Daveh, content3 would be updated and put back into the system.</s> --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 18:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

:I'm tentatively (cross my fingers) concluding that the bug creating all the wanted categories/pages has been fixed. It's been five hours since a buggy entry was created, and I've been throwing everything I can at the bug during that time. Nevertheless, it's still going to probably take a day for the wanted lists to get cleaned out. I'm also running a script that will make sure, eventually, to refresh any pages that have been processed strangely at any point in the last couple days. Again, it'll be about a day before it's done so in the meantime reports like [[#Quest_links_not_displaying_correctly|the following]] might continue to trickle in.
:One other point: some of you may have noticed the site not responding a few minutes ago (specifically content2 not responding). That was my fault, triggered by another bit of database updating I was taking care of. Basically I needed to monopolize the database for a couple of minutes for some reorganization, the upside of which is that now every time someone does a full-text search that search won't monopolize the database for a couple of seconds. In other words, 120 seconds of work now to fix a constant stream of little 2 second jobs. That should clear out one of the most common reasons why the database can be slow to respond to a request.
:Other than the above-mentioned cleanup scripts that will still be running for a while, that should be the last of my server disruptions for now. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 22:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

::So was that why for about 15-20 minutes everything kept timing out ?--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 22:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

:::TheAlbinoOrc: Yes. One of the servers became completely overloaded, to the point where I couldn't even force it to restart.
:::One hopefully final update: all changes have now been made live on all servers, and all the update scripts have finished running. So no more restrictions on making use of the new features. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 19:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

== Quest links not displaying correctly ==

Why aren't the links to the quests always being displayed correctly? When I bring up the Skingrad page, I get several lines like the following instead of quests and links.

[[{{{questpage}}}|{{{altname}}}]]: {{{description}}}

Skingrad isn't the only page like this. {{unsigned|99.175.93.246|2 June 2010}}

: There are various updates taking place at the moment (see the previous section on this page). [[Oblivion:Skingrad]] looks fine to me, which probably means you have a caching issue. I just purged that page: try again now. Otherwise, you'll just have to wait a little while. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 19:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I just checked [[OB:Skingrad]] also, it looked fine... except that the people were too far down in their section.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 20:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:Just a thought, I was getting lots of things like this with IE8. Whats your browser?.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 20:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Firefox.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 20:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:I meant the anon, but it looks fine for me on that page.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 21:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

== Proposed Policy: Abuse of Anonymous Editing ==

We've clearly had a problem, for far too long now, with editors abusing the wiki's open editing system so they can be disruptive and generally waste the community's time. [[#Second Opinion Please|Second Opinion Please]] is the latest example; the [[UESPWiki_talk:Administrator_Noticeboard#Time to Vote|talk page]] shows it's not a new problem. Therefore, I propose adding the following section to the [[UESPWiki:Vandalism|Vandalism]] policy, under [[UESPWiki:Vandalism#Types of Vandalism]]:
:'''Abuse of Anonymous Editing'''
:Deliberately hiding or falsifying your identity in order to make unwanted, controversial, or inappropriate comments is not tolerated. Regular UESP contributors are expected to contribute using their own account whenever participating in any community discussions. Therefore, an edit can be treated as vandalism if a site editor judges that it meets all three of the following criteria:
:* The edit is made by an anonymous IP or newly created account (one with no significant contribution history).
:* There is reason to believe that the person making the edit is familiar with UESP (e.g., person refers to community members or site policy).
:* The edit has no constructive value and/or is likely to be disruptive.

This would imply that such edits could be reverted on sight, and the anon could also be warned and blocked, if necessary. The wording is deliberately somewhat fuzzy: the targeted editors are already trying to exploit site policy, so they will inevitably try to take advantage of any loophole. As for including it on the vandalism page, as far as I'm concerned, these types of edits do far more damage to the site and its community than someone replacing a page with obscenities, so let's start dealing with them accordingly.

All ''community members'' are welcome to provide feedback; it helps if you can start your comment with '''Support''', '''Oppose''' (or '''Comment''', etc.) as appropriate.

{{Showhide|Votes|content=
* '''Support''' as proposer. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 05:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Strong Oppose''' Firstly, this would directly contradict the [[UESPWiki:Etiquette|Etiquette]] policy (esp. 7th point in the General section). Secondly, point 2 of the new policy involves excessive supposition on the part of editors. Thirdly, so does point 3 - "constructive" is in the eye of the beholder to a large extent. Fourthly, I agree that "hiding or falsifying your identity" is wrong, but the remedies suggested here use a far too-broad brush and will catch plenty of other people. Fifthly, I have said before, and still believe, that established, named editors have caused far more trouble in the past than all the anons put together. Finally, I managed to track down the relevant quote that I'm sure you've all heard without source. It's from William Blackstone, in ''Commentaries on the Laws of England'' (1769): ''"the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer."'' Similarly, it is better that we have to put up with the trouble caused by one rogue IP user than place unnecessary sanctions on all of them. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 05:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Support''' Though, we could just punish all people who make edits that have no constructive value and/or is likely to be disruptive. As for Rpeh's points: Laws may paint a large area and hit unwanted people, however people on the wiki should have enough judgment to know when to punish and when not to punish. As such, as long as I think that at least half the admins on the wiki have a lick of sense, this rule shouldn't hit anyone that it isn't supposed to hit. --[[User:Timmeh|Tim]] [[User_Talk:Timmeh|Talk]] 06:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Although not an admin, just wanted to say that this is a great idea :P [[User:Mikeyboy52|Mikeyboy52]] 06:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Support''' - We've had far too many troll-like edits made by Tor users and the like who are obviously just trying to conceal their identity and disrupt the site. We already revert non-constructive edits to old discussions, regardless of who they're by, and I think it's a step in the right direction to revert blatantly disruptive edits, particularly when there's reason to believe that it's an abuse situation. Productive or well-meaning users would still be entitled to all the same rights as everyone else, but those who are here solely to disrupt will no longer have a place here. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 06:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per nomination. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 09:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' Now, I like the proposition, and I would really like reality to be like this; unfortunately, it is not, and my motivation for opposing comes from the fact that we have numerous “established” members, who, and I’m sorry to say this, is really not capable of judging these things. I have seen numerous examples where anon users accidentally blanked a page and received vandalism warnings almost immediately, even if the edit was clearly an accident. I will not mention any names, nor will I give any examples but I fear that these new rules will hit several people who do not deserve it and make the Wiki a warning zone where we, as patrollers, will have to change warnings into “welcome and advice” all the time – wasting even more time than we do now. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 10:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*:Well, that is applicable to nearly every situation. You shouldn't avoid something because of ignorance; you should try to change that ignorance and push forward an intelligent community. The best way would be to lead by example. Inform users when they are doing something incorrectly. Some people need direct instructions; however, that shouldn't be reason enough to stop something. At a minimum, it would be best to at least try it out. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 11:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*::I'm not sure this is the best approach myself, but would you be more comfortable if we limited reverting questionable IP contributions to patrollers and admins? ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 15:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*:::Problem is, that is exactly what we have been doing all along. While patrollers can’s block people, they tend to be very quick to alert an admin if they notice a proxy or TOR-user making unconstructive edits to the site. This proposal will allow each and every registered member on the entire Wiki to hand out quick warnings in anger or nervousness, something that way too many editors suffer from. For the time being, I think we’re doing fine. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 09:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' I find point 2 too vague in my opinion. How can we know if an anon is familiar with UESP? They could just as easily referred to Wikipedia or another Wiki. I don't see why knowledge of UESPWiki's policies points directly to a vandal. It's the edit itself that matters, not one's supposed knowledge of policies or one's status (status as in: anon, newly-created account, established editor etc.) I think these points are unfavourable to anon editors while not giving anything in return. [[User_Talk:Wolok gro-Barok|Talk]] [[User:Wolok gro-Barok|Wolok gro-Barok]] [[Special:Contributions/Wolok gro-Barok|Contributions]] 12:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' I would tend to be Opposed to the second guideline as I fit it at one time since I'd been using the Wiki for several years without creating an account and then for several months as Mhira (until I forgot my password and created this account) therefore I had no significant contribution history but knew some of the Wiki's policy and knew of some of the community members.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 14:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*:''Responding to the above two points on the second requirement:'' That one also concerned me a bit. Would removing that point altogether be a better choice, do you think? ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 15:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

*::I think that would work. I also think that there should be at least two people that agree on removing the edit.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 15:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - Seems like it would be difficult to determine if an anon is "familiar with UESP", and I'm sure there would be arguments about an anon's identity if someone makes that assumption. The 3rd point seems obvious, but how do we differentiate personal oppinions and comments from outright disruptive vandalism? And also, it's important that the policy doesn't suggest that anons can't contribute to community discussions, or that they arent part of the "community" -- [[User:Jplatinum16|Jplatinum16]] 18:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' - I don't know if I agree with the sentiment behind this proposal. There have been and will continue to be situations where an editor's opinions may be taken a different way if the editor's identity is unknown, and my first thoughts are that each editor should have the right to anonymously express thoughts if he or she wishes. --'''[[User:GuildKnight|GK]]'''[[User_talk:GuildKnight|talk2me]] 21:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' - In one sense using an IP to edit and a user account is kind of like sock-puppetry. But in another sense, IP is the only way to remain anon, should we so choose at the time. [[User:Mikeyboy52|Mikeyboy52]] 16:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Support''' i like the idea but lets say someone forgets to login so mabye it would omly be considerd light vandalisem--[[User:GUM!!!|GUM!!!]] 17:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Oppose:''' Too vague and it allows Patrollers, sysops, and other editors to disregard Assume Good Faith. --'''[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Michaeldsuarez|Deeds]])''' 01:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Partial Support:''' I would like to see this limited to open proxies and any other deliberate attempt to conceal an identity. I think this will suffice, as so far practically all condescending arguments made that I have seen came from such an IP address. Adding the clause that edits from anonymous sources (open proxies and such) can always be reverted by another is a clause that would solve the most problems. People can try to make controversial statements if they want, but they shouldn't make one from a deliberately concealed IP. --[[User:Timenn|Timenn]]-<[[User talk:Timenn|talk]]> 08:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' per Krusty [[User:Arny|Arny]] 09:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
}}
{{Consensus|None|message=Votes were roughly equal. In the absence of consensus, existing policy stands. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 03:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)}}

== Proposed Policy: Prohibiting Interactions ==
{{Notice|Please note that the proposed policy has now been enacted. It can be found at [[UESPWiki:Interaction Ban]].|width=90%}}
I'd like to propose officially prohibiting [[User:Elliot|Elliot]] and [[User:rpeh|rpeh]] from interacting with each other, in any way, on the wiki. Both have been told as much, unofficially, many times. Given that past requests have failed to resolve the situation, a new approach is clearly needed. There is wikipedia precedent for the proposed restrictions, for example [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley#Motions this motion] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Abtract-Collectonian#Feuds_and_quarrels this finding] from their arbitration committee.

A secondary proposal, if the community first agrees with the interaction prohibition, is to remove all current warnings from rpeh and Elliot's talk pages that are related to past incidents between them (or sanction any past edits that have already removed such warnings, as appropriate). The removal would not be intended as any type of statement about the correctness of the original warning. Rather, it is to help both editors feel that they are being treated equally under the new policy. Furthermore, it allows existing discussions such as [[#Request_to_remove_warning|Request to remove warning]] to be closed; otherwise, this new policy will effectively bar the complainant from making any further contribution in his appeal process.

===Restriction Enforcement===
Under this proposal, the next time either Elliot or rpeh violates the restriction prohibiting any interaction, the violator gets an official warning. After the warning, any further violations by the same editor will result in the editor being blocked for a week. The editor will continue to be blocked for a week at a time, as many times as necessary.

As long as the other editor does not respond or do anything to violate the restriction, the other editor will receive no warning and won't be blocked -- this policy will result in no black marks on your record if you comply with the policy.

The primary purpose of the block is to enforce a time-out/cool-down period, and thus prevent the typical rapidly escalating back-and-forth edits. The warning/block is also critical to make it clear to the other editor that he does not need to take any action in response to the violation. Therefore, it's important that we (the administrators) intercede whenever there is a clear violation, even if it's relatively minor (especially given the hope that this policy will reduce the fallout produced by a violation). Furthermore, if other community members notice a violation that has not been addressed by an admin, they should report it here (a simple link to the questionable edit is sufficient; any type of additional explanation is likely to cause extra problems).

Personally, I don't think a pre-warning or advance notification of the new policy is necessary for either editor, given that it's clear that both editors monitor the Administrator Noticeboard. But it others feel differently, someone could post an unofficial notice on each editor's talk page as soon as this policy is considered official.

===Restriction Details===
Prohibited actions under the proposed restrictions would include:
* Making comments about the other editor, indirectly or directly, on articles, on discussion pages, or in edit summaries. Substitutes for names (e.g., "you know who") would count as making an indirect comment.
* Making any edit to the other editor's user page, user talk page, or user subpages.
* Undoing any edit made by the other editor.
* If these rules are violated to the point where one editor gets warned or blocked, then the other editor is also prohibited from making any references to that warning/block. Any type of comment seems likely to be interpreted as gloating or otherwise exacerbate future arguments. I want to stop this cycle, not create new ways to perpetuate it.

Furthermore:
* Elliot and rpeh must do everything possible to avoid derailing other community discussions with their conflicts. So if, for example, rpeh has already contributed to a discussion, Elliot needs to (a) think carefully about whether any contribution is appropriate (e.g., is the information new and important to the discussion) (b) wait long enough (e.g., 24 hours or more) before responding so that it's clear to everyone the comments are not being made hastily or emotionally (c) make absolutely sure that the comments are on topic and do not violate any of the above prohibitions. The same recommendations apply to rpeh if Elliot has already contributed to a discussion.
* Elliot and rpeh can edit an article previously edited by the other editor, but only if at least 24 hours has passed -- and even then, cannot simply undo the other's edit(s). This condition is to ensure that the restrictions don't effectively make every article on the site off-limits for editing, given both editors' extensive contribution history.

Finally, for this to have a realistic chance of working, I think some form of [[#Proposed Policy: Abuse of Anonymous Editing|the above proposal]] to prevent disruptive edits by anonymous editors needs to be in place. We need to be able to remove and prevent any external provocations that could possibly be interpreted as either editor trying to circumvent the restriction.

=== Discussion of Proposal ===
Before wrapping up, I'd like to suggest if rpeh or Elliot wish to respond to this discussion, that they limit themselves to constructive comments that are strictly on the topic of this proposal. I doubt it's necessary to discuss or even make any further reference to the events that have led up to this point. Regardless of who was right or wrong in the past, I believe the community primarily wants to prevent future incidents -- or, if that's not possible, allow clear action to be taken against the person truly responsible.

Again, all ''community members'' are welcome to provide feedback; it helps if you can start your comment with '''Support''', '''Oppose''' (or '''Comment''', etc.) as appropriate.

{{Showhide|Votes|content=
* '''Support''' as proposer. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 05:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' I'm not prepared to put up with this kind of restriction on my editing. I edit widely and this proposal means Elliot can stop me editing anything in which I have an interest by editing it himself. Quite simply, it's about time Elliot got the block he so richly deserves. He has a history of grossly-insulting comments both on- and off-wiki. To me, has has made comments such as "I'm sorry your mother is such a fucking failure" (I apologise for the language, but it's necessary to highlight what an obnoxious person Elliot is). To Corevette, he made threats like "Until then, I will follow you. Not like a cat following you. like a wasp". To Michaeldsuarez, we have "MDS, go back to your shitty ED and go fuck one of those dumbasses over there."
:: Any or all of these comments are grounds for a block yet no such action has been taken. With no Elliot threatening and abusing other editors, the problem goes away. He has been repeatedly blocked at Wikipedia for the same kind of behavior he has shown here (edit warring and insulting other users) and UESP is simply lagging behind the times.
:: Furthermore, the topic that seems to have spawned this proposal has been quiescent for a week. This entire discussion is therefore moot. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 06:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
:::''I'd like to suggest if rpeh or Elliot wish to respond to this discussion, that they limit themselves to constructive comments that are strictly on the topic of this proposal.'' Way to miss a point... And what you state is hearsay in terms of logs, which is why it is a policy to prohibit such posts. As well, e-mails have no grounds for punishment, especially since there is no way to validate them, barring someone else logging into your email account. And we shouldn't forget you part in that email skirmish, rpeh. Plus, it was quite some time ago. I've moved on. You should as well. However, it is funny that you consider yourself immune from criticism when it comes to personal attacks. This page itself is a shrine to those attacks you have made. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 09:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

::::It was a "suggestion". I chose not to follow it for the reason that Nephele has been away and probably doesn't know the kind of vitriol to which several editors have been subjected during that time.
::::But let's get down to cases here. During, and after, the last discussion, one of the two editors was doing research and adding information to Lore articles to back them up with facts and add new details that create a big improvement. The same editor has spent time checking edits, tweaking, adding and removing where necessary to make sure the site is as accurate as possible. The same editor has spent time answering the questions of a large number of people experiencing difficulty with the game and asking for help. The other editor has done ''nothing'' until another piece of controversy started.
::::Timenn has asked me not to use the "T" word so I won't, but I don't know what other word is suitable for somebody whose only contributions take place in moments of controversy.
::::The reason I object so strenuously to this proposal is that it gives the same sanction to both editors. One has always been, and continues to be, a huge help to this site. The other... isn't. Treating both editors the same is a gross, unforgivable injustice.
::::Lastly, the emails, IRC logs and other communications are admissible under [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:HARASS WP:HARASS], which states ''"off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking"''. Indeed it can.
::::I am not going to be taking any further part in this debate. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 10:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::And yet you fail to quote [[wikipedia:WP:NPA|WP:NPA]]. It doesn't matter who has done what. I have had some pretty big issues come up lately, and I have decided to cut my activity down to a bare minimum (including other reasons on the wiki). Also, my choice of participation is not under your jurisdiction of appropriate judgment. Furthermore, it truly isn't harassment when the other person (claiming harassment) returns comments with equal vigor. Lastly, you oppose the equal sanction because you believe you have done no wrong in this entire situation, which is gross in and of itself. The rules apply to everyone. Even you. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 11:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::If you do not have time to edit the site then how is it you have time to monitor and contribute to debates such as this and the other two that are currently active? It seems you are being economical with the truth, Elliot. [[Special:Contributions/80.239.242.95|80.239.242.95]] 05:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::::I can make time (about 10 minutes or so in a day) to respond to far reaching proposals, especially one about me. I don't have time to plan and constantly work on a wiki. Is that okay with you? '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 17:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

* '''Oppose''' This isn't really a solution though. This situation can and will happen again with other users. I suggest we find a more permanent policy for ongoing conflicts between users. --[[User:Timmeh|Tim]] [[User_Talk:Timmeh|Talk]] 07:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*: '''Furthermore''' Taping their mouths shut doesn't solve the problem. They still hate each other. If Elliot is truly a troll, then he'll just find another target. If Rpeh is truly... a major ass?... then he'll just find someone else to be a major ass to. I've actually got something in mind for a counter-solution and I'll put it up in a little bit (I've got more to read, apparently). --[[User:Timmeh|Tim]] [[User_Talk:Timmeh|Talk]] 16:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Support''' God am I gonna get flak for this. I say support, until they stop going nuts over each other. I do agree that a more permanent solution is needed, but... unless said soluton appears in the next few days, support. Sorry, rpeh. No appologies to Elliot, though. <3 •[[User:Atreus|A]][[User_Talk:Atreus|t]][[Special:Contributions/Atreus|r]][[Special:Emailuser/Atreus|e]][[User:Peregrine|u]][http://atreus.necrolounge.org/ s]• 07:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''<s>Support</s> Oppose''' This is the first time the field as actually been even, so I will support this. I am willing to follow the restrictions if rpeh is as well. And: ''Elliot can stop me editing anything in which I have an interest by editing it himself''; rpeh, this is a rather poor argument. I cannot read your mind to see what you will edit, and I have no intention of weaseling my way into such a position. And Timmeh, if you wish for something more solid, then precedence is the best way to go about that. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 09:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC) I have changed my vote after careful consideration of the circumstances. Nephele's (and other's) lack of knowledge of the situation is most troubling. She can see what has been said, but there are things only rpeh and I know. This will do nothing to stop it. If anything, ''it will cause more tension''. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 17:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' I’ll have to agree with Timmeh on this one. If any action should be taken, it is changing policy to include ongoing disputes between members. While I really like the stance Elliot shows on this matter, it is more than likely that it will happen between other members in the future. I think this proposal is a bit too “personal” for its own good and should be made more general. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 10:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*:This isn't a proposal of policy, per se. It is more of an arbitration represented and enforced by the community. You oppose for a merely semantic reason. I ask you to see it as arbitration and not policy and reconsider your vote. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 11:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*:: I know it is not a proposal of policy. I suggest it changes into that. Oppose it is. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 11:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*:::It's not something that can be a policy since the enforcement would be made on a case by case basis. The policy would be so vague that it would not even be effective. All it would be is a center for resolving such conflicts; AN is enough to fill that role. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 11:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*::::I'd have to agree; the policy would end up being something like "If a dispute between two editors becomes disruptive to the Wiki as a whole, it is possible to block interaction between them" which is what is implied by precedent here.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 14:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Per comment above.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 14:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Clearly, there needs to be something done, as it seems like at least once every week or two, I open up my RC or Watchlist and sigh when I see it filled with edits between Elliot and rpeh, both antagonizing the other, whether they're doing it deliberately or not. To address some points above:
**I don't think either rpeh or Elliot should feel significantly limited by the actions the other one might take in terms of editing. At the risk of sounding arrogant, I think I speak for everyone that if we saw tendentious behaviour directed towards disrupting the other one's contributions simply by contributing to a wide array of articles all of a sudden, it would be seen for what it is and appropriate sanctions would be taken. Elliot has already said he wouldn't do that, and I think at least at this point, it would be pretty obvious if he did (I don't mean that to be insulting in any way, just an observation that most of Elliot's recent contributions have been to the A/N so a change in pattern would stand out). It might be a bit harder to judge if rpeh were doing that, but if it became a major concern for Elliot, that could be discussed. If necessary, we could always re-word that to say something to the effect of "editing at cross-purposes" rather than having a strict time limit.
**While I agree that many of the things that have been said offsite could qualify under harassment policies, this arbitration is geared strictly towards the onsite interactions.
**I also agree that rpeh has been far more productive than Elliot in the past few months, but to be fair, Elliot has made a few productive edits such as the {{tl|od}} template and being bold with fixing the superscript in the {{tl|unsigned}} template. (He may have made others as well, but much of my recent work has been with templates.) Notwithstanding that, however, Wikipedia has a policy on bans that I think could reasonably be extended to an interaction ban, namely [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:BAN#Bans_apply_to_all_editing.2C_good_or_bad|this one]]. This is not to say that I believe that this is what rpeh is doing, however I think the policy must nevertheless apply.
**I agree that the specifics of this case should be seen an arbitration and not policy, however I also think that this could be turned into a more generic policy for how to handle users who clearly have repeated difficulties interacting civilly (perhaps with as little tweaking as replacing the user names by User A and User B). ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 15:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
:::Elliot steals from Wikipedia and posts on UESP, and even [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Template:Outdent&oldid=568415 admits it]. How does copying the work of other people compare to what Rpeh has been doing? And yeah he is a friend of mine but I don't care. Elliot is a troll and Rpeh is a useful user. To punish Rpeh because of Elliot's trolling is totally unfair. [[Special:Contributions/80.239.242.95|80.239.242.95]] 02:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::::"Friend"? Lol. And in case you missed it, a bunch of things on this wiki and plenty of others use WP as a backbone. And it really isn't stealing if I give them credit, now is it? (Also, everything is licensed under CC, so that is another hole in your theory.) Oh, and thanks for the personal attack. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 17:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::No, wiki sites use MediaWiki as a backbone, not Wikipedia. Taking material from Wikipedia and causing strife is ''all'' you do, and that was my point. I tried to find a contribution of yours that wasn't part of an argument, something taken from Wikipedia or a removal of other editors' work but gave up after the third page. I say again... compare that to rpeh and learn from the difference. [[Special:Contributions/80.239.242.95|80.239.242.95]] 19:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::You sure do know a lot for being a ''"friend of rpeh's"''. I have no intentions or need to answer to an IP. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 02:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Oppose:''' I agree with [[User:Timmeh|Timmeh]]: Censorship will only cover up the problem; it won't resolve the issue. --'''[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Michaeldsuarez|Deeds]])''' 01:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*:It ''won't'' be truly resolved. Ever. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 05:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Strong Oppose:''' I think you should just let them do anything they want as long as it is just between the two of them. And as Michaeldsuarez says abouve censorship wont do anything [[User:Arny|Arny]] 09:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
}}
{{Consensus|Oppose|message=There was, however, general support for a permanent change in policy rather than a one-time interaction ban. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 03:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)}}

=== Timmeh's Alternative Proposal ===
We could just give them a month to shape up or get out, with the punishment for not doing so is a 3 month block or something. It's not the nicest option, but honestly it's gotten to the point where a block for either/both of them may be better for the wiki in the long term. If I were to see them not at each others throats for a month, maybe my opinion might change. --[[User:Timmeh|Tim]] [[User_Talk:Timmeh|Talk]] 03:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

{{Showhide|Votes|content=
* '''Neutral'''. The bottom line, is that at this point I'm in favor of just about anything that changes the status quo. So, if the rest of the community supports Timmeh's proposal, I'll support it, too.
:However, I'm not outright voting in support of the idea because I personally don't think the proposal is workable. In every one of these incidents each of the editors blames the other one for provoking the situation. For the sake of argument, let's say that rpeh is right and Elliot is provoking rpeh. Timmeh's proposal implies that if Elliot places another warning on rpeh's talk page, both Elliot and rpeh will end up being blocked for three months -- so the site loses a valuable contributor for three months solely because another editor provoked a situation. Someone might respond that in that situation it was obvious Elliot was in the wrong and therefore only Elliot should be blocked -- but none of the past situations have been obvious, so I don't think any future ones will be. In other words, we'll either end up with another confused mess and do nothing, or else we'll impose blocks on both and both will complain that they're the victim. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 20:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' Being excessively blunt is not going to solve anything. Mediation is better than aggravation. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 02:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Strong Oppose''' This is too harsh maybe a 3 day block? --[[User:Arny|Arny]] 09:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Support''': It's not worth much at this point, but I'm a strong supporter of the simple-but-effective approach. I find this satisfies that. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 03:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
}}
{{Consensus|None|message=Votes were even (based on an assumption of support from Timmeh himself). In the absence of consensus, existing policy stands. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 03:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)}}

=== Modification to Original Proposal ===
In response to the above feedback, I've posted the proposed text for a new, more general policy at User:Nephele/Sandbox/6.

I'm guessing the most likely issue with the new text is whether it's sufficient to have two administrators agree. So I've highlighted that phrase in green as a semi-placeholder. Basically, I think that for it to be useful as an official policy, it has to be possible to enact the policy without a full community consensus -- otherwise we're effectively re-introducing the policy every time we try to use it, which defeats the purpose of creating a general policy in the first place. Two administrators seemed like a reasonable minimum requirement. However, that requirement can easily be changed without invalidating the rest of the proposal, so if the primary issue is that requirement, could we still get consensus on the rest of the text, and then spend more time refining the details?

I think that what I've posted is about as general as we can get and yet still have a policy that will help in the current situation. The fundamental problem here, as I see it, is that the Elliot-rpeh incidents always start with actions that are acceptable under wiki rules. That's basically why it's been so hard to take action in any of the past incidents. Any type of general solution, that affects all editors, will either be too vague to make a difference or else will prevent other editors from making necessary edits. Imagine, for example, trying to come up with a specific, enforceable set of rules about when it is acceptable to undo another editor's edit -- for any rule you could come up with a dozen exceptions when the rule should be broken. In normal situations, we need to give editors some latitude to judge what is best.

As a result, I think any proposal to deal with this situation has to acknowledge that it is not typical -- it has to place restrictions solely on Elliot and/or rpeh that do not apply to other editors. If we want to stop the incidents, we need some non-subjective way to say "this edit is going to provoke an incident" -- only then we can say the edit isn't allowed, and take action if someone breaks the rule. The most obvious way to identify a problematic edit is "if this edit involves both Elliot and rpeh".

My primary objective with this proposal is to find some way to make the next incident not be a repeat of the last few dozen incidents -- I'm not hoping for a universal solution. If I'm correctly understanding what's been said so far, everybody agrees that there is a problem here, and everyone agrees that the problem is likely to happen again unless something is done. But at the moment, nothing really has changed, and as long as that's the case I can't help but assume that this will keep happening over and over again. If anyone thinks that further policy changes, for example, to the [[UESPWiki:Etiquette|Etiquette]] page would be helpful, those suggestions can still be brought forward. Or if a future proposal makes this non-interaction restriction obsolete, we can revoke it. But we need to start somewhere.

--[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 20:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

=== Discussion of Modification ===
To help us make some forward progress, could contributors explicitly state their opinions on the following points:
# '''Overall''': Do you support/oppose the overall intent of the proposed policy?
# '''Requirements''': Do you support/oppose the specific requirements necessary before this policy can be enacted, in other words, is it enough for two administrators to agree that a pair of editors need this restriction? If not, what is the minimum requirement that you think should be necessary?
# '''Apply now''': Do you support/oppose applying this policy to rpeh and Elliot?
I think that increases the chances of being able to get this policy in place to handle our one current situation, after which we can spend more time refining the details of when/how it might next be needed.

{{Showhide|Votes|content=
* '''Overall: Support'''. '''Requirements: Support'''. '''Apply now: Support'''. As proposer --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 20:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
* Overall: '''Support'''. Requirements: '''Support'''. Apply now: '''Support'''. It may need some tweaking over time, but it's a good base for a general proposal that will handle both the current and any future situations like this. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 20:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

* '''Overall: Neutral'''. '''Requirements:Support'''. '''Apply now: Oppose'''. For a general rule, 1 week might not be bad (depending on what stage the rule is enforced). But for Rpeh and Elliot, the punishment needs to be way more strong than a one week block. Elliot has made personal attacks on Core in PM on IRC, twice. These PM's are free for everyone to see. Even if you ignore all of his other actions (which isn't a shining example of how to edit the wiki) he should have already have a block of at least a month, even if it isn't sanctioned by the rules, because it is a personal attack against one of our editors in response to actions on the wiki. The entire community should be ashamed that it hasn't done '''anything''' in response. Furthermore, Rpeh's behavior and Rpeh's contributions need to be separated in our minds. I cannot deny that his contributions are valuable, but his continued attitude with dealing with other editors (not just Elliot) is a cause for concern. He shares a great deal of blame for the current situation we are in, even if he hasn't done as much of the harm. Furthermore, a block of a week is called a vacation. There are very few circumstances where blocking someone for a week is anything more than a slap on the wrist and doesn't even reach close to being a deterrence for this kind of behavior. Furthermore, it isn't fair when compared to other punishments. At the very least, a one month block should be in place, with continued "Tape over the mouth" for a month after the block is done. --[[User:Timmeh|Tim]] [[User_Talk:Timmeh|Talk]] 21:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
**Addendum: Also, there is no reason to officially warn them if they break the rule. This is the warning. If it's gotten to the point where we have to invoke this rule, then they know already. --[[User:Timmeh|Tim]] [[User_Talk:Timmeh|Talk]] 21:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
**Another Addendum: I'm saying that if we need to use this rule on Rpeh and Elliot, that there be no official warning before we block them. We post that they're now restricted by this rule, and then we block them if they break it. But, as Krusty said, we shouldn't put them under this rule as soon as we've reached consensus, which is what I assume is meant by "Apply Now". We should see how they act after Elliot's current block is done, and if it is necessary to invoke this rule, then lay it on them. --[[User:Timmeh|Tim]] [[User_Talk:Timmeh|Talk]] 20:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

* '''Overall: Oppose'''. '''Requirements: Oppose'''. '''Apply now: Oppose'''. Almost everybody acknowledges that the current situation is the fault of one user more than the other and this attempt to tar both users with the same brush is a massive injustice. Elliot has personally attacked several users and has hidden behind the letter of the law rather than its spirit. On Wikipedia he would have received a lengthy block long ago for his actions, and did indeed receive a week-long block for his similar behavior there. Since this policy is being based on Wikipedia's own version, the same standard should apply. I'm well aware that I have pushed the boundaries during my interactions with Elliot but I'm afraid it has become necessary. Almost the entire administration team has been absent recently for various reasons (I do not wish to imply any criticism here - we all have lives off-wiki) and Elliot has been left to attack, disparage and harass other users to his heart's content. It is left to the rest of us to do whatever we can to limit Elliot's effect on the site. In my case, this has taken the form of removing him from IRC when he was present to do nothing other than argue (an action for which nobody except Elliot had anything other than praise) and try to stop responses to Elliot when it has become clear that he is more interested in the argument than in the outcome.

: I have already agreed to stop interacting with Elliot in an email to another administrator. If Nephele had consulted her fellow admins, who are in far better possession of the facts in this matter than she is, she would have known this. This policy is unnecessary, too wide in scope, and generally unhelpful. I oppose it strongly. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 22:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

* '''Overall: Support'''. '''Requirements: Support'''. '''Apply now: Support'''. I am not going to reason with some sanctimonious bullshit and finger pointing that others users happen to employ on a regular basis. I also won't try a pathetic move by trying to discredit the other editors in order to further my own argument. I also won't try to qualify it by saying ''it was necessary'', when none of our actions have been necessary (calling an established editor a troll over 20 times, referring to trolling in IRC the moment they enter, is definitely ''not necessary''). I was against it at first, but Nephele has managed to write a good version of such policy. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 02:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

* '''Comment''' I think that Elliot is more responsible for these fights than rpeh he seems to be always looking for a fight and is always fighting users (rpeh, half life) so I think a 1 week block for Elliot should settle things down [[User:Arny|Arny]] 09:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*:You '''''clearly''''' don't understand the situation. Please explain in great detail how I initiated any sort of fight (especially with HalfLife). If you cannot base your comments on facts and understanding of the situation or common sense, then you should keep out of such debates. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 09:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*:: [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HalfLife&diff=prev&oldid=576606 This], [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User:Elliot&diff=prev&oldid=576627 this]. Even though you dont always start the fight you always aggrevate it [[User:Arny|Arny]] 10:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*:::Actually Elliot should already have been blocked as the [[UESPWiki:Etiquette#When Conflict Arises|UESPWiki]] Etiquette policy states [[User:Arny|Arny]] 10:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

* '''Overall: Support'''. '''Requirements: Support'''. '''Apply now: Strong Oppose'''. I think the new policy is well written and the requirements are fine. I know that I am sick and tired of waking up to yet another nights’ bickering, name-calling and fighting on the AN (and so is the entire community) and it feels good to be able to hand out the appropriate warning before it escalates. It saddens me a great deal that we have to make a policy like this, but it seems necessary these days. But I hate the very thought about applying this new rule to Rpeh and Elliot now. It feels forced, it feels half-baked and rushed and very unfair, especially to those of us who knows the background story and have followed the feud closely for months. Timmeh wrote earlier: ''"This is the warning. If it's gotten to the point where we have to invoke this rule, then they know already."'' That sums it up. We can’t invent spontaneous policies to stop an on-going problem without at least giving the editors in question a chance to change their behavior. It just feels wrong and I sincerely hope that this rushed decision gets the Oppose stamp. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 09:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*:Krusty (and Timmeh), could you possibly clarify what you do think is appropriate for rpeh and Elliot? (Although with Elliot's block it's possibly now somewhat moot, on the other hand, a week from now we're back to the status quo, and I still think it would be prudent to have some restrictions in place.) I'm particularly confused because I understood Timmeh's comment to mean that we should essentially accelerate the restrictions -- apply them, but skip straight to a block for the first violation. So I don't see how that leads to the conclusion that no restrictions should be applied. Therefore, do you think no restrictions should ever placed on rpeh and Elliot? Or else under what conditions do you think the restrictions might be appropriate (e.g., how long after the policy is put in place)? In other words, if the general policy is put in place, I think it would help the other admins to understand your concerns, so that we know whether two of us can decide restrictions are necessary (in particular, if you're not around at the time). --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 19:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*::Can I just point out here that I've steered clear of Elliot since I was asked to do so by Timenn? There has been plenty of drama over the last couple of days, but it hasn't come from me. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 20:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*:::I will try to clarify, even if recent events have made it somewhat unnecessary. I do not think it is fair to invent a policy in the middle of an existing feud and hand out spontaneous warnings. The editors in question should at least be given the chance to think about the policy and improve their behavior before we start to block them. I’m all for the new policy but it is simply wrong to activate it right away, with such short notice. Even if Elliot took a block today, I think we should calm down, get the policy written and see what happens. I do not think we should apply the new rules to Rpeh or Elliot before we are sure that they will continue fighting. I know these arguments may sound a bit meaningless with Elliot gone and all, but that is my stance – I’m fairly sure that Rpeh will remain silent and ignore Elliot in the future, mostly because the feud seems to be over after today – but also because of this new policy. So: Let’s take a deep breath, get the policy going without any further action taken against Elliot or Rpeh – and cross our fingers for a more peaceful and friendly environment around here in the future. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 21:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Overall: Neutral, Requirements: Neutral, Apply Now: Neutral''' – The intent of the policy, which is to put a halt to not-so-civil behavior created by personal disputes, is something that I support. I also know that blocks are sometimes necessary to such stop disputes. When I was in conflict with [[User:HMSVictory]] over 2 years ago, the dispute became so bad that both of us were blocked (by [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] in a twist of fate). When we were blocked and couldn't edit any longer, we were given time to cool down and think. Nevertheless, the block that settled the conflict was only ''15 minutes long''. The proposal advocates a 1-week block, but an entire week may not be necessary, hence my neutrality on the Requirements. Of course, this is a special case. The dispute between rpeh and Elliot has disputed the community here (mostly in edit wars, edit summaries, and by derailing community discussions), and the dispute has been an extremely long one. rpeh was blocked for 2 weeks before, and Elliot was blocked for a week on Wikipedia, so a one-week block may not be that effective on them. ''It would have to be a month-long block''. Since "helpful" blocks for cooling-down can range from 1 minute to a month, I believe that the block duration should be flexible rather than set in stone. As someone formerly blocked in order to end a conflict, I hope that you respect my opinion. --'''[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Michaeldsuarez|Deeds]])''' 13:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*:How does my WP behavior have any bearing on this matter? '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 13:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*::I'm just saying that you already know what a week-long block feels like, so it may not be effective in ending the arguing here. As [[User:Timmeh|Timmeh]] has stated, ''a block of a week is called a vacation''. --'''[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Michaeldsuarez|Deeds]])''' 14:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*:::MDS makes a very good point here: I think a flexible block time based on the admin's judgement of what would be effective in a given situation is probably the better way to go. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 15:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*::::I'm fine with a flexible block time. The one-week was primarily inspired by Wikipedia. But I also wanted to make it clear that, unlike vandalism blocks, I don't think a second block should automatically be a permanent block. In the case of vandals, we're blocking people who have shown no potential to contribute productively to the site (and even if they did have a change of heart, they'd be better off starting with a new account). In this case, we're blocking editors who have made constructive edits, and therefore shouldn't necessarily be blocked permanently because of a disagreement with another editor. But leaving it up to the admin's judgement is probably the best way to figure out what is right in the specific circumstances. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 19:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

<s>*'''Overall: Support, Requirements: Oppose, Apply Now: Oppose''' There should definitely be a flexible block time; also if Editor A edits User B's talk page ''constructively'' that shouldn't cause problems. As for Apply Now I Oppose per [[User:Krusty|Krusty]].--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 18:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)</s>
*:Just to be clear, if the block time is made to be flexible, does that satisfy your concerns about the requirements? As for Editor A editing Editor B's talk page, I'm sorry, but I don't agree that it should be allowed in this particular situation. The restriction is for unusual situations, where I don't think it's safe to assume that Editor B will agree that the edit is constructive. In the case of vandalism or some other problem on Editor B's talk page, there are numerous people other than Editor A who can deal with the situation, without the risk of the edit being misinterpreted. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 19:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Overall: Support, Requirements: Support, Apply Now: <s>Support</s> Oppose''' <s>In light of relevant recent events (specifically me responding to [[User:Elliot|Elliot]] and [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AElliot&diff=577199&oldid=577194 his response]) I support this.</s> Please see my response to Elliot below.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 18:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
*:You do realize that I can ask for a user to stay off of my page right? Your change of vote in retaliation to that and my own change of vote, should be removed. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 18:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
*::I accept that you can ask for any user or group of users to stay off your page. However you asked for users to learn what was going on. I responded that I ''did'' know what was going on. I felt that you overreacted. But you're right (at least about the apply now part of ''my'' change of vote. I haven't seen your vote change yet though so I'm not sure about it ). Also I left the rest because I support the principle of being evenhanded and feel that for resolving other disputes (or any continuation of this one) the proposal is useful.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 19:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
*:::Elliot - Albino can change his vote if he so pleases, and you are in no position to tell him his vote should be deleted. There is absolutely no reason to remove either of your votes, unless you wish to remove your own and abstain from further helpful comments. --[[User:SerCenKing|SerCenKing]] [[User talk:SerCenKing|Talk]] 21:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
}}
{|
|'''Overall:'''||{{Consensus|Support}}
|-
|'''Requirements:'''||{{Consensus|Support}}
|-
|'''Apply Now:'''||{{Consensus|None|message=In the end, this weighed slightly in favor of Oppose, but not enough to call it a clear Oppose consensus.}}
|}

{{Consensus|Support|message=I interpret the above to mean that the policy is good and should be put into place. However, there is ambiguity as to whether this should be immediately enforced in regards to [[User:Elliot|Elliot]] and [[User:rpeh|rpeh]]. As such, no immediate action should be taken against either party, however any future interaction concerns between the two would fall under the new policy. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 04:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)}}

== Proposed Policy: Administrator Re-elections ==

{| style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce;" | This discussion has been closed by [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] - see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SNOWBALL WP:SNOWBALL]. Please do not modify it.
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
I think the time has come to put into effect a mechanism that ensures administrators continue to enjoy the support of the community.

Currently, UESP has ten administrators. Of these, three ([[User:Endareth|Endareth]], [[User:Garrett|Garrett]] and [[User:Wrye|Wrye]]) were never elected. One ([[User:Nephele|Nephele]]) was elected with the votes of only two users, neither of whom are active any more. Two ([[User:Ratwar|Ratwar]] and [[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]]) had only one vote from a currently-active member - somebody who just returned after a nine month break. The other four are more recent, but even in these cases, [[User:Eshe|Eshe]]'s support only contains three still-active users out of eight votes; less than 50% is not impressive.

Since the mandate for an administrator role is given by users, it is essential to ensure that the mandate is kept up to date and renewed when necessary. This offers both an easy way for an admin to step down, and for the community to remove them where necessary. It's clearly not acceptable that somebody retains the extra powers and responsibilities if the community no longer supports them.

To this end, I propose that each admin be automatically re-nominated on the anniversary of his or her election and a re-election vote is held using the same rules as for new admins. If he or she is no longer interested in holding the role, simply declining the renomination would be enough to close the election.

{{Showhide|Votes|content=
*'''Support''': as proposer. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 08:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': Not a terrible idea, but they need to be forewarned (as in, they know it's coming, and we know they know.). Also, I think Nephele and Wyre are exempt; Nephele's proven invaluable to the wiki, and Wrye.... well, okay, have no excuse there. but he's Wyre! I also think that a lot of the current admins will see this in a bad light, particularily Ratwar. Sorry, Ratwar, but it's true, you probably will. Can't really blame you, though. •[[User:Atreus|A]][[User_Talk:Atreus|t]][[Special:Contributions/Atreus|r]][[Special:Emailuser/Atreus|e]][[User:Peregrine|u]][http://atreus.necrolounge.org/ s]• 08:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
::Nobody would be exempt. I doubt Nephele would have a problem being reelected, and although Wrye might not be interested in the light of his last few posts, I doubt he would either. That doesn't mean that we should just ''assume'' the result. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 13:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Question''' How is keeping their status detrimental to the wiki? '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 09:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
::I didn't say it was detrimental. I'm saying that an admin who no longer has the support of the community shouldn't be an admin. It's exactly the same idea behind elections all over the world. Nothing in this new policy would stop somebody standing again if they decided they wanted the job back. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 13:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
:::It was a simple question, not an implication. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 19:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
::::And I gave a simple answer. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 06:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I think most of these shouldn't have any problem getting re-elected,and if they do... well that's what the community wants. I would add though that if there is a concesus to alter this by one vote (at least in the case of [[User:Nephele|Nephele]]) since this is a re-election and we ''really'' need admins that they be left with their current status for at least a week or two and then have a new re-election.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 14:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*:(Edit Conflict) All I meant was that there needs to be some margin; if one or two peoples votes tip it then we need to wait for a bit before doing anything because that isn't a significant majority. (As far as Nephele being exempt she does a lot of the server things that are necessary to keep the site running)--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 16:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose for now:''' I think the idea is sound in principle, but there are some details I'd like to see worked out first. If they can be, I would support the proposal. For example, if an administrator is up for reelection but happens to be away on vacation at that time, the vote should be delayed. Similarly, if an administrator has left, I don't feel a vote should occur ''in absentia'' since they may not be aware of, or wish to respond to, anything said about them. I realize that may not fit with the original proposal, though. Assuming that admins weren't voted on ''in absentia'', I would want to see some kind of re-acclimation period before an administrator is voted on. For example, supposing that a clear-cut vandal came along today and coincidentally, someone like [[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] or [[User:Endareth|Endareth]] returned to block the vandal, I'd have no qualms with that. If they stayed around, then we could give them a month or two before voting so that all users could get a feel for the returning admin. I certainly couldn't speak to Endareth's suitability as an administrator, for example, since he (she?) hasn't been significantly active since the end of 2006. If he was considered suitable as an admin at one point, though, I'd be willing to give him a couple of months "on trust" and see how he did. Finally, I also agree that this should apply across the board. Even though I doubt Nephele would have any difficulties, it's not fair to say that some admins are exempt (except [[User:Daveh|Daveh]], of course...it'd be kinda hard to vote him off the island <g>). (Point of clarification: I'm equally fine with the status quo as I am with voting once a year; the above comments were made from the POV of the proposal going through.)
**'''Question:''' If we do this for admins, should we also do it for patrollers? ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 16:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
:::I don't think an absence of a couple of weeks would make a difference. An admin who doesn't realise he or she isn't going to be around during their re-election can't be a very good admin, but I'm sure some scope for variation should be allowed - eg, during the launch of TESV I'd rather concentrate on getting the content in place than having elections. For the moment, let's concentrate on the basics then we can work out the details. Second, patrollers are less important but yes, I don't see why the same rules shouldn't apply there too. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 06:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::::Okay, that seems fair. I'm still not big on voting inactive admins out, but let's see how the overall vote goes before we worry about the specifics. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 14:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Simply enough, I do not think it will benefit the wiki in any way. We can call for a vote of confidence anytime to get rid of admins, and that's bound to stir up plenty of debate. But forcing a vote when there's really no need for removing the admin? Unnecessary. Furthermore, of the admins now, I believe all of them all still capable of administration, even if they've been inactive for quite a while. --[[User:Timmeh|Tim]] [[User_Talk:Timmeh|Talk]] 16:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' A vote once a year for each administrator? It seems it would get rather busy and undoubtedly controversial. I don't think removing admins is really a good policy, and neither does Wikipedia. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 19:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I don't see why this would be necessary. Something like this can be handled perfectly fine on a case-by-case basis. To echo Timmeh a little, a vote can be called for if an admin's suitability for the role comes into question. --'''[[User:GuildKnight|GK]]'''[[User_talk:GuildKnight|talk2me]] 21:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''75%opposse''' admins can be denouced any time but still...if someone who has a problem with a admin might be afraid to say something but wiht this they may report there problem--[[User:GUM!!!|GUM!!!]] 23:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

* '''Comment''' I don't think some of the people voting so far realise the state of the problem. '''Forty Percent''' of our admins have never received the vote of an active member of the site. A month ago, that figure would have been an astonishing '''SIXTY PERCENT'''! This is clearly not acceptable in a community that claims to be governed by consensus. The site's administrators need to be able to demonstrate that they have the support of the community. At the moment, this is clearly not the case. A simple re-election would remove the need for an embarrassing de-admin vote: in 4 cases, admins would simply be removed due to inactivity. Other cases would be decided on merit as and when they became eligible for renewal. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 05:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
*:So since the voting age in America is 18, the President has to be reelected each year to include the newly eligible voters? (Not a perfect analogy, but still.) '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 17:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
:::That's a terrible analogy. Presidents '''are''' re-elected, every four years. Part of the reason for that is the changing electorate, so it sounds like you're now supporting rpeh's proposal. [[Special:Contributions/80.239.242.95|80.239.242.95]] 18:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::::Which is why I said ''every year''. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 18:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Oppose.''' This has been discussed a couple previous times on UESP ([[UESPWiki:Archive/AN_Things_That_Need_to_Happen|Things That Need to Happen]]; [[UESPWiki:Archive/AN_De-adminship_for_inactive_admins|De-adminship for inactive admins]]). However, I refused to participate in either of those discussions because I had many reasons to suspect the discussions were primarily intended to disrupt the community. I'm responding this time because the proposal was initiated by a respected member of the community and therefore deserves a full response. The length is because I'd like to summarize my opinion for once and for all, and also probably because there's some amount of accumulated back log from my past non-contributions.

:On Wikipedia, this is tagged as a perennial proposal -- two, in fact [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PEREN#Demote_inactive_admins Demote inactive admins] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PEREN#Reconfirm_administrators Reconfirm administrators] -- which they've discussed and rejected multiple times. There are links at WP leading to several very long discussions covering nearly every possible opinion; FWIW, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Admin_accountability_poll#All_admins_should_be_subject_to_periodic_reconfirmation_of_their_admin_status this poll] seems to provide the most complete list of arguments and counterarguments. WP's summary of the counterargument basically describes my main reactions:
::''In general, this policy has been opposed both by administrators who themselves tend to go through periods of inactivity and do not wish to be forced to maintain token levels of activity to maintain adminship, and by people who believe that there is no substantive security concern. The developers have pointed out that an active account is in far greater danger of becoming compromised than an inactive account. A side effect is that this may raise a barrier for inactive admins to become active again.''

:I'd be tempted to leave my response at that, except that UESP is not Wikipedia. I also think my recent experiences provide useful examples of this policy's implications -- examples that have more direct relevance to UESP than Wikipedia's examples.

:While mandatory re-elections might be a bad idea on Wikipedia, I think the specifics of UESP mean that they would be even worse here. Two specific reasons are:
:* On UESP there are constantly comments / complaints about the shortage of available admins. At UESP's size, we'll probably always be at risk of gaps in admin coverage. A policy to arbitrarily remove admins will inevitably lead to a situation where a vandal cannot be blocked because the only available person is a recently-returned admin who has lost his/her privileges for no reason other than being absent from the site at the wrong time. Therefore, I'm certain this policy will harm the site, while also seeing no apparent benefit.
:* Perhaps I'm an optimist, but I'm convinced TESV is going to be released -- and then be followed by one, maybe two, expansions. Which means UESP policies can't ignore the implications of the instant chaos produced by the release of a new game/expansion. It's obvious that the number of UESP editors will go up dramatically -- not just new editors, but also many old editors and admins are likely to return. Furthermore, my experience with SI's release says that a significant fraction of the previously active editors are likely to leave, scale back their contributions, or avoid the new game's namespace -- after all, we all want to play the game before learning spoilers from UESP. Which is a long-winded lead-in to the main point: a very likely time for inactive admins to reappear is after the release of a new game. At which point, UESP is likely to be desperate for experienced editors, in particular admins. Furthermore, any nomination under such conditions is likely to be nearly superficial -- a ton of new members; no time for anyone to properly research/evaluate the nomination -- or at least far less meaningful than their original nomination. In which case, how does a new nomination accomplish anything useful? I don't want our hands to be tied by policy written under the assumption that there's always time to leisurely repeat an approval process.

:Beyond that, I personally think that my recent experiences provide a perfect example of why this is a bad idea. Basically, this proposal means that I would have had no admin powers when I returned to the wiki a few weeks ago. Suggesting I should be exempt, as in a previous comment, seems somewhat meaningless. First, my experience could just as easily happen to a regular admin -- I'm bringing this up as an example, after all. Second, I don't think I'd want to be exempt. Passing such a policy would be a statement that the majority of the community needs first-hand interaction with an admin before the admin can be trusted and, furthermore, that trust must be explicitly given. My additional user rights mean that the community's trust is even more important: because there is no log monitoring my server activities, I can't provide distrustful editors with evidence if questions arise. Yet somehow this supposedly critical need to review all admins doesn't apply to me?

:Therefore, during these last couple weeks I would have, for example, been unable to do any of the blocks listed in [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block the logs]. In many of those cases the vandals/spammers would have been left unblocked for hours, because there have been several occasions when I have been the only available admin, sometimes for half of the day.

:Furthermore, the practical reality is that this proposal would imply that I'd be unlikely to be restored as admin until about July (in my particular situation any renewal of my [[UESPWiki:Archive/AN Request for Server Access|server access]] might not be possible until September, but I'll stick to what would apply to any admin).

:Why so long? First, it would be at least a month before I would even start a new admin request. A small factor is that I wouldn't want to waste anyone's time with the request until I felt confident I had really returned. Far more importantly is that the entire point of the proposal is for the admin to be approved by the currently active wiki members -- and the majority of those members know nothing about me. They would need a month to have a fair chance of participating in any admin nomination. Even now, the newer editors impression of me is probably based primarily on my admin-type activities. Without my admin privileges, they'd be forced to base their opinions largely on a series of edits to obscure [[Tes4Mod:Save File Format]] subpages -- a year's worth of such edits might not even be enough ;)

:Second, in past cases it has taken as long as 47 days (for [[User:Timenn/RfA|Timenn]]) from the time a nomination starts to the time it is made effective; a 20-day interval seems typical. Policies about UESP admins can't ignore the fact that UESP adminship requests do not, and probably never will, happen overnight. Daveh has never been involved in UESPWiki on a daily basis -- which I think is probably essential as part of Daveh's long-term commitment to ensure that UESP stays alive for years to come.

:Which is why I say it realistically will be two months from the time an ex-admin returns before that admin can return to helping with admin duties. Two months during which they could otherwise be helping out -- and providing new editors with direct evidence that they're trustworthy, which is far more meaningful as evidence than any nomination discussion.

:Furthermore, there's the real possibility that de-adminship would discourage an admin from returning to UESP -- and, no, not out of spite at losing their privileges. Two primary motivations for my return to the site were to (a) help cover any admin shortages and (b) help with issues that need server access. Take away my privileges, and I would have felt like there was little reason to return -- I'd feel more productive pursuing other projects/interests. Alternatively, ex-admins might find it easier to simply start a new account -- why go back to the old account with its inevitable baggage/dirty laundry if you have to effectively start over again no matter what? Either way, someone who was once considered to be one of the most valuable members of the community is effectively lost permanently instead of temporarily.

:For the record, I'm not the only example of an admin returning after a lengthy absence -- Eshe, for example, was active for several months last year after a year-plus absence. Her return, and her ability to act as an admin when she returned, unequivocally helped the site. Again, a case where this policy would have harmed the site without any justification.

:In general, if any of the people on the inactive admin list were to return tomorrow, I would welcome the help, unconditionally. Of course that's true of the admins with whom I've worked in the past. But it's also true of Garrett and Endareth, both of whom had basically left the site before I became actively involved. First and foremost, I trust Daveh, and therefore I'm willing to trust his selections. To some extent, insisting that I be given the right to reapprove decisions about Garrett and Endareth would be comparable to insisting that Krusty's nomination be redone just because I wasn't here when the vote was made. In both cases, I trust the people who made the decision, and therefore see no reason to question the decision unless I have some type of evidence to the contrary. Beyond that, their entire wiki contribution history can be reviewed by anyone who is interested -- not to mention their contributions to other wikis (e.g., is Garrett is an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Master_Thief_Garrett admin at Wikipedia] and a [http://strategywiki.org/wiki/User:Garrett bureaucrat at StrategyWiki]). In every case, I trust the inactive admin's judgment to determine the best course of action upon returning: whether to simply step down; whether to voluntarily seek re-nomination; whether site policies need to be learned/re-learned; whether he/she is ready to just dive straight in; or any other possibility.

:As far as arguments comparing admin nominations to political elections, they're fallacious, besides the obvious [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy Wikipedia is not a democracy] guideline. There is no limit on the number of possible wiki admins. Since keeping inactive admins on the list does nothing to prevent new admins from being added, regular re-elections are not a necessary mechanism for guaranteeing turnover. Furthermore, politicians are elected based in large part on their agenda -- their opinions on specific issues and whether voters agree with those opinions. Issues change, politicians' opinions change, and voters' opinions change, so re-elections are necessary. On the other hand, admins are approved primarily based on their impartiality and whether they can be trusted to enforce wiki policy -- characteristics that don't change overnight. The basic facts in each year's re-election would be largely the same, with the potential for the "discussion" to be dominated by comments stating effectively "Support: see original nomination".

:I don't see any inherent value to periodically polling current site members about the admins, inactive or active. We don't put every policy on the site up for re-election periodically, or throw out old policies simply because the people who contributed to the original discussion are no longer active. Instead members are free to start discussions about any policy if they feel something needs to be changed, clarified, or revoked. I think the policy system works, and I think that same basic system also works for admins. Furthermore, based on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy Wikipedia is not a democracy], the purpose of nomination discussions is not to hold a vote. We don't insist that any fixed number or percentage of current members must state their opinion before closing the discussion. We don't tally the numbers and declare a winner; there have even been cases on Wikipedia where admin nominees received more opposing than supporting "votes" but yet were still give the adminship. Instead the discussion is about getting a representative range of opinions, and, ideally, reaching a unanimous community consensus. In other words, the specific names attached to the opinions aren't what matter, so a new set of names doesn't need to be added to the opinions.

:No arguments that have been presented demonstrating how or why re-elections would benefit the community. The primary visible effect of such re-elections would be the constant required discussions -- regardless of whether anyone in the community has anything to say or even has any interest in the discussion. And the only changes that I see coming out of such discussions have many potential ways of harming the site. So why keep bringing it up? --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 15:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

:: I think the arguments are clear and that you are the one making fallacious arguments. Your point about Krusty's election misses the point impressively. Under this proposal, you '''would''' get a chance to vote on Krusty's role - in just under a year's time. You say that admins' characteristics that don't change overnight, so you are admitting that they can and do change. With no mechanism for renewal, there is no opportunity for people to decide if the changes are beneficial or not. [[Special:Contributions/80.239.242.95|80.239.242.95]] 18:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
:::If an administrator needs to be reevaluated, then a discussion can take place (which has happened before, such as rpeh's case). There is no reason to create problems where there are none. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 18:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::::There '''are''' problems. Having unelected administrators and other administrators who have not received the support of current site members is an anomalous situation. Let's take your bad analogy and use it in a more sensible way. I don't have to put up with a president I never voted for because I get a chance to vote every four years. On UESP I have to put up with whatever administrators people I have never heard of decided to elect/appoint. And knock off this "suspiciously anonymous" crap in your edit summaries. I don't believe UESP has any policy that prevents me from expressing my opinions anonymously. If I was voting, I'd use my name, but I'm not. I'm commenting because I agree with rpeh's proposal. [[Special:Contributions/80.239.242.95|80.239.242.95]] 19:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' I'm changing my vote because I hadn't realized that these would be periodic; I had thought that this was a one time thing limited to admins that ''had not received (widespread) concensus'' as such their elections had not had a representative cross-section of the wiki community. You would have kept your admin rights also; the proposer stated that inactive admins returning would keep their rights for a month or two to allow everyone to become comfortable with this persons editing style.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 16:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' My vote shouldn't matter here. I believe that my worth in this community has greatly diminished since I stopped (unofficially) patrolling and paying attention. I'm not unpopular, but the idea of giving someone with no time or invested effort any more responsibility is without reason. If we consider the efforts which many of our current and past admins have given freely to the community, we find that even with sufficient cause to demote them, they still hold a great influence on the community if not by their past deeds, then by their continuing contributions.

:Achieving authority in this group project shouldn't be by popularity. We contribute because we love to, and we take on responsibility when we need to. We work best as a culture of deeds. By proving that we can handle a job and fulfill its duties, we attain respect and trust. When the power structure is reversed, and we let the new recruits promote us rather than the boss, we have well respected contributers without the proportionate voice in proper decision making and people like me telling everyone what to do. There wouldn't be proper trust in authority. We would also have a bit more drive and possibly destructive activity from those seeking personal gain instead of site improvements.

:Now I'm just providing some (hopefully lucid) feedback. I can only imagine the horrors which an evil admin could incur upon this centralized project which has had random server problems in the past including the '''smoking backup server'''. Without piling elections on to the worry-plates of our currently underfunded admins, let's get some more bigshot patrollers who can be admins in a few bagillion good edits. As for when the trusted authority goes against the grain of the community, there really is only the respect of feats which gives them that power, if leadership goes where the community is not willing to follow, we simply loose the community which hasn't invested so much in the project and might take another project the way they want to go. I think there are enough policies about ranks of admins/patrollers already without elections. [[User:Lukish|Lukish_]] [[User talk:Lukish|Tlk]] [[Special:Contributions/Lukish|Cnt]] 19:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
}}
|}

== Scorpio ==

What should be done with scorpio? Hes using bad language deleting pages removing warnings but I dont want to be hash so what else can be done to him other than a block (warnings have no effect on him) --[[User:Arny|Arny]] 19:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
:Just give things time to cool down. If he's willing to stop a block is not needed. [[User:Mikeyboy52|Mike]][[User_talk:Mikeyboy52|<nowiki>/|\</nowiki>]] 19:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

== search ==

Hey I just wanted to ask that when you search for something why does the search show you the script of the page? Why doesnt it show you the text that is on the page instead? [[User:Arny|Arny]] 10:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
:By script, I'm assuming that you mean the page source and wikitext. How's how the MediaWiki search engine works. I personally prefer wikitext being used in the searches, since links tend to be piped (eg. <code><nowiki>[[link|text]]</nowiki></code>). This sort of search also makes it easier to find and view external links. --'''[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Michaeldsuarez|Deeds]])''' 13:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

::An additional problem is that it can give problems if you start parsing an article in the middle, instead of the beginning. Imagine having to create a table from only the middle section, you need the whole of it to show the correct layout. --[[User:Timenn|Timenn]]-<[[User talk:Timenn|talk]]> 14:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

== Adjustments to template subsections ==

After some experiments (and a few mistakes) I've found out that editing a section of a page with a template directly edits the template's original page. The effects can be described as followed: [[Lore:Places_A#Anvil]] is divided into a section (County Anvil} which is divided into a sub-section (The City of Anvil) which is further divided into sub sub-sections (the districts). Editing just regular Anvil brings up [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Lore:Places_A&action=edit&section=15 the template], while editing the section County Anvil brings up [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Lore:Anvil&action=edit&section=T-1 its section text]. Editing the City of Anvil allows one to edit its [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Lore:Anvil&action=edit&section=T-2 section and sub-section]. This causes obvious problems as if someone wanted to add namespace specific info to Oblivion, it will also affect the Lore Anvil and any page that uses template Anvil. Basically, it shouldn't be possible to edit a template's subsections besides on its template page, as this could lead to a big mess. Is it somewhat possible to integrate an almost <code><nowiki>__NOEDITSECTION__</nowiki></code> into a template, so that only a temp's sections can be edited on the temp's page? Or, is it possible to merge all sections to a template, taking the option of editing it away? I probably sound confusing, so if anyone needs it I'll be happy to clarify -- [[User:Jplatinum16|Jplatinum16]] 03:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
:That wouldn't fix the "problem". Even if you add <nowiki>__NOEDITSECTION__</nowiki></code> to the article, users could still edit articles in the "Lore" namespaces (by simply editing the Lore namespace articles). In addition, we have RecentChanges patrollers who could find problems within the Lore namespace. Also, namespace-specific data and templates aren't really things new users know about, so I can't see inexperienced users causing such a problem. I don't see any reason to change anything. --'''[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Michaeldsuarez|Deeds]])''' 12:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
::The problem is not allowing editors to edit the Lore section; the problem is that editing a template section on one page will edit the template's orginal page. If I make an edit on one page, save, and end up on another, that seems like a problem. This problem can affect inexperienced and experienced users, cause I doubt most (if any) users know this. True, our trusty patrollers are always on the lookout for namespace specific info, but this affects:
#A template's page
#A page's (with the template) info
#A potentially useful namespace specific edit
Example: I want to add under the [[Oblivion:Leyawiin#Chapel District|Oblivion Leyawiin Chapel District section]] that "the Best Goods and Guarantees general store can be found here, next to The Dividing Line". I click [edit] for that section, edit it accordingly, and then save. I am now on the '''Lore:Leyawiin''' page, instead of the Oblivion one. Now, Lore:Leyawiin has Oblivion specific info. A patroller sees this, and reverts it, saying it's not lore specific. Now, the '''Oblivion:Leyawiin''' page doesn't have that info. All of this could have been avoided if a template's sections weren't editable on ''other'' pages. May not be the biggest problem, but it's one nonetheless. -- [[User:Jplatinum16|Jplatinum16]] 00:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

== Vandal ==

:{{Vandal|Mike484}}
We currently appear to have a vandal at work. Would an administrator please block him as soon as possible. Thanks! ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 23:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

:Also, while undoing the vandalism, I accidentally patrolled {{Pl|Morrowind:Starting_out|this edit|diff=581078&oldid=580985}} which makes major changes to a paragraph in a Morrowind article, and I have no ready way to confirm. Can someone double-check it and take appropriate action, please? Thanks! ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 23:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

::(Edit conflict) Yep it's fine (far better than the one it changed) the only thing I need to change is that the ebony dart only appears at higher levels.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 23:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

:::i was going to put one of these please blok him--[[User:GUM!!!|GUM!!!]] 00:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

::::Thanks for the confirmation, TAO. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 01:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::I'm not sure if just adding the template works but I tried to full-protect the warning since he was vandalizing it.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 01:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::Yeah that doesn't work (It'd be darn useful though) by the way thanks for blocking him Nephele.--[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|''Arch-Mage Matt'']][[User talk:Arch-Mage Matt|Talk]] 01:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

== Blockers ==

In regards to [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive_14#New_User_Group|this discussion]] and the [[UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard#Updates to Archived Discussions|update to it]], I'm not sure if any agreement was ever established on what admission requirements would be for the new group. In the absence of a formal policy, I'm just going to ask for that right for myself and let others fend for themselves. :) That brings back up the question of how to do it, keeping in mind that whatever is done for me will probably set a precedent:

#Do I just ask and if one (or maybe all) admins agree, I get the rights?
#Do we want a formal Request for Block Permissions discussion, the same as we would for Patroller or Administrator?
#Do we want to hammer out a formal requirements list?
#Do we want to have a requirements list ''and'' a vote (like Patrollers are now).
#Alternatively, if a requirements list is wanted, but we don't want to wait, we can put the cart before the horse and grant permissions by one of the first two methods, ''then'' put a requirements list in place at a later date.

Also, semi off-topic, when someone has a chance, I think we can remove Krusty from the Blockers group, as he already has those rights as an Administrator anyway. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 03:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

:I've created a stub of a page at [[UESPWiki:Blockuser]] (with a redirect at [[UESPWiki:Blockers]]) and added pertinent info to [[UESPWiki:Blocking Policy]], [[UESPWiki:Administrators]], and [[UESPWiki:User Group Rights]]. I've intentionally tried to avoid describing the process, since we haven't decided.
:My opinions on the matter are that we don't need a formal requirements list or a vote. I ''do'' think, however, that it should be an agreement between at least two admins that an editor is suitable for blockuser rights. It's definitely something we should decide before assigning the rights, though. --'''[[User:GuildKnight|GK]]'''[[User_talk:GuildKnight|talk2me]] 19:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

:: I agree with GK. I recall that the entire reason to get the role assignable by admins was to allow the rights to be given quickly and easily when required. If an admin knows that he or she will be away for some time and that no other admin is likely to be around, it should be allowable to simply give the right to some user who is on IRC or obviously active on wiki. The idea is to ensure that there's always somebody around who can block as required. When the admin returns - or another becomes active, the rights could be removed if there's no need for them any more, or they could be left in place - I don't think it matters too much.
:: We definitely don't want a procedural rigmarole over this because it would eliminate the point of the group. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 14:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

== Policy Discussions ==

The various policy discussions currently on the page have been languishing, as near as I can tell because they're a mess of inter-related proposals and it's difficult to separate them. In the interests of moving forward, I'm about to do my best to call consensus (or lack thereof) on the various discussions. If further action is warranted, I will indicate what I believe the appropriate action to be based on the discussions. Even so, it may be best to wait a day or two in case there are objections to my interpretations of what to do.

As I said, this is a mess, so I won't take it hard if anybody thinks my interpretation of consensus or the actions to be taken are incorrect. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 03:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

:Okay, all done, I think. There were two discussions that I simply archived as old, but '''the second one may need further action''':
:#[[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive_14#Request for Block of Rpeh|'''Request for Block of Rpeh''']] lacked support, nor was it a formal vote. Since it's entirely an Admin decision in any event, I saw no point in providing a consensus to it.
:#[[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive_14#Request to remove warning|'''Request to remove warning''']] was slightly in favour of removing Corevette's warning from [[User_talk:Elliot|Elliot's talk page]] (the other warning and block would remain since they were from an unrelated incident), but there was very little input overall and it was implied that there may have been a behind-the-scenes discussion amongst some of the Admins to let it stand. Other comments in the various related discussions were also mixed as to what should be done, but there was an overall feeling that both parties shared the blame to some degree. Since there is no warning on rpeh's page, I suggest that Corevette's warning also be removed from Elliot's, but clearly, there are divided feelings and I'm not about to take action under these circumstances. I'd recommend the Admins hash it out, but in the absence of action or an agreement at that level, it lacks a clear consensus from the community, so existing policy of leaving the warning would prevail.
:‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 04:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

== Block Needed ==

[[User:ChampionQQ]]

Obviously, Mike needs another blocking and I suspect he's not done. --[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|''Arch-Mage Matt'']][[User talk:Arch-Mage Matt|Talk]] 03:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
:If ChampionQQ needs to be blocked, then how come he hasn't been given a warning? The blocking policy is pretty clear about warning users before blocking them. When I'm checking the site from my iPhone (as I am right now) it is very inconvenient to do extra research into whether this is one of the few exceptions where blocking without warning is appropriate. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 03:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
::But not if he has A.) Vandalized many pages or B.) Doesn't seem to be stopping or C.) Has made personal attacks. --[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|''Arch-Mage Matt'']][[User talk:Arch-Mage Matt|Talk]] 03:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
:::What I'm primarily trying to say is that if you think someone needs to be blocked, the most useful course of action is to warn the user rather than post an unnecessary message here. It would take me 30 minutes or more right now to check your A, B, or C conditions -- but only a minute to see that the user has been warned. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 03:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Since the nature of the edits makes it clear that ChampionQQ is the same person as [[User talk:mike484|mike484]] (who is permanently blocked), isn't the warning stage unnecessary? Furthermore, shouldn't the new account receive the same permanent block as the initial account? [[User:Dlarsh|Dlarsh]]([[User_talk:Dlarsh|T]],[[Special:Contributions/Dlarsh|C]]) 04:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
:{{ec}}That may be my fault, since I set a bad example and took steps out of order yesterday — I asked for a block a couple of minutes before realizing that nobody had yet issued a warning.

:Also, on that note, I've verified that all recent edits have been reverted and patrolled any that were unpatrolled. I also moved the offending file to a new location to make patrolling...I'd say "easier", but it's more like making it "not a nightmare". ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 04:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

== Innappropriate Username? ==

Would [[User_talk:Asseater9000|AssEater9000]] be an unacceptable username? Because someone has signed up with that name. --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|Contribs]] 17:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

:Based on the discussion on policy [[UESPWiki:Archive/CP_Unacceptable_Usernames|here]] that would depend on [[Special:Contributions/Asseater9000|their contributions]]. The user that was pointed out had a username of about the same potential unacceptability but made a valid contribution; since the username wasn't prohibited by law, harassing, spam, or gibberish, there was no reason to block them. I think that that applies here also.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 18:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

::TAO; while those things are all true, with some good references I might add, it is blatant profanity for the sake of being profane. This user has no contributions either, so a block or a forced username change would be in order in my opinion.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 01:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

:::While it's profanity, it's not harassment toward any person or group of people and doesn't make any type of explicit or implicit threat (unlike the username that was recently blocked), so I don't think any action is necessary. --'''[[User:GuildKnight|GK]]'''[[User_talk:GuildKnight|talk2me]] 02:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
::::(Edit Conflict) All true- potentially. But I'd still prefer to ask them to accept a namechange; after all as long as they don't do anything except on their talk page it doesn't hurt anything.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 02:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

== Block Needed 2 ==

[[User:Demons fiery]] needs a block not only has he ignored a warning, made personal attacks he has said that he is the same person as a known vandal.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 23:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
:He has been blocked for a while now.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 23:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
::Braska (Dragon Age:Origins there. Elven swearing.). I didn't realize that. Sorry for putting this up here.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 22:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

== Block Appeal: [[User:Ranger]] / [[User:Scorpio]] ==

[[User:Ranger|Ranger]] had the following to say:
:I believe it is fair enough to keep the block however instead of a month could you shorten the block to one week ([[User:Ranger|Ranger]] 16:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC))
:oh and if possible could you delete scorpio i would like a fresh start on this account thanks ([[User:Ranger|Ranger]] 16:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC))

It should be noted that Ranger is the same user as Scorpio, but the user wishes to continue as User:Ranger instead of User:Scorpio. I've swapped the indefinite block for Ranger with the current month block of Scorpio.

I'm neutral on this one, and I'll leave it others to decide. --[[User:Timenn|Timenn]]-<[[User talk:Timenn|talk]]> 09:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

:from the looks of it seems that they want to restart. so i suport his blok removel. but i would keep a eye on him ;)--[[User:GUM!!!|GUM!!!]] 13:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

::Yeah I would tend to agree here- his contributions to the wiki since the whole thing with Scorpio (at least the ones I've seen) have been mostly apologies. I personally don't see why Ranger was blocked in the first place.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 19:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

:::ranger was bolcked for being a sock puppet--[[User:GUM!!!|GUM!!!]] 19:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

:::: No, Ranger was blocked for using an alternate account to circumvent a block, which is different from sockpuppetry. Given that Ranger's [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User:Ranger&diff=prev&oldid=579948 first edit] admitted a connection with Scorpio, another edit a few minutes later [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Krusty&diff=prev&oldid=580241 also admitted a connection] and a [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Community_Portal&diff=prev&oldid=580509 third] confirms it, there's no concern that this was an attempt to create an alter ego. Ditto [[Special:Contributions/Scorpi0|his other account]]. It looks to me as if the user has had a chance to calm down, as I [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AScorpio&diff=578205&oldid=578204 asked], and I would support an unblock given edits such as [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ranger&diff=prev&oldid=581379], [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ranger&diff=prev&oldid=581383], [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ranger&diff=prev&oldid=583047] and [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ranger&diff=prev&oldid=583251], which seem to indicate a more measured approach to editing. Obviously, any return to the sort of editing that caused the warnings and blocks should immediately warrant at least the full month block that is currently in effect. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 21:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I oppose complete removal of the block, but I do think it should be shortened to about a week, maybe slightly less. But after what he did as [[Special:Contributions/Scorpio|Scorpio]] and what he did as [[Special:Contributions/Scorpi0|Scorpi0]] I think a complete removal of the block is too lenient. --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|Contribs]] 20:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

:From what I've seen, changing the block to one week seems appropriate in this situation. --'''[[User:GuildKnight|GK]]'''[[User_talk:GuildKnight|talk2me]] 18:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

::I think we can abort this appeal. Seeing the actions of [[Special:Contributions/Popopopo|Popopopo]] yesterday, an identified alternate account of Ranger, made it clear this user hasn't given up yet on harassing other editors, and vandalizing the site. --[[User:Timenn|Timenn]]-<[[User talk:Timenn|talk]]> 16:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

::: I'm afraid you're right. So much for giving him the benefit of the doubt. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 17:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

== Block Request - [[User:Elliot]] ==

First of all, I ''am'' aware that this is quite late but bear in mind I was very busy with exams and was therefore unable to post anything till now. I am asking to once again block Elliot, and this time for a month. Below is an email I received on June 18th from Elliot's uesp email, I'm guessing in response to [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard&diff=580278&oldid=580232 this] comment.

:"''Do not involve yourself in matters that concern me you little prick.''

:--
:''This e-mail was sent by Elliot to SerCenKing by the "E-mail user" function at UESPWiki.''"

This is a clear violation of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment WP:HARASS], but not only that: Elliot had been [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elliot&diff=577166&oldid=577146 blocked] [http://uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Michaeldsuarez&curid=45995&diff=577160&oldid=569531&rcid=597526 for exactly this kind of behaviour]. It appears as if he has yet again '''not''' learnt a lesson from his week long block and I therefore ask for a month-long block in the hope that it will help him understand that this behaviour is unacceptable here at UESP. --[[User:SerCenKing|SerCenKing]] [[User talk:SerCenKing|Talk]] 18:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
:It might not be my place, but I support disciplinary action against Elliot. I'm sorry you were harassed like that SerCenKing [[User:Corvus|Corvus]] 18:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
::His block has expired and he has not returned to the site afterward. Some of you may know I was subject to the same thing earlier, but even so, I am going to remain neutral because he has shown no interest in returning.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 18:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
:::Core, yes he has. See [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard&action=history here]. The email was sent ''after'' his block had expired. --[[User:SerCenKing|SerCenKing]] [[User talk:SerCenKing|Talk]] 18:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
::::Done. Ideally, I would have preferred to only block Elliot from using the wiki's email features, given that the immediate cause of the block is solely related to email. However, after looking at the wiki code it doesn't seem possible to do an email block without also blocking the user. Furthermore, I didn't think it was worth wasting my time on finding/creating a way to do an email-only block. In particular, there is no evidence that Elliot plans to make constructive wiki contributions (and in fact he has made statements specifically saying the opposite). --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 19:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::Thanks Neph :) --[[User:SerCenKing|SerCenKing]] [[User talk:SerCenKing|Talk]] 22:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
::::::I'm not sure if Krusty got my e-mail about this same issue, but since posting the text above isn't a violation of the privacy policy, I received this e-mail from Elliot on June 17:

Are you a fucking baby?

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! He told me to stay off of his page! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH Nephele do something! I am too stupid and incompetent to even comprehend rules! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH He hurt my feelings!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH.

Grow up you fucking idiot. A retaliatory move like this shows your incompetence on a new level. Just leave the site. You are too retarded to contribute positively to it.

Leave before you make a further ass out of yourself you worthless pile.

--
This e-mail was sent by Elliot to TheAlbinoOrc by the "E-mail user" function at UESPWiki.

I'd like to request that if there is any further continuation of this behavior Elliot be blocked permanently. This was presumably received in response to my change of vote and my comment on Nephele's talk page (which I would have clarified and expanded upon but I didn't feel like dealing with it at the time).--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']]
[[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 23:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
:In light of the recent email sent to TheAlbinoOrc I suggest that we extend Elliot's block to something like 6 months, maybe even block him indefinitely. It's behaviour like this that led him to his patroller status being stripped from him and another sad thing is that he appears to be continuing his childish behaviour even after Nephele blocked him not that long ago. So yeah, I suggest we extend Elliot's block by a considerable amount. --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|Contribs]] 16:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about being late in to the discussion, but [http://www.uesp.net/wiki/User_talk:Michaeldsuarez#Abusive_E-mail_by_Elliot I brought this issue up in May, but GK prevented me from taking action]. Elliot is clearly unable to handle the responsibility of the wiki's Email function. --'''[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Michaeldsuarez|Deeds]])''' 15:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

:Yeah I saw that whole thing unfold, sorry your thing was invalidated because of the privacy policy. At least now what people should do is clear though: Try to contact the Admins and then if they don't respond (or they tell you to bring it up on-wiki) do what was done here.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 19:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

::I don't know if this is grounds for an extension of the block. But Elliot, has just dismissed me as well as several other editors when he has been warned about doing that already. So if it okay with the wiki admins, I am requesting his block to be extended by another month. --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|Contribs]] 10:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

:::Elliot has the right to remove content from his talk page if he wants to, although saying "Go away" in the edit summary is definitely not helpful. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 13:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

::::Yeah it was the go away that I was referring to with my comment. --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|Contribs]] 14:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

User:ModderElGrande

2010-07-10T10:30:46Z

ModderElGrande: /* FAQs */

== Before I go on... ==
If some elements of this page seem incomplete then they probably are. I've not come on in a while and it looks like I've missed out on quite a bit. If you want to see something appear on my page then post a suggestion on my Main Talk Page, this would be much appreciated. Thanks!

After seeing the vandalism attacks on other people's other pages, I've added semi protection to my userpage and my userbox page.

{{NPC Summary
|refid=Player
|baseid=Player
|city=Glimmerstone (Yes it's a mod)
|house=Glimmerstone Castle (Ditto)
|race=[[Lore:Redguard|Redguard]]
|gender=Male
|class=Warrior
|level=52
|avail= Most of the day on weekends, otherwise evenings.
|train=Alteration, Blunt, Heavy Armor, Advanced CS Use, Destruction
|health=15000 (Yes, I cheated via the console lol)
|magicka=100000 (Ditto)
|resp=0
|aggress=Depends on the circumstances
|faction=Player, UESPWiki Autoconfirmed Users, Fighters Guild, Order of the Dragon}};

== My Links ==
This section features links in my user pages. Enjoy!

[[User talk:ModderElGrande|My Talk Page]]

[[User:ModderElGrande/Blog|My Blog]]

[[User:ModderElGrande/Fanfiction|My Fanfiction]]

[[User:ModderElGrande/Creations|My Mods And Creations]]

[[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|My Contributions]]

[[User:ModderElGrande/Userboxes|My Userboxes]]

[[User:ModderElGrande/Changes2Come2ThisPage|Changes to come to this page]]

[[User talk:ModderElGrande/Archive|Talk Page Archives]]

== Sandboxes! =D ==

[[User:ModderElGrande/Sandbox1|Sandbox One]]

[[User:ModderElGrande/Sandbox2|Sandbox Two]]

[[User:ModderElGrande/Sandbox3|Sandbox Three]]

[[User:ModderElGrande/Sandbox4|Sandbox Four]]

== About Me ==
Hello, I joined this wiki because has such a nice community and I want to help build the wiki by making helpful contributions and articles. I play Oblivion on a widescreen monitor with a resolution of 1440x900. I am a full-scale modder, well, used to be, the modding business was way too stressful so I decided to settle down and be an editor of UESP instead.

== FAQs ==

Q: Have you ever been warned or blocked before?

A: Yes, I was both warned and blocked as an anonymous user and my account got blocked as well due to my link to the vandalous IP address. [[User_talk:ModderElGrande#One_Week_Block|Click here]] for more details.

--

Q: Have ever had any rivalries with another modder?

A: Yes.

--

Q: Have ever given any cookies to people on UESP?

A: Yes, I've given two to [[User:GK|GK]]. The first one I gave was [[User_talk:GK#It.27s_A_Cookie.21|this]] and the second I gave was [[User_talk:GK#OMG.21.21.21_ANOTHER_COOKIE.21.21.21|this.]]

--

Q: Do you have a YouTube account?

A: No, there <s>is</s> was a ModderElGrande15 on YouTube but it <s>is</s> was not me.

--

== '''M'''odder'''E'''l'''G'''rande ==

http://www.lifesizegreetings.com/shop/thumbnails/t_19722.jpg
http://www.freakinfreebies.com/pets-free-samples/brian.jpg

== My Hates Of Oblivion ==

* [[Oblivion:Daedra|Daedra]] (Except for Storm Atronachs)
* [[Oblivion:Adoring Fan|The Adoring Fan]] (At least you can blame it on him if the guards catch you being a criminal...)
* [[Oblivion:Light Armor|Light Armor]] (Seriously, what's the point?)
* [[Oblivion:Caenlorn|Caenlorn]] (Look pal, I seriously don't care which one's which okay?)
* [[Oblivion:Hieronymus Lex|Hieronymus Lex]] (Keep looking for the [[Oblivion:The Gray Fox|Grey Fox]] all you want but he won't turn up.)
* [[Oblivion:Savlian Matius|Savlian Matius]] (Yeah I can say what I want about the count, he's dead anyway so it's not like he'll know about what I said.)
* [[Oblivion:Maelona|Maelona]] and [[Oblivion:Gogan|Gogan]] (You wanted the thieves to be stopped didn't you? At least appreciate what I've done.)
* [[Oblivion:Beggars|Beggars]] (Pests.)
* [[Oblivion:Owyn|Owyn]] (No, I'll lop YOUR arms off.)
* [[Oblivion:Ysabel Andronicus|Ysabel Andronicus]] (Why should I start talking. Oh well, at least she isn't as bad as [[Oblivion:Owyn|Owyn]].)
* [[Oblivion:Glarthir|Glarthir]] (Drugs are bad for you Glarthir, stop taking them! Then maybe you won't be so paranoid.)

UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard

2010-07-10T10:23:52Z

ModderElGrande: /* Block Request - User:Elliot */

User talk:Elliot/Warnings

2010-07-10T10:19:59Z

ModderElGrande: Undo revision 585851 by Elliot (Talk) Yes it does, and don't dismiss other editors. You've been warned about that already.

{| cellpadding="10" cellspacing="8" style="width: 100%; background-color: #C0C0C0; border: 1px solid #1234aa; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -moz-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -webkit-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); border-radius: 1em; -moz-border-radius: 1em; -webkit-border-radius: 1em; vertical-align: top;"
|-
| style="background-color: #fff; border-width: 1px 4px 4px 1px; border-style: solid; border-color: #88a; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -moz-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -webkit-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); border-radius: 1em; -moz-border-radius: 1em; -webkit-border-radius: 1em; vertical-align: top; padding:4px;font-size:90%;width:98.5%;font-family:Lucida Sans;" colspan="2" |<center>"''Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.''"
|}

==Warning==
{{warning|1=You have been making [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timmeh&diff=573295&oldid=573293 personal] [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elliot&diff=573280&oldid=573278 attacks] to [[user:rpeh]]. This is a notice asking you to stop filling up the Recent Changes page and please contribute constructively.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 00:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)}}

== Warning ==

{| style="border: 1px solid #AA9999; background-color: #FFCCCC; width: 80%; margin: 0 auto 1em auto; padding: .2em;"
| width="69" | [[Image:Stop_hand.png]]
| Please do not dismiss other editors like you did [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard&curid=76157&diff=577070&oldid=577069 here] and [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=568953 here]. You're free to criticize other editor's comments, but not to suggest they have no right to participate in a discussion. I've warned you before that all editors are free to contribute to discussions, and seeing how you have not rescinded your tone concerning this matter I would like to state for the last time that such dismissive comments are not allowed. --[[User:Timenn|Timenn]]-<[[User talk:Timenn|talk]]> 12:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
|}

== Blocked ==

{| style="margin:0 5%; padding:.5em; background:#FFFFEE; border: 1px solid #CCCCAA; background-color: #FFFFEA; text-align:left"
|
[[File:Stop_x.png]]
|
This account '''[[UESPWiki:Blocking Policy|blocked]]''' for one week from editing UESPWiki for repeatedly disrupting UESP with unnecessary posts intended to taunt and harass other editors. A warning was just given to you hours ago specifically telling you not to dismiss other editors, and yet you then proceeded to ignore that warning by [http://uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Michaeldsuarez&diff=577160&oldid=569531 leaving a message] telling another editor to "stay out of it". You're free to read the blocking policy on appealing the block, but the chances of an appeal passing are non-existent, not to mention that this block only lasts for a week. So please don't waste the community's time with unnecessary posts on your talk page while you're blocked. And any subsequent pointless posts after the block has expired will be removed and will immediately result in a new block -- you've used up your warnings. —[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 17:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
|}

== Blocked ==

{| style="margin:0 5%; padding:.5em; background:#FFFFEE; border: 1px solid #CCCCAA; background-color: #FFFFEA; text-align:left"
|
[[File:Stop_x.png]]
|
This account has been '''[[UESPWiki:Blocking Policy|blocked]]''' for one month from editing UESPWiki or using the wiki email feature. The latest block is because Elliot has continued to harass other members of UESP through the wiki's email system. —[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 19:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
|}

I am appealing this block on the grounds of double jeopardy. The emails were sent before I was even blocked the first time, and now, two and a half weeks later, I am getting blocked for them? The appropriate thing to do would to have revealed them ''privately'' to an administrator during my last block. Since they have waited, Nephele, not liking me does not give you grounds for blocking. Had I actually done something wrong in the time I left, I could see some reason to; however, there is none. This is a clear abuse of your privileges and the community's. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 22:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
:I'm sorry but no. "''Below is an email I received on '''June 18th''' from Elliot's uesp email''". The block was issued June 7th therefore, the E-mail was sent after the block was issued.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 22:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
::Core's comment above could have been easily avoided if you had bothered to check the dates. Since you sent that email because I commented on a post you made on AN it is '''obvious''' that your block had expired. The email ''were'' revealed to three admins before I posted the comment, and the fact that '''you''' are telling '''me''' what is "appropriate" policy is so hypocritical it makes me laugh. Finally, read [[Wikipedia:Double jeopardy]] to refresh your mind. If I had asked for another block because of your comment on MDS' talk page, then that's double jeopardy. If you commit the same mistake again, well, that's a new "set of facts"; and its showing anything '''but''' the will to contribute positively. --[[User:SerCenKing|SerCenKing]] [[User talk:SerCenKing|Talk]] 08:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
:::I am still appealing the block, as it is a right I have. And if you hadn't of waited to release a private email, then I wouldn't be here. '''''You''''' brought me back. You could have possibly ignored it. But no, you wished to create more drama with a user who had been gone for over two weeks. If you want me gone so badly, then stop talking about me. Speak of the devil, eh? '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 20:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
::::I never said you didn't have a right to appeal the block; if you want to feel free. As I explained in my AN post, I would have posted it earlier but I had exams. You sent it the same day you contributed to a discussion on AN therefore you weren't inactive. It's not a question of wanting you to go away (I'd have asked for a perma-ban in that case) it's a question of making sure people don't get away with violations of policy. I know that sounds strange to you but it's the way I am. That's why I didn't "ignore" your email. --[[User:SerCenKing|SerCenKing]] [[User talk:SerCenKing|Talk]] 08:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

{{od}} The reasons given in the appeal are invalid, as already pointed out by both Corevette789 and SerCenKing. Therefore the appeal is invalid and there is absolutely no reason for the community to discuss it. Continuing to post invalid appeal requests, and continuing to post unnecessary followup messages on the admin noticeboard, will be considered to be an attempt to disrupt the community, and therefore may be grounds for removing your rights to edit your user talk page. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 02:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

:If the community sees it so, they can remove the block you placed on me. A discussion needs to be held, because that is the appropriate thing to do. Stop shoving your weight around, Nephele; you aren't impressing anyone, nor are you intimidating me. The grounds for blocking are meant to be preventative; what are you preventing when abusing your privileges three weeks after the fact? I was gone. I hadn't done a thing, but you saw it fit to hold some grudge and fan the flames. I am not going to stop just because you say so. Actions by administrators, ''even you'', are open to evaluation and assessment. Trying to prevent them is shady and corrupt. Also, "continuing to post unnecessary followup messages on the admin noticeboard". Where have I done any of that? (And don't point out month old crap; it will only make your block look more egregious.) '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 04:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

::Oh I get it, [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=585620 this] has to be me for the sole reason that they are bringing up the fact that you are circumventing policy? It's not me, by the way. I would also like to mention that your [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard#Proposed_Policy:_Abuse_of_Anonymous_Editing|policy proposal]] failed; however, you saw it fit to enact it anyway? Do you wish to violate more policies?
::And don't try to say that that tor was me. Not only do I not even know how to use tor, you can't even prove it. So I suggest you get off that horse soon (that goes for everyone). '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 04:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

:::Put simply, in order for an unblock request to be initiated, you have to show that you understand what you did wrong and provide assurances that it won't happen again. Since that has not, as yet, been done, I believe it was reasonable to remove the request and subsequent discussion, regardless of ''who'' made the initial post.

:::Furthermore, the community must have reason to believe that the above-mentioned assurances are made in good faith. Since you were previously blocked for <s>abuse of e-mail privileges</s> dismissive/abusive posts and went on to abuse those privileges once again via e-mail even after that block expired, I can see no reason that an unblock request should be honoured. If you wish to file an unblock request nevertheless, I would suggest that you read the [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|Guide to appealing blocks]] before initiating a request. Provided that you follow the general guidelines outlined there, and that you can come up with some method of assuring the community that you won't send inappropriate e-mails again, I'm sure anybody monitoring this page will take it to A/N per policy. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 04:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

::::"Since you were previously blocked for abuse of e-mail privileges..." Whut... '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 04:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

:::::Wording corrected. 04:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

{{od}} Yeah, I stopped being disruptive for three weeks before a block was even placed out of vengeance. That was me saying what you want me to say. Had it happened the next day, then I would have no argument. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 05:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

:Please do not speculate on the motives of other users (i.e., "vengeance"). The heart of this discussion needs to be about your own behaviour and how you plan to correct it. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 05:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

::Er... Where did he refer to other users motives in the above? Just curious since I don't see that anywhere in his most recent post. I do have a lot of stuff on my mind right now though, so it's possible I'm simply interpreting it oddly.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 05:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

:::He refers to the block being placed out of vengeance. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 05:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

::::There is no appropriate reason given, so I filled it in with what I could see. And my point is that I have done nothing after I sent those emails. Nothing. Nothing wrong. Nothing good. Nothing. But it was deemed appropriate to block me for a month. Common sense, people. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 05:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

:::::Oh. I was interpreting it differently. I thought he was saying that before this block was placed he "vengefully" did nothing disruptive for three weeks.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 06:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

::::::{{ec}} Elliot: The reason you filled in is an assumption of bad faith. As to your point, I'm not sure why you think that it was inappropriate to block you just because a couple of weeks passed between the incident and the public report about it. You sent one e-mail to MDS in early-May, and two more to other users in mid-June, for a total of roughly six weeks between the first and last reported incident. I don't see how the passage of a couple of weeks after the last incident is relevant to whether or not you should have been blocked.
:::::: TAO: I can see how you read it that way, but Elliot's response makes it quite clear how he intended it. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 06:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

:::::::Drop the "bad faith" act. Assume good faith only is relevant to editing. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 06:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

::::::::Yes it applies to edits but it also applies to ANY kind of messaging as well --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|Contribs]] 16:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

2010-06-23T17:10:14Z

{| style="border: 1px solid #AA9999; background-color: #FFCCCC; width: 80%; margin: 0 auto 1em auto; padding: .2em;"
| width="69" | [[Image:Stop_hand.png]]
| Please do not add nonsense or make offensive remark to editors of UESPWiki, as it is considered to be '''[[UESPWiki:Vandalism|vandalism]]'''. If you continue to abuse your editing privileges, this IP address will be '''[[UESPWiki:Blocking Policy|blocked]]''' from editing. Please consider improving the work of others, not harming it. —~~<includeonly></includeonly>~~
|}

UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard

2010-06-23T17:06:52Z

ModderElGrande: /* Innappropriate Username? */ new section

[[Category:Message Boards|{{PAGENAME}}]]
The '''administrator noticeboard''' is where we discuss and coordinate administrative tasks on the wiki. Although this page is intended for [[UESPWiki:Administrators|administrators]], all users are encouraged to participate in discussions. __NEWSECTIONLINK__
{{Archive Table|class=compress|title=Major Discussions
|UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Vandalism|Vandalism|Mostly spam, actually.
|!|Page Archives|
|Archive 1||February 2005 – June 2006
|Archive 2||June 2006 – August 2006
|Archive 3||September 2006 – June 2007
|Archive 4||June 2007 – July 2007
|Archive 5||August 2007 – October 2007
|Archive 6||October 2007 – November 2007
|Archive 7||December 2007 – January 2008
|Archive 8||January 2008 – February 2008
|Archive 9||February 2008 – August 2008
|Archive 10||September 2008 – October 2008
|Archive 11||November 2008 – December 2008
|Archive 12||December 2008 – March 2009
|Archive 13||April 2009 – December 2009
|Archive 14||January 2010 – May 2010
|!|Past Administrative Requests|
|User:Aristeo/RfA|Aristeo's Request for Adminstrator|''Approved Jun. 19, 2006''
|User:Nephele/RfA|Nephele's Request for Adminstrator|''Approved Aug. 13, 2006''
|User:Aristeo/RfB|Aristeo's Request for Bureaucrat|''Withdrawn by Aristeo Nov. 19, 2006''
|User:Ratwar/RfA|Ratwar's Request for Adminstrator|''Approved Jan. 31, 2007''
|User:TheRealLurlock/RfA|TheRealLurlock's Request for Adminstrator|''Approved Feb. 23, 2007''
|User:Rpeh/RfA|Rpeh's Request for Adminstrator|''Approved Oct. 1, 2007''
|UESPWiki:Archive/AN Request for Server Access|Nephele's Request for Server Access|''Approved Jan. 4, 2008''
|User:Eshe/RfA|Eshe's Request for Adminstrator|''Approved Mar. 31, 2008''
|User:GuildKnight/RfA|GuildKnight's Request for Adminstrator|''Approved Nov. 11, 2008''
|User:Timenn/RfA|Timenn's Request for Adminstrator|''Approved Aug. 7, 2009''
|User:Krusty/RfA|Krusty's Request for Adminstrator|''Approved May 3, 2010''
}}

== Semi Unprotected ==

I just noticed in my Watchlist that {{tl|Archive Header}} was recently vandalized by an IP address. It's supposed to be semi-protected based on the {{tl|Protection}} template in it. Can someone please check that? Thanks! ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 15:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

: Looks like the protection was temporary - it ran out on 6 Feb. In any case, it should use {{tl|TemProtect}} rather than {{tl|Protection}}. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 16:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

:: Just a reminder, this still needs to be fixed. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 15:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

== Ban For 98.126.56.178 ==

He/She has made multiple personal attacks on [[User:Nephele|Nephele]].
:And me and Timenn. Timenn just logged off so It'll be a while, we can make it for now.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 00:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

:agreed i agree!--[[User:GUM!!!|GUM!!!]] 00:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

::Done --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 02:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

== Virus found on site ==
{{dm|GuildKnight|Virus found on site|User talk|1}}

On Tuesday the 1 June 2010, my AVG encountered a virus on the following page:
http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Skyrim

AVG labeled it as "Exploit Neosploit Toolkit (Type 1109)"

I just wanted you to know ASAP! and I have no idea wehat to do or what this means.
Love your work
eid_broughton@yahoo.com
:GK will be gone for a while and that seems unlikely, are you sure it was from that page?--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 01:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

::According to a [http://www.bassresource.com/bass_fishing_forums/YaBB.pl?num=1275167508/6#6 forum] where a user had a similar experience:
:::''It means YOUR computer is infected with a virus (malware specifically). You'll get this error message regardless of what site you're on. It seems to only affect Firefox users.''
::Which definitely sounds more likely than UESP being the source of the virus. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 02:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

== Updates to Archived Discussions ==

To let everyone know, some quick feedback on assorted updates I've implemented based on old discussions:

* [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive_14#Database Corruption|Database Corruption]]
** I started the refreshLinks maintenance program running last night... it's made it about 80% of the way so far. It's fixing all of the issues with bad category links, etc. But I've also been struggling with an obscure code bug that's been adding a lot of bizarre entries to wanted categories and wanted pages -- things like Special-NPCs as a wanted category. Since it only happens when pages are processed by the job queue, it's really annoying to track down; I keep thinking that I've taken care of it, and then more start appearing. So I'll be continuing to try to deal with that situation. If there's still strange stuff in places like wanted categories by the end of the week, let me know; in the meantime, assume that I'm working on it.
* [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive_14#New User Group|New User Group]]
** Implemented. Blocker group has ability to block for up to four hours, and admins have the ability to add/remove from the group. I took the code Nx wrote and simply added it into UespCustomCode since that made the majority of the code unnecessary -- I'm assuming Nx doesn't mind, but if there is an issue, I can change the implementation.
* [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive_14#Skipcatcha_please|Skipcatcha please]]
** I did ''not'' follow through on this, pending the possible Userspace Patrollers group. That group has been given skipcatcha authority, and it's possible that membership in that group will be fairly widely available, in which case adding it to all confirmed users is probably unnecessary.

However, this probably is the end of my wikicode editing spree, short of dealing with new bugs that I may have introduced in the process.

<s>P.S. The one caveat with everything I've been doing so far is that it's only active on content1/2. I can't make any changes on content3 yet. If I don't hear from Daveh in the next few days, I might look into figuring out how to tell the squid server to not use content3. That would allow us to start making changes that rely on the new code. Then once I hear from Daveh, content3 would be updated and put back into the system.</s> --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 18:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

:I'm tentatively (cross my fingers) concluding that the bug creating all the wanted categories/pages has been fixed. It's been five hours since a buggy entry was created, and I've been throwing everything I can at the bug during that time. Nevertheless, it's still going to probably take a day for the wanted lists to get cleaned out. I'm also running a script that will make sure, eventually, to refresh any pages that have been processed strangely at any point in the last couple days. Again, it'll be about a day before it's done so in the meantime reports like [[#Quest_links_not_displaying_correctly|the following]] might continue to trickle in.
:One other point: some of you may have noticed the site not responding a few minutes ago (specifically content2 not responding). That was my fault, triggered by another bit of database updating I was taking care of. Basically I needed to monopolize the database for a couple of minutes for some reorganization, the upside of which is that now every time someone does a full-text search that search won't monopolize the database for a couple of seconds. In other words, 120 seconds of work now to fix a constant stream of little 2 second jobs. That should clear out one of the most common reasons why the database can be slow to respond to a request.
:Other than the above-mentioned cleanup scripts that will still be running for a while, that should be the last of my server disruptions for now. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 22:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

::So was that why for about 15-20 minutes everything kept timing out ?--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 22:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

:::TheAlbinoOrc: Yes. One of the servers became completely overloaded, to the point where I couldn't even force it to restart.
:::One hopefully final update: all changes have now been made live on all servers, and all the update scripts have finished running. So no more restrictions on making use of the new features. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 19:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

== Quest links not displaying correctly ==

Why aren't the links to the quests always being displayed correctly? When I bring up the Skingrad page, I get several lines like the following instead of quests and links.

[[{{{questpage}}}|{{{altname}}}]]: {{{description}}}

Skingrad isn't the only page like this. {{unsigned|99.175.93.246|2 June 2010}}

: There are various updates taking place at the moment (see the previous section on this page). [[Oblivion:Skingrad]] looks fine to me, which probably means you have a caching issue. I just purged that page: try again now. Otherwise, you'll just have to wait a little while. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 19:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I just checked [[OB:Skingrad]] also, it looked fine... except that the people were too far down in their section.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 20:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:Just a thought, I was getting lots of things like this with IE8. Whats your browser?.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 20:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Firefox.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 20:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:I meant the anon, but it looks fine for me on that page.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 21:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

== Proposed Policy: Abuse of Anonymous Editing ==

We've clearly had a problem, for far too long now, with editors abusing the wiki's open editing system so they can be disruptive and generally waste the community's time. [[#Second Opinion Please|Second Opinion Please]] is the latest example; the [[UESPWiki_talk:Administrator_Noticeboard#Time to Vote|talk page]] shows it's not a new problem. Therefore, I propose adding the following section to the [[UESPWiki:Vandalism|Vandalism]] policy, under [[UESPWiki:Vandalism#Types of Vandalism]]:
:'''Abuse of Anonymous Editing'''
:Deliberately hiding or falsifying your identity in order to make unwanted, controversial, or inappropriate comments is not tolerated. Regular UESP contributors are expected to contribute using their own account whenever participating in any community discussions. Therefore, an edit can be treated as vandalism if a site editor judges that it meets all three of the following criteria:
:* The edit is made by an anonymous IP or newly created account (one with no significant contribution history).
:* There is reason to believe that the person making the edit is familiar with UESP (e.g., person refers to community members or site policy).
:* The edit has no constructive value and/or is likely to be disruptive.

This would imply that such edits could be reverted on sight, and the anon could also be warned and blocked, if necessary. The wording is deliberately somewhat fuzzy: the targeted editors are already trying to exploit site policy, so they will inevitably try to take advantage of any loophole. As for including it on the vandalism page, as far as I'm concerned, these types of edits do far more damage to the site and its community than someone replacing a page with obscenities, so let's start dealing with them accordingly.

All ''community members'' are welcome to provide feedback; it helps if you can start your comment with '''Support''', '''Oppose''' (or '''Comment''', etc.) as appropriate.

{{Showhide|Votes|content=
* '''Support''' as proposer. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 05:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Strong Oppose''' Firstly, this would directly contradict the [[UESPWiki:Etiquette|Etiquette]] policy (esp. 7th point in the General section). Secondly, point 2 of the new policy involves excessive supposition on the part of editors. Thirdly, so does point 3 - "constructive" is in the eye of the beholder to a large extent. Fourthly, I agree that "hiding or falsifying your identity" is wrong, but the remedies suggested here use a far too-broad brush and will catch plenty of other people. Fifthly, I have said before, and still believe, that established, named editors have caused far more trouble in the past than all the anons put together. Finally, I managed to track down the relevant quote that I'm sure you've all heard without source. It's from William Blackstone, in ''Commentaries on the Laws of England'' (1769): ''"the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer."'' Similarly, it is better that we have to put up with the trouble caused by one rogue IP user than place unnecessary sanctions on all of them. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 05:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Support''' Though, we could just punish all people who make edits that have no constructive value and/or is likely to be disruptive. As for Rpeh's points: Laws may paint a large area and hit unwanted people, however people on the wiki should have enough judgment to know when to punish and when not to punish. As such, as long as I think that at least half the admins on the wiki have a lick of sense, this rule shouldn't hit anyone that it isn't supposed to hit. --[[User:Timmeh|Tim]] [[User_Talk:Timmeh|Talk]] 06:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Although not an admin, just wanted to say that this is a great idea :P [[User:Mikeyboy52|Mikeyboy52]] 06:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Support''' - We've had far too many troll-like edits made by Tor users and the like who are obviously just trying to conceal their identity and disrupt the site. We already revert non-constructive edits to old discussions, regardless of who they're by, and I think it's a step in the right direction to revert blatantly disruptive edits, particularly when there's reason to believe that it's an abuse situation. Productive or well-meaning users would still be entitled to all the same rights as everyone else, but those who are here solely to disrupt will no longer have a place here. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 06:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per nomination. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 09:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' Now, I like the proposition, and I would really like reality to be like this; unfortunately, it is not, and my motivation for opposing comes from the fact that we have numerous “established” members, who, and I’m sorry to say this, is really not capable of judging these things. I have seen numerous examples where anon users accidentally blanked a page and received vandalism warnings almost immediately, even if the edit was clearly an accident. I will not mention any names, nor will I give any examples but I fear that these new rules will hit several people who do not deserve it and make the Wiki a warning zone where we, as patrollers, will have to change warnings into “welcome and advice” all the time – wasting even more time than we do now. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 10:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*:Well, that is applicable to nearly every situation. You shouldn't avoid something because of ignorance; you should try to change that ignorance and push forward an intelligent community. The best way would be to lead by example. Inform users when they are doing something incorrectly. Some people need direct instructions; however, that shouldn't be reason enough to stop something. At a minimum, it would be best to at least try it out. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 11:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*::I'm not sure this is the best approach myself, but would you be more comfortable if we limited reverting questionable IP contributions to patrollers and admins? ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 15:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*:::Problem is, that is exactly what we have been doing all along. While patrollers can’s block people, they tend to be very quick to alert an admin if they notice a proxy or TOR-user making unconstructive edits to the site. This proposal will allow each and every registered member on the entire Wiki to hand out quick warnings in anger or nervousness, something that way too many editors suffer from. For the time being, I think we’re doing fine. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 09:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' I find point 2 too vague in my opinion. How can we know if an anon is familiar with UESP? They could just as easily referred to Wikipedia or another Wiki. I don't see why knowledge of UESPWiki's policies points directly to a vandal. It's the edit itself that matters, not one's supposed knowledge of policies or one's status (status as in: anon, newly-created account, established editor etc.) I think these points are unfavourable to anon editors while not giving anything in return. [[User_Talk:Wolok gro-Barok|Talk]] [[User:Wolok gro-Barok|Wolok gro-Barok]] [[Special:Contributions/Wolok gro-Barok|Contributions]] 12:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' I would tend to be Opposed to the second guideline as I fit it at one time since I'd been using the Wiki for several years without creating an account and then for several months as Mhira (until I forgot my password and created this account) therefore I had no significant contribution history but knew some of the Wiki's policy and knew of some of the community members.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 14:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*:''Responding to the above two points on the second requirement:'' That one also concerned me a bit. Would removing that point altogether be a better choice, do you think? ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 15:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

*::I think that would work. I also think that there should be at least two people that agree on removing the edit.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 15:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - Seems like it would be difficult to determine if an anon is "familiar with UESP", and I'm sure there would be arguments about an anon's identity if someone makes that assumption. The 3rd point seems obvious, but how do we differentiate personal oppinions and comments from outright disruptive vandalism? And also, it's important that the policy doesn't suggest that anons can't contribute to community discussions, or that they arent part of the "community" -- [[User:Jplatinum16|Jplatinum16]] 18:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' - I don't know if I agree with the sentiment behind this proposal. There have been and will continue to be situations where an editor's opinions may be taken a different way if the editor's identity is unknown, and my first thoughts are that each editor should have the right to anonymously express thoughts if he or she wishes. --'''[[User:GuildKnight|GK]]'''[[User_talk:GuildKnight|talk2me]] 21:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' - In one sense using an IP to edit and a user account is kind of like sock-puppetry. But in another sense, IP is the only way to remain anon, should we so choose at the time. [[User:Mikeyboy52|Mikeyboy52]] 16:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Support''' i like the idea but lets say someone forgets to login so mabye it would omly be considerd light vandalisem--[[User:GUM!!!|GUM!!!]] 17:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Oppose:''' Too vague and it allows Patrollers, sysops, and other editors to disregard Assume Good Faith. --'''[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Michaeldsuarez|Deeds]])''' 01:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Partial Support:''' I would like to see this limited to open proxies and any other deliberate attempt to conceal an identity. I think this will suffice, as so far practically all condescending arguments made that I have seen came from such an IP address. Adding the clause that edits from anonymous sources (open proxies and such) can always be reverted by another is a clause that would solve the most problems. People can try to make controversial statements if they want, but they shouldn't make one from a deliberately concealed IP. --[[User:Timenn|Timenn]]-<[[User talk:Timenn|talk]]> 08:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' per Krusty [[User:Arny|Arny]] 09:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
}}
{{Consensus|None|message=Votes were roughly equal. In the absence of consensus, existing policy stands. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 03:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)}}

== Proposed Policy: Prohibiting Interactions ==
I'd like to propose officially prohibiting [[User:Elliot|Elliot]] and [[User:rpeh|rpeh]] from interacting with each other, in any way, on the wiki. Both have been told as much, unofficially, many times. Given that past requests have failed to resolve the situation, a new approach is clearly needed. There is wikipedia precedent for the proposed restrictions, for example [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley#Motions this motion] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Abtract-Collectonian#Feuds_and_quarrels this finding] from their arbitration committee.

A secondary proposal, if the community first agrees with the interaction prohibition, is to remove all current warnings from rpeh and Elliot's talk pages that are related to past incidents between them (or sanction any past edits that have already removed such warnings, as appropriate). The removal would not be intended as any type of statement about the correctness of the original warning. Rather, it is to help both editors feel that they are being treated equally under the new policy. Furthermore, it allows existing discussions such as [[#Request_to_remove_warning|Request to remove warning]] to be closed; otherwise, this new policy will effectively bar the complainant from making any further contribution in his appeal process.

===Restriction Enforcement===
Under this proposal, the next time either Elliot or rpeh violates the restriction prohibiting any interaction, the violator gets an official warning. After the warning, any further violations by the same editor will result in the editor being blocked for a week. The editor will continue to be blocked for a week at a time, as many times as necessary.

As long as the other editor does not respond or do anything to violate the restriction, the other editor will receive no warning and won't be blocked -- this policy will result in no black marks on your record if you comply with the policy.

The primary purpose of the block is to enforce a time-out/cool-down period, and thus prevent the typical rapidly escalating back-and-forth edits. The warning/block is also critical to make it clear to the other editor that he does not need to take any action in response to the violation. Therefore, it's important that we (the administrators) intercede whenever there is a clear violation, even if it's relatively minor (especially given the hope that this policy will reduce the fallout produced by a violation). Furthermore, if other community members notice a violation that has not been addressed by an admin, they should report it here (a simple link to the questionable edit is sufficient; any type of additional explanation is likely to cause extra problems).

Personally, I don't think a pre-warning or advance notification of the new policy is necessary for either editor, given that it's clear that both editors monitor the Administrator Noticeboard. But it others feel differently, someone could post an unofficial notice on each editor's talk page as soon as this policy is considered official.

===Restriction Details===
Prohibited actions under the proposed restrictions would include:
* Making comments about the other editor, indirectly or directly, on articles, on discussion pages, or in edit summaries. Substitutes for names (e.g., "you know who") would count as making an indirect comment.
* Making any edit to the other editor's user page, user talk page, or user subpages.
* Undoing any edit made by the other editor.
* If these rules are violated to the point where one editor gets warned or blocked, then the other editor is also prohibited from making any references to that warning/block. Any type of comment seems likely to be interpreted as gloating or otherwise exacerbate future arguments. I want to stop this cycle, not create new ways to perpetuate it.

Furthermore:
* Elliot and rpeh must do everything possible to avoid derailing other community discussions with their conflicts. So if, for example, rpeh has already contributed to a discussion, Elliot needs to (a) think carefully about whether any contribution is appropriate (e.g., is the information new and important to the discussion) (b) wait long enough (e.g., 24 hours or more) before responding so that it's clear to everyone the comments are not being made hastily or emotionally (c) make absolutely sure that the comments are on topic and do not violate any of the above prohibitions. The same recommendations apply to rpeh if Elliot has already contributed to a discussion.
* Elliot and rpeh can edit an article previously edited by the other editor, but only if at least 24 hours has passed -- and even then, cannot simply undo the other's edit(s). This condition is to ensure that the restrictions don't effectively make every article on the site off-limits for editing, given both editors' extensive contribution history.

Finally, for this to have a realistic chance of working, I think some form of [[#Proposed Policy: Abuse of Anonymous Editing|the above proposal]] to prevent disruptive edits by anonymous editors needs to be in place. We need to be able to remove and prevent any external provocations that could possibly be interpreted as either editor trying to circumvent the restriction.

=== Discussion of Proposal ===
Before wrapping up, I'd like to suggest if rpeh or Elliot wish to respond to this discussion, that they limit themselves to constructive comments that are strictly on the topic of this proposal. I doubt it's necessary to discuss or even make any further reference to the events that have led up to this point. Regardless of who was right or wrong in the past, I believe the community primarily wants to prevent future incidents -- or, if that's not possible, allow clear action to be taken against the person truly responsible.

Again, all ''community members'' are welcome to provide feedback; it helps if you can start your comment with '''Support''', '''Oppose''' (or '''Comment''', etc.) as appropriate.

{{Showhide|Votes|content=
* '''Support''' as proposer. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 05:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' I'm not prepared to put up with this kind of restriction on my editing. I edit widely and this proposal means Elliot can stop me editing anything in which I have an interest by editing it himself. Quite simply, it's about time Elliot got the block he so richly deserves. He has a history of grossly-insulting comments both on- and off-wiki. To me, has has made comments such as "I'm sorry your mother is such a fucking failure" (I apologise for the language, but it's necessary to highlight what an obnoxious person Elliot is). To Corevette, he made threats like "Until then, I will follow you. Not like a cat following you. like a wasp". To Michaeldsuarez, we have "MDS, go back to your shitty ED and go fuck one of those dumbasses over there."
:: Any or all of these comments are grounds for a block yet no such action has been taken. With no Elliot threatening and abusing other editors, the problem goes away. He has been repeatedly blocked at Wikipedia for the same kind of behavior he has shown here (edit warring and insulting other users) and UESP is simply lagging behind the times.
:: Furthermore, the topic that seems to have spawned this proposal has been quiescent for a week. This entire discussion is therefore moot. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 06:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
:::''I'd like to suggest if rpeh or Elliot wish to respond to this discussion, that they limit themselves to constructive comments that are strictly on the topic of this proposal.'' Way to miss a point... And what you state is hearsay in terms of logs, which is why it is a policy to prohibit such posts. As well, e-mails have no grounds for punishment, especially since there is no way to validate them, barring someone else logging into your email account. And we shouldn't forget you part in that email skirmish, rpeh. Plus, it was quite some time ago. I've moved on. You should as well. However, it is funny that you consider yourself immune from criticism when it comes to personal attacks. This page itself is a shrine to those attacks you have made. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 09:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

::::It was a "suggestion". I chose not to follow it for the reason that Nephele has been away and probably doesn't know the kind of vitriol to which several editors have been subjected during that time.
::::But let's get down to cases here. During, and after, the last discussion, one of the two editors was doing research and adding information to Lore articles to back them up with facts and add new details that create a big improvement. The same editor has spent time checking edits, tweaking, adding and removing where necessary to make sure the site is as accurate as possible. The same editor has spent time answering the questions of a large number of people experiencing difficulty with the game and asking for help. The other editor has done ''nothing'' until another piece of controversy started.
::::Timenn has asked me not to use the "T" word so I won't, but I don't know what other word is suitable for somebody whose only contributions take place in moments of controversy.
::::The reason I object so strenuously to this proposal is that it gives the same sanction to both editors. One has always been, and continues to be, a huge help to this site. The other... isn't. Treating both editors the same is a gross, unforgivable injustice.
::::Lastly, the emails, IRC logs and other communications are admissible under [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:HARASS WP:HARASS], which states ''"off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking"''. Indeed it can.
::::I am not going to be taking any further part in this debate. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 10:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::And yet you fail to quote [[wikipedia:WP:NPA|WP:NPA]]. It doesn't matter who has done what. I have had some pretty big issues come up lately, and I have decided to cut my activity down to a bare minimum (including other reasons on the wiki). Also, my choice of participation is not under your jurisdiction of appropriate judgment. Furthermore, it truly isn't harassment when the other person (claiming harassment) returns comments with equal vigor. Lastly, you oppose the equal sanction because you believe you have done no wrong in this entire situation, which is gross in and of itself. The rules apply to everyone. Even you. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 11:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::If you do not have time to edit the site then how is it you have time to monitor and contribute to debates such as this and the other two that are currently active? It seems you are being economical with the truth, Elliot. [[Special:Contributions/80.239.242.95|80.239.242.95]] 05:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::::I can make time (about 10 minutes or so in a day) to respond to far reaching proposals, especially one about me. I don't have time to plan and constantly work on a wiki. Is that okay with you? '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 17:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

* '''Oppose''' This isn't really a solution though. This situation can and will happen again with other users. I suggest we find a more permanent policy for ongoing conflicts between users. --[[User:Timmeh|Tim]] [[User_Talk:Timmeh|Talk]] 07:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*: '''Furthermore''' Taping their mouths shut doesn't solve the problem. They still hate each other. If Elliot is truly a troll, then he'll just find another target. If Rpeh is truly... a major ass?... then he'll just find someone else to be a major ass to. I've actually got something in mind for a counter-solution and I'll put it up in a little bit (I've got more to read, apparently). --[[User:Timmeh|Tim]] [[User_Talk:Timmeh|Talk]] 16:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Support''' God am I gonna get flak for this. I say support, until they stop going nuts over each other. I do agree that a more permanent solution is needed, but... unless said soluton appears in the next few days, support. Sorry, rpeh. No appologies to Elliot, though. <3 •[[User:Atreus|A]][[User_Talk:Atreus|t]][[Special:Contributions/Atreus|r]][[Special:Emailuser/Atreus|e]][[User:Peregrine|u]][http://atreus.necrolounge.org/ s]• 07:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''<s>Support</s> Oppose''' This is the first time the field as actually been even, so I will support this. I am willing to follow the restrictions if rpeh is as well. And: ''Elliot can stop me editing anything in which I have an interest by editing it himself''; rpeh, this is a rather poor argument. I cannot read your mind to see what you will edit, and I have no intention of weaseling my way into such a position. And Timmeh, if you wish for something more solid, then precedence is the best way to go about that. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 09:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC) I have changed my vote after careful consideration of the circumstances. Nephele's (and other's) lack of knowledge of the situation is most troubling. She can see what has been said, but there are things only rpeh and I know. This will do nothing to stop it. If anything, ''it will cause more tension''. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 17:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' I’ll have to agree with Timmeh on this one. If any action should be taken, it is changing policy to include ongoing disputes between members. While I really like the stance Elliot shows on this matter, it is more than likely that it will happen between other members in the future. I think this proposal is a bit too “personal” for its own good and should be made more general. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 10:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*:This isn't a proposal of policy, per se. It is more of an arbitration represented and enforced by the community. You oppose for a merely semantic reason. I ask you to see it as arbitration and not policy and reconsider your vote. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 11:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*:: I know it is not a proposal of policy. I suggest it changes into that. Oppose it is. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 11:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*:::It's not something that can be a policy since the enforcement would be made on a case by case basis. The policy would be so vague that it would not even be effective. All it would be is a center for resolving such conflicts; AN is enough to fill that role. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 11:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*::::I'd have to agree; the policy would end up being something like "If a dispute between two editors becomes disruptive to the Wiki as a whole, it is possible to block interaction between them" which is what is implied by precedent here.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 14:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Per comment above.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 14:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Clearly, there needs to be something done, as it seems like at least once every week or two, I open up my RC or Watchlist and sigh when I see it filled with edits between Elliot and rpeh, both antagonizing the other, whether they're doing it deliberately or not. To address some points above:
**I don't think either rpeh or Elliot should feel significantly limited by the actions the other one might take in terms of editing. At the risk of sounding arrogant, I think I speak for everyone that if we saw tendentious behaviour directed towards disrupting the other one's contributions simply by contributing to a wide array of articles all of a sudden, it would be seen for what it is and appropriate sanctions would be taken. Elliot has already said he wouldn't do that, and I think at least at this point, it would be pretty obvious if he did (I don't mean that to be insulting in any way, just an observation that most of Elliot's recent contributions have been to the A/N so a change in pattern would stand out). It might be a bit harder to judge if rpeh were doing that, but if it became a major concern for Elliot, that could be discussed. If necessary, we could always re-word that to say something to the effect of "editing at cross-purposes" rather than having a strict time limit.
**While I agree that many of the things that have been said offsite could qualify under harassment policies, this arbitration is geared strictly towards the onsite interactions.
**I also agree that rpeh has been far more productive than Elliot in the past few months, but to be fair, Elliot has made a few productive edits such as the {{tl|od}} template and being bold with fixing the superscript in the {{tl|unsigned}} template. (He may have made others as well, but much of my recent work has been with templates.) Notwithstanding that, however, Wikipedia has a policy on bans that I think could reasonably be extended to an interaction ban, namely [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:BAN#Bans_apply_to_all_editing.2C_good_or_bad|this one]]. This is not to say that I believe that this is what rpeh is doing, however I think the policy must nevertheless apply.
**I agree that the specifics of this case should be seen an arbitration and not policy, however I also think that this could be turned into a more generic policy for how to handle users who clearly have repeated difficulties interacting civilly (perhaps with as little tweaking as replacing the user names by User A and User B). ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 15:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
:::Elliot steals from Wikipedia and posts on UESP, and even [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Template:Outdent&oldid=568415 admits it]. How does copying the work of other people compare to what Rpeh has been doing? And yeah he is a friend of mine but I don't care. Elliot is a troll and Rpeh is a useful user. To punish Rpeh because of Elliot's trolling is totally unfair. [[Special:Contributions/80.239.242.95|80.239.242.95]] 02:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::::"Friend"? Lol. And in case you missed it, a bunch of things on this wiki and plenty of others use WP as a backbone. And it really isn't stealing if I give them credit, now is it? (Also, everything is licensed under CC, so that is another hole in your theory.) Oh, and thanks for the personal attack. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 17:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::No, wiki sites use MediaWiki as a backbone, not Wikipedia. Taking material from Wikipedia and causing strife is ''all'' you do, and that was my point. I tried to find a contribution of yours that wasn't part of an argument, something taken from Wikipedia or a removal of other editors' work but gave up after the third page. I say again... compare that to rpeh and learn from the difference. [[Special:Contributions/80.239.242.95|80.239.242.95]] 19:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::You sure do know a lot for being a ''"friend of rpeh's"''. I have no intentions or need to answer to an IP. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 02:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Oppose:''' I agree with [[User:Timmeh|Timmeh]]: Censorship will only cover up the problem; it won't resolve the issue. --'''[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Michaeldsuarez|Deeds]])''' 01:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*:It ''won't'' be truly resolved. Ever. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 05:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Strong Oppose:''' I think you should just let them do anything they want as long as it is just between the two of them. And as Michaeldsuarez says abouve censorship wont do anything [[User:Arny|Arny]] 09:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
}}
{{Consensus|Oppose|message=There was, however, general support for a permanent change in policy rather than a one-time interaction ban. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 03:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)}}

=== Timmeh's Alternative Proposal ===
We could just give them a month to shape up or get out, with the punishment for not doing so is a 3 month block or something. It's not the nicest option, but honestly it's gotten to the point where a block for either/both of them may be better for the wiki in the long term. If I were to see them not at each others throats for a month, maybe my opinion might change. --[[User:Timmeh|Tim]] [[User_Talk:Timmeh|Talk]] 03:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

{{Showhide|Votes|content=
* '''Neutral'''. The bottom line, is that at this point I'm in favor of just about anything that changes the status quo. So, if the rest of the community supports Timmeh's proposal, I'll support it, too.
:However, I'm not outright voting in support of the idea because I personally don't think the proposal is workable. In every one of these incidents each of the editors blames the other one for provoking the situation. For the sake of argument, let's say that rpeh is right and Elliot is provoking rpeh. Timmeh's proposal implies that if Elliot places another warning on rpeh's talk page, both Elliot and rpeh will end up being blocked for three months -- so the site loses a valuable contributor for three months solely because another editor provoked a situation. Someone might respond that in that situation it was obvious Elliot was in the wrong and therefore only Elliot should be blocked -- but none of the past situations have been obvious, so I don't think any future ones will be. In other words, we'll either end up with another confused mess and do nothing, or else we'll impose blocks on both and both will complain that they're the victim. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 20:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' Being excessively blunt is not going to solve anything. Mediation is better than aggravation. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 02:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Strong Oppose''' This is too harsh maybe a 3 day block? --[[User:Arny|Arny]] 09:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Support''': It's not worth much at this point, but I'm a strong supporter of the simple-but-effective approach. I find this satisfies that. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 03:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
}}
{{Consensus|None|message=Votes were even (based on an assumption of support from Timmeh himself). In the absence of consensus, existing policy stands. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 03:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)}}

=== Modification to Original Proposal ===
In response to the above feedback, I've posted the proposed text for a new, more general policy at [[User:Nephele/Sandbox/6]].

I'm guessing the most likely issue with the new text is whether it's sufficient to have two administrators agree. So I've highlighted that phrase in green as a semi-placeholder. Basically, I think that for it to be useful as an official policy, it has to be possible to enact the policy without a full community consensus -- otherwise we're effectively re-introducing the policy every time we try to use it, which defeats the purpose of creating a general policy in the first place. Two administrators seemed like a reasonable minimum requirement. However, that requirement can easily be changed without invalidating the rest of the proposal, so if the primary issue is that requirement, could we still get consensus on the rest of the text, and then spend more time refining the details?

I think that what I've posted is about as general as we can get and yet still have a policy that will help in the current situation. The fundamental problem here, as I see it, is that the Elliot-rpeh incidents always start with actions that are acceptable under wiki rules. That's basically why it's been so hard to take action in any of the past incidents. Any type of general solution, that affects all editors, will either be too vague to make a difference or else will prevent other editors from making necessary edits. Imagine, for example, trying to come up with a specific, enforceable set of rules about when it is acceptable to undo another editor's edit -- for any rule you could come up with a dozen exceptions when the rule should be broken. In normal situations, we need to give editors some latitude to judge what is best.

As a result, I think any proposal to deal with this situation has to acknowledge that it is not typical -- it has to place restrictions solely on Elliot and/or rpeh that do not apply to other editors. If we want to stop the incidents, we need some non-subjective way to say "this edit is going to provoke an incident" -- only then we can say the edit isn't allowed, and take action if someone breaks the rule. The most obvious way to identify a problematic edit is "if this edit involves both Elliot and rpeh".

My primary objective with this proposal is to find some way to make the next incident not be a repeat of the last few dozen incidents -- I'm not hoping for a universal solution. If I'm correctly understanding what's been said so far, everybody agrees that there is a problem here, and everyone agrees that the problem is likely to happen again unless something is done. But at the moment, nothing really has changed, and as long as that's the case I can't help but assume that this will keep happening over and over again. If anyone thinks that further policy changes, for example, to the [[UESPWiki:Etiquette|Etiquette]] page would be helpful, those suggestions can still be brought forward. Or if a future proposal makes this non-interaction restriction obsolete, we can revoke it. But we need to start somewhere.

--[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 20:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

=== Discussion of Modification ===
To help us make some forward progress, could contributors explicitly state their opinions on the following points:
# '''Overall''': Do you support/oppose the overall intent of the [[User:Nephele/Sandbox/6|proposed policy]]?
# '''Requirements''': Do you support/oppose the specific requirements necessary before this policy can be enacted, in other words, is it enough for two administrators to agree that a pair of editors need this restriction? If not, what is the minimum requirement that you think should be necessary?
# '''Apply now''': Do you support/oppose applying this policy to rpeh and Elliot?
I think that increases the chances of being able to get this policy in place to handle our one current situation, after which we can spend more time refining the details of when/how it might next be needed.

{{Showhide|Votes|content=
* '''Overall: Support'''. '''Requirements: Support'''. '''Apply now: Support'''. As proposer --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 20:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
* Overall: '''Support'''. Requirements: '''Support'''. Apply now: '''Support'''. It may need some tweaking over time, but it's a good base for a general proposal that will handle both the current and any future situations like this. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 20:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

* '''Overall: Neutral'''. '''Requirements:Support'''. '''Apply now: Oppose'''. For a general rule, 1 week might not be bad (depending on what stage the rule is enforced). But for Rpeh and Elliot, the punishment needs to be way more strong than a one week block. Elliot has made personal attacks on Core in PM on IRC, twice. These PM's are free for everyone to see. Even if you ignore all of his other actions (which isn't a shining example of how to edit the wiki) he should have already have a block of at least a month, even if it isn't sanctioned by the rules, because it is a personal attack against one of our editors in response to actions on the wiki. The entire community should be ashamed that it hasn't done '''anything''' in response. Furthermore, Rpeh's behavior and Rpeh's contributions need to be separated in our minds. I cannot deny that his contributions are valuable, but his continued attitude with dealing with other editors (not just Elliot) is a cause for concern. He shares a great deal of blame for the current situation we are in, even if he hasn't done as much of the harm. Furthermore, a block of a week is called a vacation. There are very few circumstances where blocking someone for a week is anything more than a slap on the wrist and doesn't even reach close to being a deterrence for this kind of behavior. Furthermore, it isn't fair when compared to other punishments. At the very least, a one month block should be in place, with continued "Tape over the mouth" for a month after the block is done. --[[User:Timmeh|Tim]] [[User_Talk:Timmeh|Talk]] 21:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
**Addendum: Also, there is no reason to officially warn them if they break the rule. This is the warning. If it's gotten to the point where we have to invoke this rule, then they know already. --[[User:Timmeh|Tim]] [[User_Talk:Timmeh|Talk]] 21:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
**Another Addendum: I'm saying that if we need to use this rule on Rpeh and Elliot, that there be no official warning before we block them. We post that they're now restricted by this rule, and then we block them if they break it. But, as Krusty said, we shouldn't put them under this rule as soon as we've reached consensus, which is what I assume is meant by "Apply Now". We should see how they act after Elliot's current block is done, and if it is necessary to invoke this rule, then lay it on them. --[[User:Timmeh|Tim]] [[User_Talk:Timmeh|Talk]] 20:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

* '''Overall: Oppose'''. '''Requirements: Oppose'''. '''Apply now: Oppose'''. Almost everybody acknowledges that the current situation is the fault of one user more than the other and this attempt to tar both users with the same brush is a massive injustice. Elliot has personally attacked several users and has hidden behind the letter of the law rather than its spirit. On Wikipedia he would have received a lengthy block long ago for his actions, and did indeed receive a week-long block for his similar behavior there. Since this policy is being based on Wikipedia's own version, the same standard should apply. I'm well aware that I have pushed the boundaries during my interactions with Elliot but I'm afraid it has become necessary. Almost the entire administration team has been absent recently for various reasons (I do not wish to imply any criticism here - we all have lives off-wiki) and Elliot has been left to attack, disparage and harass other users to his heart's content. It is left to the rest of us to do whatever we can to limit Elliot's effect on the site. In my case, this has taken the form of removing him from IRC when he was present to do nothing other than argue (an action for which nobody except Elliot had anything other than praise) and try to stop responses to Elliot when it has become clear that he is more interested in the argument than in the outcome.

: I have already agreed to stop interacting with Elliot in an email to another administrator. If Nephele had consulted her fellow admins, who are in far better possession of the facts in this matter than she is, she would have known this. This policy is unnecessary, too wide in scope, and generally unhelpful. I oppose it strongly. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 22:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

* '''Overall: Support'''. '''Requirements: Support'''. '''Apply now: Support'''. I am not going to reason with some sanctimonious bullshit and finger pointing that others users happen to employ on a regular basis. I also won't try a pathetic move by trying to discredit the other editors in order to further my own argument. I also won't try to qualify it by saying ''it was necessary'', when none of our actions have been necessary (calling an established editor a troll over 20 times, referring to trolling in IRC the moment they enter, is definitely ''not necessary''). I was against it at first, but Nephele has managed to write a good version of such policy. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 02:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

* '''Comment''' I think that Elliot is more responsible for these fights than rpeh he seems to be always looking for a fight and is always fighting users (rpeh, half life) so I think a 1 week block for Elliot should settle things down [[User:Arny|Arny]] 09:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*:You '''''clearly''''' don't understand the situation. Please explain in great detail how I initiated any sort of fight (especially with HalfLife). If you cannot base your comments on facts and understanding of the situation or common sense, then you should keep out of such debates. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 09:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*:: [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HalfLife&diff=prev&oldid=576606 This], [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User:Elliot&diff=prev&oldid=576627 this]. Even though you dont always start the fight you always aggrevate it [[User:Arny|Arny]] 10:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*:::Actually Elliot should already have been blocked as the [[UESPWiki:Etiquette#When Conflict Arises|UESPWiki]] Etiquette policy states [[User:Arny|Arny]] 10:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

* '''Overall: Support'''. '''Requirements: Support'''. '''Apply now: Strong Oppose'''. I think the new policy is well written and the requirements are fine. I know that I am sick and tired of waking up to yet another nights’ bickering, name-calling and fighting on the AN (and so is the entire community) and it feels good to be able to hand out the appropriate warning before it escalates. It saddens me a great deal that we have to make a policy like this, but it seems necessary these days. But I hate the very thought about applying this new rule to Rpeh and Elliot now. It feels forced, it feels half-baked and rushed and very unfair, especially to those of us who knows the background story and have followed the feud closely for months. Timmeh wrote earlier: ''"This is the warning. If it's gotten to the point where we have to invoke this rule, then they know already."'' That sums it up. We can’t invent spontaneous policies to stop an on-going problem without at least giving the editors in question a chance to change their behavior. It just feels wrong and I sincerely hope that this rushed decision gets the Oppose stamp. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 09:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*:Krusty (and Timmeh), could you possibly clarify what you do think is appropriate for rpeh and Elliot? (Although with Elliot's block it's possibly now somewhat moot, on the other hand, a week from now we're back to the status quo, and I still think it would be prudent to have some restrictions in place.) I'm particularly confused because I understood Timmeh's comment to mean that we should essentially accelerate the restrictions -- apply them, but skip straight to a block for the first violation. So I don't see how that leads to the conclusion that no restrictions should be applied. Therefore, do you think no restrictions should ever placed on rpeh and Elliot? Or else under what conditions do you think the restrictions might be appropriate (e.g., how long after the policy is put in place)? In other words, if the general policy is put in place, I think it would help the other admins to understand your concerns, so that we know whether two of us can decide restrictions are necessary (in particular, if you're not around at the time). --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 19:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*::Can I just point out here that I've steered clear of Elliot since I was asked to do so by Timenn? There has been plenty of drama over the last couple of days, but it hasn't come from me. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 20:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*:::I will try to clarify, even if recent events have made it somewhat unnecessary. I do not think it is fair to invent a policy in the middle of an existing feud and hand out spontaneous warnings. The editors in question should at least be given the chance to think about the policy and improve their behavior before we start to block them. I’m all for the new policy but it is simply wrong to activate it right away, with such short notice. Even if Elliot took a block today, I think we should calm down, get the policy written and see what happens. I do not think we should apply the new rules to Rpeh or Elliot before we are sure that they will continue fighting. I know these arguments may sound a bit meaningless with Elliot gone and all, but that is my stance – I’m fairly sure that Rpeh will remain silent and ignore Elliot in the future, mostly because the feud seems to be over after today – but also because of this new policy. So: Let’s take a deep breath, get the policy going without any further action taken against Elliot or Rpeh – and cross our fingers for a more peaceful and friendly environment around here in the future. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 21:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Overall: Neutral, Requirements: Neutral, Apply Now: Neutral''' – The intent of the policy, which is to put a halt to not-so-civil behavior created by personal disputes, is something that I support. I also know that blocks are sometimes necessary to such stop disputes. When I was in conflict with [[User:HMSVictory]] over 2 years ago, the dispute became so bad that both of us were blocked (by [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] in a twist of fate). When we were blocked and couldn't edit any longer, we were given time to cool down and think. Nevertheless, the block that settled the conflict was only ''15 minutes long''. The proposal advocates a 1-week block, but an entire week may not be necessary, hence my neutrality on the Requirements. Of course, this is a special case. The dispute between rpeh and Elliot has disputed the community here (mostly in edit wars, edit summaries, and by derailing community discussions), and the dispute has been an extremely long one. rpeh was blocked for 2 weeks before, and Elliot was blocked for a week on Wikipedia, so a one-week block may not be that effective on them. ''It would have to be a month-long block''. Since "helpful" blocks for cooling-down can range from 1 minute to a month, I believe that the block duration should be flexible rather than set in stone. As someone formerly blocked in order to end a conflict, I hope that you respect my opinion. --'''[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Michaeldsuarez|Deeds]])''' 13:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*:How does my WP behavior have any bearing on this matter? '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 13:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*::I'm just saying that you already know what a week-long block feels like, so it may not be effective in ending the arguing here. As [[User:Timmeh|Timmeh]] has stated, ''a block of a week is called a vacation''. --'''[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Michaeldsuarez|Deeds]])''' 14:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*:::MDS makes a very good point here: I think a flexible block time based on the admin's judgement of what would be effective in a given situation is probably the better way to go. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 15:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
*::::I'm fine with a flexible block time. The one-week was primarily inspired by Wikipedia. But I also wanted to make it clear that, unlike vandalism blocks, I don't think a second block should automatically be a permanent block. In the case of vandals, we're blocking people who have shown no potential to contribute productively to the site (and even if they did have a change of heart, they'd be better off starting with a new account). In this case, we're blocking editors who have made constructive edits, and therefore shouldn't necessarily be blocked permanently because of a disagreement with another editor. But leaving it up to the admin's judgement is probably the best way to figure out what is right in the specific circumstances. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 19:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

<s>*'''Overall: Support, Requirements: Oppose, Apply Now: Oppose''' There should definitely be a flexible block time; also if Editor A edits User B's talk page ''constructively'' that shouldn't cause problems. As for Apply Now I Oppose per [[User:Krusty|Krusty]].--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 18:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)</s>
*:Just to be clear, if the block time is made to be flexible, does that satisfy your concerns about the requirements? As for Editor A editing Editor B's talk page, I'm sorry, but I don't agree that it should be allowed in this particular situation. The restriction is for unusual situations, where I don't think it's safe to assume that Editor B will agree that the edit is constructive. In the case of vandalism or some other problem on Editor B's talk page, there are numerous people other than Editor A who can deal with the situation, without the risk of the edit being misinterpreted. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 19:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Overall: Support, Requirements: Support, Apply Now: <s>Support</s> Oppose''' <s>In light of relevant recent events (specifically me responding to [[User:Elliot|Elliot]] and [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AElliot&diff=577199&oldid=577194 his response]) I support this.</s> Please see my response to Elliot below.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 18:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
*:You do realize that I can ask for a user to stay off of my page right? Your change of vote in retaliation to that and my own change of vote, should be removed. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 18:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
*::I accept that you can ask for any user or group of users to stay off your page. However you asked for users to learn what was going on. I responded that I ''did'' know what was going on. I felt that you overreacted. But you're right (at least about the apply now part of ''my'' change of vote. I haven't seen your vote change yet though so I'm not sure about it ). Also I left the rest because I support the principle of being evenhanded and feel that for resolving other disputes (or any continuation of this one) the proposal is useful.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 19:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
*:::Elliot - Albino can change his vote if he so pleases, and you are in no position to tell him his vote should be deleted. There is absolutely no reason to remove either of your votes, unless you wish to remove your own and abstain from further helpful comments. --[[User:SerCenKing|SerCenKing]] [[User talk:SerCenKing|Talk]] 21:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
}}
{|
|'''Overall:'''||{{Consensus|Support}}
|-
|'''Requirements:'''||{{Consensus|Support}}
|-
|'''Apply Now:'''||{{Consensus|None|message=In the end, this weighed slightly in favor of Oppose, but not enough to call it a clear Oppose consensus.}}
|}

{{Consensus|Support|message=I interpret the above to mean that the policy is good and should be put into place. However, there is ambiguity as to whether this should be immediately enforced in regards to [[User:Elliot|Elliot]] and [[User:rpeh|rpeh]]. As such, no immediate action should be taken against either party, however any future interaction concerns between the two would fall under the new policy. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 04:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)}}

== Proposed Policy: Administrator Re-elections ==

{| style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce;" | This discussion has been closed by [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] - see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SNOWBALL WP:SNOWBALL]. Please do not modify it.
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
I think the time has come to put into effect a mechanism that ensures administrators continue to enjoy the support of the community.

Currently, UESP has ten administrators. Of these, three ([[User:Endareth|Endareth]], [[User:Garrett|Garrett]] and [[User:Wrye|Wrye]]) were never elected. One ([[User:Nephele|Nephele]]) was elected with the votes of only two users, neither of whom are active any more. Two ([[User:Ratwar|Ratwar]] and [[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]]) had only one vote from a currently-active member - somebody who just returned after a nine month break. The other four are more recent, but even in these cases, [[User:Eshe|Eshe]]'s support only contains three still-active users out of eight votes; less than 50% is not impressive.

Since the mandate for an administrator role is given by users, it is essential to ensure that the mandate is kept up to date and renewed when necessary. This offers both an easy way for an admin to step down, and for the community to remove them where necessary. It's clearly not acceptable that somebody retains the extra powers and responsibilities if the community no longer supports them.

To this end, I propose that each admin be automatically re-nominated on the anniversary of his or her election and a re-election vote is held using the same rules as for new admins. If he or she is no longer interested in holding the role, simply declining the renomination would be enough to close the election.

{{Showhide|Votes|content=
*'''Support''': as proposer. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 08:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': Not a terrible idea, but they need to be forewarned (as in, they know it's coming, and we know they know.). Also, I think Nephele and Wyre are exempt; Nephele's proven invaluable to the wiki, and Wrye.... well, okay, have no excuse there. but he's Wyre! I also think that a lot of the current admins will see this in a bad light, particularily Ratwar. Sorry, Ratwar, but it's true, you probably will. Can't really blame you, though. •[[User:Atreus|A]][[User_Talk:Atreus|t]][[Special:Contributions/Atreus|r]][[Special:Emailuser/Atreus|e]][[User:Peregrine|u]][http://atreus.necrolounge.org/ s]• 08:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
::Nobody would be exempt. I doubt Nephele would have a problem being reelected, and although Wrye might not be interested in the light of his last few posts, I doubt he would either. That doesn't mean that we should just ''assume'' the result. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 13:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Question''' How is keeping their status detrimental to the wiki? '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 09:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
::I didn't say it was detrimental. I'm saying that an admin who no longer has the support of the community shouldn't be an admin. It's exactly the same idea behind elections all over the world. Nothing in this new policy would stop somebody standing again if they decided they wanted the job back. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 13:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
:::It was a simple question, not an implication. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 19:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
::::And I gave a simple answer. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 06:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I think most of these shouldn't have any problem getting re-elected,and if they do... well that's what the community wants. I would add though that if there is a concesus to alter this by one vote (at least in the case of [[User:Nephele|Nephele]]) since this is a re-election and we ''really'' need admins that they be left with their current status for at least a week or two and then have a new re-election.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 14:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*:(Edit Conflict) All I meant was that there needs to be some margin; if one or two peoples votes tip it then we need to wait for a bit before doing anything because that isn't a significant majority. (As far as Nephele being exempt she does a lot of the server things that are necessary to keep the site running)--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 16:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose for now:''' I think the idea is sound in principle, but there are some details I'd like to see worked out first. If they can be, I would support the proposal. For example, if an administrator is up for reelection but happens to be away on vacation at that time, the vote should be delayed. Similarly, if an administrator has left, I don't feel a vote should occur ''in absentia'' since they may not be aware of, or wish to respond to, anything said about them. I realize that may not fit with the original proposal, though. Assuming that admins weren't voted on ''in absentia'', I would want to see some kind of re-acclimation period before an administrator is voted on. For example, supposing that a clear-cut vandal came along today and coincidentally, someone like [[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] or [[User:Endareth|Endareth]] returned to block the vandal, I'd have no qualms with that. If they stayed around, then we could give them a month or two before voting so that all users could get a feel for the returning admin. I certainly couldn't speak to Endareth's suitability as an administrator, for example, since he (she?) hasn't been significantly active since the end of 2006. If he was considered suitable as an admin at one point, though, I'd be willing to give him a couple of months "on trust" and see how he did. Finally, I also agree that this should apply across the board. Even though I doubt Nephele would have any difficulties, it's not fair to say that some admins are exempt (except [[User:Daveh|Daveh]], of course...it'd be kinda hard to vote him off the island <g>). (Point of clarification: I'm equally fine with the status quo as I am with voting once a year; the above comments were made from the POV of the proposal going through.)
**'''Question:''' If we do this for admins, should we also do it for patrollers? ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 16:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
:::I don't think an absence of a couple of weeks would make a difference. An admin who doesn't realise he or she isn't going to be around during their re-election can't be a very good admin, but I'm sure some scope for variation should be allowed - eg, during the launch of TESV I'd rather concentrate on getting the content in place than having elections. For the moment, let's concentrate on the basics then we can work out the details. Second, patrollers are less important but yes, I don't see why the same rules shouldn't apply there too. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 06:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::::Okay, that seems fair. I'm still not big on voting inactive admins out, but let's see how the overall vote goes before we worry about the specifics. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 14:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Simply enough, I do not think it will benefit the wiki in any way. We can call for a vote of confidence anytime to get rid of admins, and that's bound to stir up plenty of debate. But forcing a vote when there's really no need for removing the admin? Unnecessary. Furthermore, of the admins now, I believe all of them all still capable of administration, even if they've been inactive for quite a while. --[[User:Timmeh|Tim]] [[User_Talk:Timmeh|Talk]] 16:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' A vote once a year for each administrator? It seems it would get rather busy and undoubtedly controversial. I don't think removing admins is really a good policy, and neither does Wikipedia. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 19:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I don't see why this would be necessary. Something like this can be handled perfectly fine on a case-by-case basis. To echo Timmeh a little, a vote can be called for if an admin's suitability for the role comes into question. --'''[[User:GuildKnight|GK]]'''[[User_talk:GuildKnight|talk2me]] 21:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''75%opposse''' admins can be denouced any time but still...if someone who has a problem with a admin might be afraid to say something but wiht this they may report there problem--[[User:GUM!!!|GUM!!!]] 23:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

* '''Comment''' I don't think some of the people voting so far realise the state of the problem. '''Forty Percent''' of our admins have never received the vote of an active member of the site. A month ago, that figure would have been an astonishing '''SIXTY PERCENT'''! This is clearly not acceptable in a community that claims to be governed by consensus. The site's administrators need to be able to demonstrate that they have the support of the community. At the moment, this is clearly not the case. A simple re-election would remove the need for an embarrassing de-admin vote: in 4 cases, admins would simply be removed due to inactivity. Other cases would be decided on merit as and when they became eligible for renewal. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 05:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
*:So since the voting age in America is 18, the President has to be reelected each year to include the newly eligible voters? (Not a perfect analogy, but still.) '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 17:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
:::That's a terrible analogy. Presidents '''are''' re-elected, every four years. Part of the reason for that is the changing electorate, so it sounds like you're now supporting rpeh's proposal. [[Special:Contributions/80.239.242.95|80.239.242.95]] 18:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::::Which is why I said ''every year''. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 18:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Oppose.''' This has been discussed a couple previous times on UESP ([[UESPWiki:Archive/AN_Things_That_Need_to_Happen|Things That Need to Happen]]; [[UESPWiki:Archive/AN_De-adminship_for_inactive_admins|De-adminship for inactive admins]]). However, I refused to participate in either of those discussions because I had many reasons to suspect the discussions were primarily intended to disrupt the community. I'm responding this time because the proposal was initiated by a respected member of the community and therefore deserves a full response. The length is because I'd like to summarize my opinion for once and for all, and also probably because there's some amount of accumulated back log from my past non-contributions.

:On Wikipedia, this is tagged as a perennial proposal -- two, in fact [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PEREN#Demote_inactive_admins Demote inactive admins] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PEREN#Reconfirm_administrators Reconfirm administrators] -- which they've discussed and rejected multiple times. There are links at WP leading to several very long discussions covering nearly every possible opinion; FWIW, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Admin_accountability_poll#All_admins_should_be_subject_to_periodic_reconfirmation_of_their_admin_status this poll] seems to provide the most complete list of arguments and counterarguments. WP's summary of the counterargument basically describes my main reactions:
::''In general, this policy has been opposed both by administrators who themselves tend to go through periods of inactivity and do not wish to be forced to maintain token levels of activity to maintain adminship, and by people who believe that there is no substantive security concern. The developers have pointed out that an active account is in far greater danger of becoming compromised than an inactive account. A side effect is that this may raise a barrier for inactive admins to become active again.''

:I'd be tempted to leave my response at that, except that UESP is not Wikipedia. I also think my recent experiences provide useful examples of this policy's implications -- examples that have more direct relevance to UESP than Wikipedia's examples.

:While mandatory re-elections might be a bad idea on Wikipedia, I think the specifics of UESP mean that they would be even worse here. Two specific reasons are:
:* On UESP there are constantly comments / complaints about the shortage of available admins. At UESP's size, we'll probably always be at risk of gaps in admin coverage. A policy to arbitrarily remove admins will inevitably lead to a situation where a vandal cannot be blocked because the only available person is a recently-returned admin who has lost his/her privileges for no reason other than being absent from the site at the wrong time. Therefore, I'm certain this policy will harm the site, while also seeing no apparent benefit.
:* Perhaps I'm an optimist, but I'm convinced TESV is going to be released -- and then be followed by one, maybe two, expansions. Which means UESP policies can't ignore the implications of the instant chaos produced by the release of a new game/expansion. It's obvious that the number of UESP editors will go up dramatically -- not just new editors, but also many old editors and admins are likely to return. Furthermore, my experience with SI's release says that a significant fraction of the previously active editors are likely to leave, scale back their contributions, or avoid the new game's namespace -- after all, we all want to play the game before learning spoilers from UESP. Which is a long-winded lead-in to the main point: a very likely time for inactive admins to reappear is after the release of a new game. At which point, UESP is likely to be desperate for experienced editors, in particular admins. Furthermore, any nomination under such conditions is likely to be nearly superficial -- a ton of new members; no time for anyone to properly research/evaluate the nomination -- or at least far less meaningful than their original nomination. In which case, how does a new nomination accomplish anything useful? I don't want our hands to be tied by policy written under the assumption that there's always time to leisurely repeat an approval process.

:Beyond that, I personally think that my recent experiences provide a perfect example of why this is a bad idea. Basically, this proposal means that I would have had no admin powers when I returned to the wiki a few weeks ago. Suggesting I should be exempt, as in a previous comment, seems somewhat meaningless. First, my experience could just as easily happen to a regular admin -- I'm bringing this up as an example, after all. Second, I don't think I'd want to be exempt. Passing such a policy would be a statement that the majority of the community needs first-hand interaction with an admin before the admin can be trusted and, furthermore, that trust must be explicitly given. My additional user rights mean that the community's trust is even more important: because there is no log monitoring my server activities, I can't provide distrustful editors with evidence if questions arise. Yet somehow this supposedly critical need to review all admins doesn't apply to me?

:Therefore, during these last couple weeks I would have, for example, been unable to do any of the blocks listed in [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block the logs]. In many of those cases the vandals/spammers would have been left unblocked for hours, because there have been several occasions when I have been the only available admin, sometimes for half of the day.

:Furthermore, the practical reality is that this proposal would imply that I'd be unlikely to be restored as admin until about July (in my particular situation any renewal of my [[UESPWiki:Archive/AN Request for Server Access|server access]] might not be possible until September, but I'll stick to what would apply to any admin).

:Why so long? First, it would be at least a month before I would even start a new admin request. A small factor is that I wouldn't want to waste anyone's time with the request until I felt confident I had really returned. Far more importantly is that the entire point of the proposal is for the admin to be approved by the currently active wiki members -- and the majority of those members know nothing about me. They would need a month to have a fair chance of participating in any admin nomination. Even now, the newer editors impression of me is probably based primarily on my admin-type activities. Without my admin privileges, they'd be forced to base their opinions largely on a series of edits to obscure [[Tes4Mod:Save File Format]] subpages -- a year's worth of such edits might not even be enough ;)

:Second, in past cases it has taken as long as 47 days (for [[User:Timenn/RfA|Timenn]]) from the time a nomination starts to the time it is made effective; a 20-day interval seems typical. Policies about UESP admins can't ignore the fact that UESP adminship requests do not, and probably never will, happen overnight. Daveh has never been involved in UESPWiki on a daily basis -- which I think is probably essential as part of Daveh's long-term commitment to ensure that UESP stays alive for years to come.

:Which is why I say it realistically will be two months from the time an ex-admin returns before that admin can return to helping with admin duties. Two months during which they could otherwise be helping out -- and providing new editors with direct evidence that they're trustworthy, which is far more meaningful as evidence than any nomination discussion.

:Furthermore, there's the real possibility that de-adminship would discourage an admin from returning to UESP -- and, no, not out of spite at losing their privileges. Two primary motivations for my return to the site were to (a) help cover any admin shortages and (b) help with issues that need server access. Take away my privileges, and I would have felt like there was little reason to return -- I'd feel more productive pursuing other projects/interests. Alternatively, ex-admins might find it easier to simply start a new account -- why go back to the old account with its inevitable baggage/dirty laundry if you have to effectively start over again no matter what? Either way, someone who was once considered to be one of the most valuable members of the community is effectively lost permanently instead of temporarily.

:For the record, I'm not the only example of an admin returning after a lengthy absence -- Eshe, for example, was active for several months last year after a year-plus absence. Her return, and her ability to act as an admin when she returned, unequivocally helped the site. Again, a case where this policy would have harmed the site without any justification.

:In general, if any of the people on the inactive admin list were to return tomorrow, I would welcome the help, unconditionally. Of course that's true of the admins with whom I've worked in the past. But it's also true of Garrett and Endareth, both of whom had basically left the site before I became actively involved. First and foremost, I trust Daveh, and therefore I'm willing to trust his selections. To some extent, insisting that I be given the right to reapprove decisions about Garrett and Endareth would be comparable to insisting that Krusty's nomination be redone just because I wasn't here when the vote was made. In both cases, I trust the people who made the decision, and therefore see no reason to question the decision unless I have some type of evidence to the contrary. Beyond that, their entire wiki contribution history can be reviewed by anyone who is interested -- not to mention their contributions to other wikis (e.g., is Garrett is an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Master_Thief_Garrett admin at Wikipedia] and a [http://strategywiki.org/wiki/User:Garrett bureaucrat at StrategyWiki]). In every case, I trust the inactive admin's judgment to determine the best course of action upon returning: whether to simply step down; whether to voluntarily seek re-nomination; whether site policies need to be learned/re-learned; whether he/she is ready to just dive straight in; or any other possibility.

:As far as arguments comparing admin nominations to political elections, they're fallacious, besides the obvious [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy Wikipedia is not a democracy] guideline. There is no limit on the number of possible wiki admins. Since keeping inactive admins on the list does nothing to prevent new admins from being added, regular re-elections are not a necessary mechanism for guaranteeing turnover. Furthermore, politicians are elected based in large part on their agenda -- their opinions on specific issues and whether voters agree with those opinions. Issues change, politicians' opinions change, and voters' opinions change, so re-elections are necessary. On the other hand, admins are approved primarily based on their impartiality and whether they can be trusted to enforce wiki policy -- characteristics that don't change overnight. The basic facts in each year's re-election would be largely the same, with the potential for the "discussion" to be dominated by comments stating effectively "Support: see original nomination".

:I don't see any inherent value to periodically polling current site members about the admins, inactive or active. We don't put every policy on the site up for re-election periodically, or throw out old policies simply because the people who contributed to the original discussion are no longer active. Instead members are free to start discussions about any policy if they feel something needs to be changed, clarified, or revoked. I think the policy system works, and I think that same basic system also works for admins. Furthermore, based on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy Wikipedia is not a democracy], the purpose of nomination discussions is not to hold a vote. We don't insist that any fixed number or percentage of current members must state their opinion before closing the discussion. We don't tally the numbers and declare a winner; there have even been cases on Wikipedia where admin nominees received more opposing than supporting "votes" but yet were still give the adminship. Instead the discussion is about getting a representative range of opinions, and, ideally, reaching a unanimous community consensus. In other words, the specific names attached to the opinions aren't what matter, so a new set of names doesn't need to be added to the opinions.

:No arguments that have been presented demonstrating how or why re-elections would benefit the community. The primary visible effect of such re-elections would be the constant required discussions -- regardless of whether anyone in the community has anything to say or even has any interest in the discussion. And the only changes that I see coming out of such discussions have many potential ways of harming the site. So why keep bringing it up? --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 15:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

:: I think the arguments are clear and that you are the one making fallacious arguments. Your point about Krusty's election misses the point impressively. Under this proposal, you '''would''' get a chance to vote on Krusty's role - in just under a year's time. You say that admins' characteristics that don't change overnight, so you are admitting that they can and do change. With no mechanism for renewal, there is no opportunity for people to decide if the changes are beneficial or not. [[Special:Contributions/80.239.242.95|80.239.242.95]] 18:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
:::If an administrator needs to be reevaluated, then a discussion can take place (which has happened before, such as rpeh's case). There is no reason to create problems where there are none. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 18:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::::There '''are''' problems. Having unelected administrators and other administrators who have not received the support of current site members is an anomalous situation. Let's take your bad analogy and use it in a more sensible way. I don't have to put up with a president I never voted for because I get a chance to vote every four years. On UESP I have to put up with whatever administrators people I have never heard of decided to elect/appoint. And knock off this "suspiciously anonymous" crap in your edit summaries. I don't believe UESP has any policy that prevents me from expressing my opinions anonymously. If I was voting, I'd use my name, but I'm not. I'm commenting because I agree with rpeh's proposal. [[Special:Contributions/80.239.242.95|80.239.242.95]] 19:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' I'm changing my vote because I hadn't realized that these would be periodic; I had thought that this was a one time thing limited to admins that ''had not received (widespread) concensus'' as such their elections had not had a representative cross-section of the wiki community. You would have kept your admin rights also; the proposer stated that inactive admins returning would keep their rights for a month or two to allow everyone to become comfortable with this persons editing style.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 16:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' My vote shouldn't matter here. I believe that my worth in this community has greatly diminished since I stopped (unofficially) patrolling and paying attention. I'm not unpopular, but the idea of giving someone with no time or invested effort any more responsibility is without reason. If we consider the efforts which many of our current and past admins have given freely to the community, we find that even with sufficient cause to demote them, they still hold a great influence on the community if not by their past deeds, then by their continuing contributions.

:Achieving authority in this group project shouldn't be by popularity. We contribute because we love to, and we take on responsibility when we need to. We work best as a culture of deeds. By proving that we can handle a job and fulfill its duties, we attain respect and trust. When the power structure is reversed, and we let the new recruits promote us rather than the boss, we have well respected contributers without the proportionate voice in proper decision making and people like me telling everyone what to do. There wouldn't be proper trust in authority. We would also have a bit more drive and possibly destructive activity from those seeking personal gain instead of site improvements.

:Now I'm just providing some (hopefully lucid) feedback. I can only imagine the horrors which an evil admin could incur upon this centralized project which has had random server problems in the past including the '''smoking backup server'''. Without piling elections on to the worry-plates of our currently underfunded admins, let's get some more bigshot patrollers who can be admins in a few bagillion good edits. As for when the trusted authority goes against the grain of the community, there really is only the respect of feats which gives them that power, if leadership goes where the community is not willing to follow, we simply loose the community which hasn't invested so much in the project and might take another project the way they want to go. I think there are enough policies about ranks of admins/patrollers already without elections. [[User:Lukish|Lukish_]] [[User talk:Lukish|Tlk]] [[Special:Contributions/Lukish|Cnt]] 19:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
}}
|}

== Scorpio ==

What should be done with scorpio? Hes using bad language deleting pages removing warnings but I dont want to be hash so what else can be done to him other than a block (warnings have no effect on him) --[[User:Arny|Arny]] 19:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
:Just give things time to cool down. If he's willing to stop a block is not needed. [[User:Mikeyboy52|Mike]][[User_talk:Mikeyboy52|<nowiki>/|\</nowiki>]] 19:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

== search ==

Hey I just wanted to ask that when you search for something why does the search show you the script of the page? Why doesnt it show you the text that is on the page instead? [[User:Arny|Arny]] 10:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
:By script, I'm assuming that you mean the page source and wikitext. How's how the MediaWiki search engine works. I personally prefer wikitext being used in the searches, since links tend to be piped (eg. <code><nowiki>[[link|text]]</nowiki></code>). This sort of search also makes it easier to find and view external links. --'''[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Michaeldsuarez|Deeds]])''' 13:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

::An additional problem is that it can give problems if you start parsing an article in the middle, instead of the beginning. Imagine having to create a table from only the middle section, you need the whole of it to show the correct layout. --[[User:Timenn|Timenn]]-<[[User talk:Timenn|talk]]> 14:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

== Adjustments to template subsections ==

After some experiments (and a few mistakes) I've found out that editing a section of a page with a template directly edits the template's original page. The effects can be described as followed: [[Lore:Places_A#Anvil]] is divided into a section (County Anvil} which is divided into a sub-section (The City of Anvil) which is further divided into sub sub-sections (the districts). Editing just regular Anvil brings up [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Lore:Places_A&action=edit&section=15 the template], while editing the section County Anvil brings up [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Lore:Anvil&action=edit&section=T-1 its section text]. Editing the City of Anvil allows one to edit its [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Lore:Anvil&action=edit&section=T-2 section and sub-section]. This causes obvious problems as if someone wanted to add namespace specific info to Oblivion, it will also affect the Lore Anvil and any page that uses template Anvil. Basically, it shouldn't be possible to edit a template's subsections besides on its template page, as this could lead to a big mess. Is it somewhat possible to integrate an almost <code><nowiki>__NOEDITSECTION__</nowiki></code> into a template, so that only a temp's sections can be edited on the temp's page? Or, is it possible to merge all sections to a template, taking the option of editing it away? I probably sound confusing, so if anyone needs it I'll be happy to clarify -- [[User:Jplatinum16|Jplatinum16]] 03:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
:That wouldn't fix the "problem". Even if you add <nowiki>__NOEDITSECTION__</nowiki></code> to the article, users could still edit articles in the "Lore" namespaces (by simply editing the Lore namespace articles). In addition, we have RecentChanges patrollers who could find problems within the Lore namespace. Also, namespace-specific data and templates aren't really things new users know about, so I can't see inexperienced users causing such a problem. I don't see any reason to change anything. --'''[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Michaeldsuarez|Deeds]])''' 12:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
::The problem is not allowing editors to edit the Lore section; the problem is that editing a template section on one page will edit the template's orginal page. If I make an edit on one page, save, and end up on another, that seems like a problem. This problem can affect inexperienced and experienced users, cause I doubt most (if any) users know this. True, our trusty patrollers are always on the lookout for namespace specific info, but this affects:
#A template's page
#A page's (with the template) info
#A potentially useful namespace specific edit
Example: I want to add under the [[Oblivion:Leyawiin#Chapel District|Oblivion Leyawiin Chapel District section]] that "the Best Goods and Guarantees general store can be found here, next to The Dividing Line". I click [edit] for that section, edit it accordingly, and then save. I am now on the '''Lore:Leyawiin''' page, instead of the Oblivion one. Now, Lore:Leyawiin has Oblivion specific info. A patroller sees this, and reverts it, saying it's not lore specific. Now, the '''Oblivion:Leyawiin''' page doesn't have that info. All of this could have been avoided if a template's sections weren't editable on ''other'' pages. May not be the biggest problem, but it's one nonetheless. -- [[User:Jplatinum16|Jplatinum16]] 00:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

== Vandal ==

:{{Vandal|Mike484}}
We currently appear to have a vandal at work. Would an administrator please block him as soon as possible. Thanks! ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 23:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

:Also, while undoing the vandalism, I accidentally patrolled {{Pl|Morrowind:Starting_out|this edit|diff=581078&oldid=580985}} which makes major changes to a paragraph in a Morrowind article, and I have no ready way to confirm. Can someone double-check it and take appropriate action, please? Thanks! ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 23:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

::(Edit conflict) Yep it's fine (far better than the one it changed) the only thing I need to change is that the ebony dart only appears at higher levels.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 23:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

:::i was going to put one of these please blok him--[[User:GUM!!!|GUM!!!]] 00:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

::::Thanks for the confirmation, TAO. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 01:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::I'm not sure if just adding the template works but I tried to full-protect the warning since he was vandalizing it.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Got_a_question?]] 01:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::Yeah that doesn't work (It'd be darn useful though) by the way thanks for blocking him Nephele.--[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|''Arch-Mage Matt'']][[User talk:Arch-Mage Matt|Talk]] 01:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

== Blockers ==

In regards to [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive_14#New_User_Group|this discussion]] and the [[UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard#Updates to Archived Discussions|update to it]], I'm not sure if any agreement was ever established on what admission requirements would be for the new group. In the absence of a formal policy, I'm just going to ask for that right for myself and let others fend for themselves. :) That brings back up the question of how to do it, keeping in mind that whatever is done for me will probably set a precedent:

#Do I just ask and if one (or maybe all) admins agree, I get the rights?
#Do we want a formal Request for Block Permissions discussion, the same as we would for Patroller or Administrator?
#Do we want to hammer out a formal requirements list?
#Do we want to have a requirements list ''and'' a vote (like Patrollers are now).
#Alternatively, if a requirements list is wanted, but we don't want to wait, we can put the cart before the horse and grant permissions by one of the first two methods, ''then'' put a requirements list in place at a later date.

Also, semi off-topic, when someone has a chance, I think we can remove Krusty from the Blockers group, as he already has those rights as an Administrator anyway. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 03:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

== Policy Discussions ==

The various policy discussions currently on the page have been languishing, as near as I can tell because they're a mess of inter-related proposals and it's difficult to separate them. In the interests of moving forward, I'm about to do my best to call consensus (or lack thereof) on the various discussions. If further action is warranted, I will indicate what I believe the appropriate action to be based on the discussions. Even so, it may be best to wait a day or two in case there are objections to my interpretations of what to do.

As I said, this is a mess, so I won't take it hard if anybody thinks my interpretation of consensus or the actions to be taken are incorrect. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 03:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

:Okay, all done, I think. There were two discussions that I simply archived as old, but '''the second one may need further action''':
:#[[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive_14#Request for Block of Rpeh|'''Request for Block of Rpeh''']] lacked support, nor was it a formal vote. Since it's entirely an Admin decision in any event, I saw no point in providing a consensus to it.
:#[[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive_14#Request to remove warning|'''Request to remove warning''']] was slightly in favour of removing Corevette's warning from [[User_talk:Elliot|Elliot's talk page]] (the other warning and block would remain since they were from an unrelated incident), but there was very little input overall and it was implied that there may have been a behind-the-scenes discussion amongst some of the Admins to let it stand. Other comments in the various related discussions were also mixed as to what should be done, but there was an overall feeling that both parties shared the blame to some degree. Since there is no warning on rpeh's page, I suggest that Corevette's warning also be removed from Elliot's, but clearly, there are divided feelings and I'm not about to take action under these circumstances. I'd recommend the Admins hash it out, but in the absence of action or an agreement at that level, it lacks a clear consensus from the community, so existing policy of leaving the warning would prevail.
:‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 04:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

== Block Needed ==

[[User:ChampionQQ]]

Obviously, Mike needs another blocking and I suspect he's not done. --[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|''Arch-Mage Matt'']][[User talk:Arch-Mage Matt|Talk]] 03:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
:If ChampionQQ needs to be blocked, then how come he hasn't been given a warning? The blocking policy is pretty clear about warning users before blocking them. When I'm checking the site from my iPhone (as I am right now) it is very inconvenient to do extra research into whether this is one of the few exceptions where blocking without warning is appropriate. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 03:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
::But not if he has A.) Vandalized many pages or B.) Doesn't seem to be stopping or C.) Has made personal attacks. --[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|''Arch-Mage Matt'']][[User talk:Arch-Mage Matt|Talk]] 03:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
:::What I'm primarily trying to say is that if you think someone needs to be blocked, the most useful course of action is to warn the user rather than post an unnecessary message here. It would take me 30 minutes or more right now to check your A, B, or C conditions -- but only a minute to see that the user has been warned. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 03:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Since the nature of the edits makes it clear that ChampionQQ is the same person as [[User talk:mike484|mike484]] (who is permanently blocked), isn't the warning stage unnecessary? Furthermore, shouldn't the new account receive the same permanent block as the initial account? [[User:Dlarsh|Dlarsh]]([[User_talk:Dlarsh|T]],[[Special:Contributions/Dlarsh|C]]) 04:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
:{{ec}}That may be my fault, since I set a bad example and took steps out of order yesterday — I asked for a block a couple of minutes before realizing that nobody had yet issued a warning.

:Also, on that note, I've verified that all recent edits have been reverted and patrolled any that were unpatrolled. I also moved the offending file to a new location to make patrolling...I'd say "easier", but it's more like making it "not a nightmare". ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 04:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

== Innappropriate Username? ==

Would [[User_talk:Asseater9000|AssEater9000]] be an unacceptable username? Because someone has signed up with that name. --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|Contribs]] 17:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard

2010-05-15T20:25:43Z

ModderElGrande: /* Request for Block of Rpeh */

[[Category:Message Boards|{{PAGENAME}}]]
The '''administrator noticeboard''' is where we discuss and coordinate administrative tasks on the wiki. Although this page is intended for [[UESPWiki:Administrators|administrators]], all users are encouraged to participate in discussions. __NEWSECTIONLINK__

{| class="wikitable compress" style="float: right;"
! Major Discussions
|-
| [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Vandalism|Vandalism]]: Mostly spam, actually.
|-
! Page Archives
|-
| [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive 1|Archive 1]]: Feb 2005 – June 2006.
|-
| [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive 2|Archive 2]]: June 2006 – August 2006.
|-
| [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive 3|Archive 3]]: September 2006 - June 2007.
|-
| [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive 4|Archive 4]]: June 2007 - July 2007.
|-
| [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive 5|Archive 5]]: August 2007 - October 2007.
|-
| [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive 6|Archive 6]]: October 2007 - November 2007.
|-
| [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive 7|Archive 7]]: December 2007 - January 2008.
|-
| [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive 8|Archive 8]]: January 2008 - February 2008.
|-
| [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive 9|Archive 9]]: February 2008 - August 2008.
|-
| [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive 10|Archive 10]]: September 2008 - October 2008.
|-
| [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive 11|Archive 11]]: November 2008 - December 2008.
|-
| [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive 12|Archive 12]]: December 2008 - March 2009.
|-
| [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive 13|Archive 13]]: April 2009 - December 2009.
|-
| [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive 14|Archive 14]]: January 2010 - February 2010.
|-
! Past Administrative Requests
|-
| [[User:Aristeo/RfA|Aristeo's Request for Adminstrator]]: ''Approved June 19, 2006''
|-
| [[User:Nephele/RfA|Nephele's Request for Adminstrator]]: ''Approved Aug. 13, 2006''
|-
| [[User:Aristeo/RfB|Aristeo's Request for Bureaucrat]]: ''Withdrawn by Aristeo Nov. 19, 2006''
|-
| [[User:Ratwar/RfA|Ratwar's Request for Adminstrator]]: ''Approved Jan 31, 2007''
|-
| [[User:TheRealLurlock/RfA|TheRealLurlock's Request for Adminstrator]]: ''Approved Feb. 23, 2007''
|-
| [[User:Rpeh/RfA|Rpeh's Request for Adminstrator]]: ''Approved Oct. 1, 2007''
|-
| [[UESPWiki:Archive/AN Request for Server Access|Nephele's Request for Server Access]]: ''Approved Jan. 4, 2008''
|-
| [[User:Eshe/RfA|Eshe's Request for Adminstrator]]: ''Approved Mar. 31, 2008''
|-
| [[User:GuildKnight/RfA|GuildKnight's Request for Adminstrator]]: ''Approved Nov. 11, 2008''
|-
| [[User:Timenn/RfA|Timenn's Request for Adminstrator]]: ''Approved Aug. 7, 2009''
|-
| [[User:Krusty/RfA|Krusty's Request for Adminstrator]]: ''Approved May 3, 2010''
|}

== 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 <code>editusercssjs</code> [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:User_rights 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. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 09:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

== Elliot - Abuse of Power ==

I want to complain about an abuse of power by [[User:Elliot|Elliot]]. After he added an insult [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Community_Portal&curid=76158&diff=552093&oldid=551933 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? [[Special:Contributions/204.45.58.234|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.--[[User:Corevette789|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. –[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk: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. [[Special:Contributions/204.45.58.234|204.45.58.234]] 17:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

::::It is worth pointing out that [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elliot&curid=72214&diff=552133&oldid=552128 this] comment by Elliot proves that he only warned me out of spite. This is clearly not behavior that should be accepted. [[Special:Contributions/204.45.58.234|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. –[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk: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. [[Special:Contributions/204.45.58.234|204.45.58.234]] 18:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

::::::Oh ''where'' have I heard that before? Oh wait! [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Calliope&diff=next&oldid=471039 Calliope] (rpeh's sockpuppet, mind you) and [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki_talk:Deletion_Review&diff=474502&oldid=474497 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? –[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk: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. [[Special:Contributions/204.45.58.234|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! –[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk: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. --[[User:ModderElGrande|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 [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|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 [[Wikipedia:Gaming the system|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. --[[User:Timenn|Timenn]]-<[[User talk:Timenn|talk]]> 18:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

:Alright. --[[User:ModderElGrande|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. --[[User:ModderElGrande|ModderElGrande]] 01:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
:Okay, I've checked out [[User:MartinAndJuaffreAreLovers|MAJAL's userpage]] and it contains some pretty inappropriate content too, is he block-worthy? --[[User:ModderElGrande|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.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette789]] 01:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
:::There is nothing really wrong with it, nor is it block worthy. –[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|talk]] 01:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
::::{{ec}} 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 [[:Category:Mature Content Images|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. ;) ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|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. --'''[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Michaeldsuarez|Deeds]])''' 02:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

== 98.218.8.19 ==

'''''Note:''' This discussion was originally placed on [[UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard/Vandalism|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 [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Oblivion:Breton&diff=prev&oldid=551948 disruptive], [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Oblivion:Breton&diff=prev&oldid=551950 obscene], [[Special:Contributions/98.218.8.19|and all of his/her contributions]] are [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Oblivion:Breton&diff=prev&oldid=551949 nonsense] [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Oblivion:Breton&diff=prev&oldid=551947 edits.] He/she has already been given a [[User_talk:98.218.8.19|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. --[[User:ModderElGrande|ModderElGrande]] 09:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
:They did not edit once the warning was issued; therefore, no block is needed. –[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk: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.--[[User:Corevette789|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.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette789]] 23:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
:Yes that is another. I am requesting a block for the IP 80.202.122.175--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette789]] 23:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

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

== Redgaurd page protection ==

''Moved from page: [[Oblivion talk:Redguard|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.--[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|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.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 01:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
::This is best brought up on the [[UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard|Administrator Noticeboard]]. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 02:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

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

As I said on the [[Oblivion:Redguard|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? --[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|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. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 00:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

== Superblood ==

I am requesting an Immediate block of the user Superblood for 75+ vandalizing edits.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 23:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

:Timenn you are a lifesaver--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 23:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

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

== De-Patrollership Request for [[User:Elliot|Elliot]] ==

After the series of edits and arguments that erupted last Saturday, 6th of March, I have come to the decision that [[User:Elliot|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 [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Template:Gameinfo&diff=prev&oldid=523155 three] [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Users&diff=prev&oldid=524834 latest] [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elliot&diff=prev&oldid=552113 arguments] Elliot has gotten in to, exception made for [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Users&diff=538094&oldid=538088 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 [[UESPWiki:Protection Policy|Protection Policy]]; as with all other site policies and general topics, I studied this very carefully before posting this. The anon [[Special:Contributions/204.45.58.234|204.45.58.234]] posted a [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard&diff=552127&oldid=551938 complaint] on this page because Elliot abused of his Patroller powers by [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:204.45.58.234&diff=552124&oldid=552123 protecting] a warning on the anon’s [[User talk:204.45.58.234|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 [[UESPWiki:Protection Policy#Semi-Protection|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 [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elliot&curid=72214&diff=552133&oldid=552128 spite], since the anon had posted [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elliot&diff=prev&oldid=552111 one] on Elliot’s talk page. Therefore, the anon and more importantly [[User:Corevette789|Corevette789]], were right in removing it; since Corevette had already posted a more appropriate [[User talk:204.45.58.234#Elliot's comment|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 [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=552136 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 [[User talk:Elliot/Archives/2009/July#Protect Tags|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 [[UESPWiki:Etiquette|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 [[Special:Contributions/Elliot|here]] for plenty of examples). Even if we only take the latest case, two comments stand out: [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Community_Portal&diff=next&oldid=551933 "''it is you who cannot read''"] and a particularly [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ModderElGrande&diff=prev&oldid=552165 vicious post] on [[User:ModderElGrande|ModderElGrande]]'s [[User talk:ModderElGrande|talk page]]. Just so we’re clear about this, let me provide two definitions (both from [http://dictionary.reference.com/ 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 [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Community_Portal&diff=prev&oldid=552095 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 [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:204.45.58.234&diff=prev&oldid=552120 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 ([[User_talk:Elliot/Archives/2009/July#You're Doing It Again|here]]), to not use section protection in a wrong way and was also asked to step down for two weeks ([[UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard/Archive 13#Patrolling Style - Elliot|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 [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard&diff=552132&oldid=552129 disagrees] with this doesn’t entitle him to take no heed of this point. He [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard&diff=next&oldid=552137 repeatedly] [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:204.45.58.234&diff=next&oldid=552123 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 [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard&diff=552132&oldid=552129 various], [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard&diff=next&oldid=552137 not-exactly-veiled] [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=552145 insinuations] that the anon was [[User:rpeh|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 [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard&diff=next&oldid=552148 says it] himself: "''there's that record playing in my head''" He also didn’t think of [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=204.45.58.234&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq= looking] the anon up on Google, which would have [http://www.sitelogr.com/s/daveproxy.us told him] it was an [http://daveproxy.us/ 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 [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Community_Portal&diff=552109&oldid=552106 here] To clarify this, let’s take a look at WP’s [[Wikipedia:Ad hominem|article]]. First of all, Elliot complies to the most basic description: he replies to rpeh’s [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Community_Portal&diff=551933&oldid=551932 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 [[Wikipedia:Ad Hominem#Ad hominem abusive|"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 [[UESPWiki:Blocking Policy|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 ([http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard&diff=552139&oldid=552137 here]) and even re-opening the argument as to whether rpeh is [[User:Calliope|Calliope]] ([http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard&diff=next&oldid=552143 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 [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elliot&diff=552162&oldid=552161 rejected] MEG’s, took little notice of Corevette’s while dismissing him as a nuisance and it was finally [[User:Timenn|Timenn]] who had to [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elliot&diff=552159&oldid=552156 post] on Elliot’s page to ask him to stop. (Elliot’s response was again not on topic, but rather an [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elliot&diff=next&oldid=552159 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 [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Template:Gameinfo&diff=prev&oldid=523155 tendency] to [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Template:Gameinfo&diff=next&oldid=523156 engage] in [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:204.45.58.234&diff=prev&oldid=552122 edit] [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:204.45.58.234&diff=next&oldid=552123 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 [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=patrol&user=Elliot&page=&year=&month=-1 most recent entries] in the [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=patrol&user=&page=&year=&month=-1 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 [http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Unofficial_Elder_Scrolls_Pages 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. --[[User:SerCenKing|SerCenKing]] [[User talk: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. --[[User:GuildKnight|GK]][[User_talk:GuildKnight|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. --[[User:ModderElGrande|ModderElGrande]][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|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. --[[User:ModderElGrande|ModderElGrande]][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|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 [[UESPWiki:IRC#Channel Guidelines|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. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|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? –[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|talk]] 22:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

After witnessing [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SerCenKing&diff=prev&oldid=552996 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. --'''[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Michaeldsuarez|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. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|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. --[[User:Krusty|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. --[[User:Timenn|Timenn]]-<[[User talk: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. --[[User:GuildKnight|GK]][[User_talk:GuildKnight|talk2me]] 00:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

== Warnings for Elliot and 204.45.58.234 ==

There were comments by [[User:Timenn|Timenn]] on [[User_talk:Elliot|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 [[User_talk:204.45.58.234|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. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|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. --'''[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Michaeldsuarez|Deeds]])''' 16:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

::Furthermore the anon that warned Elliot was an open proxy per google search as [[User:Timenn|Timenn]] discovered and pointed out to us which is grounds for an immediate perma-block for the anon. --[[User:ModderElGrande|ModderElGrande]][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|contribs]] 18:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

== Archives ==

In view of the number of archives we're developing for this page, I've opted to simply extend Archive 13 to the end of 2009, much in the manner that one of the archive bots on Wikipedia would. I'd like to suggest that for future archives, we move to a more chronologically-oriented division and continue the trend of creating new archives and either expanding them until they get large, or just use a pure chronological division regardless of size. MiszaBot on WP, for instance, uses 250K by default, and after my edits, Archive 13 sits at 258K. Both in terms of size and chronology, it would make sense to start Archive 14 for 2010, then expand it either until it's exceedingly large or until, say, the end of June 2010. Any other opinions? ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 01:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
:Yes, I agree with this. --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|Contribs]] 14:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

== Updating Patroller Guidelines ==
I noticed than on [http://www.uesp.net/wiki/UESPWiki:Patrollers#Nomination_Guidelines 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.'''Vandalism'''If ANY vandalizing edits were made under your name then you are not eligible for nomination for at least 6 months after the incident.
Feedback?--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 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!--[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|Arch-Mage Matt]][[User talk:Arch-Mage Matt|Talk]] 01:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

::It has been at 300 and you just broke 600 edits today.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 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.--[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|'''Arch-Mage Matt''']][[User talk:Arch-Mage Matt|Talk]] 02:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

::::You can use [[Special:Editcount|this]] to check that--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 02:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

::::: The number of edits isn't the be-all and end-all of a good patroller. [[User:SubtleCynicism|SubtleCynicism]] never put a foot wrong, and although his low edit count was mentioned during the [[UESPWiki:Patrollers/Nominations/Completed/2007#SubtleCynicism|nomination process]], he was darn useful during his (all too brief) stay on the site.
::::: Some people have suggested age as a criterion. No. [[User:Vesna|Vesna]] was a great editor and [[UESPWiki:Patrollers/Nominations/Completed/2007#Vesna|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 [[User:PLRDLF|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, [[User:Gez|Gez]] and [[User:Theviking|Theviking]] are great on the {{TR3}} 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. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|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.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 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. [[User:GuildKnight/Sandbox/4|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 [[UESPWiki:Mentor Program|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? --[[User:GuildKnight|GK]][[User_talk:GuildKnight|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.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 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 [[User:Nx|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.)
:::‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|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.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 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? --[[User:GuildKnight|GK]][[User_talk:GuildKnight|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. --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|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. --'''[[User:GuildKnight|GK]]'''[[User_talk:GuildKnight|talk2me]] 16:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
::Yup I think the consensus has been reached what sandbox of yours is this in GK?--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 21:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

::: This looks good to me. I think it's ready for prime-time. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|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. --'''[[User:GuildKnight|GK]]'''[[User_talk:GuildKnight|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 [[User:ModderElGrande/Sandbox4|Sandbox 4]] on my userpage. --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|Contribs]] 18:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
:These are unnecessary because we only give one warning. Wikipedia, on the other hand, gives four warnings. –[[User talk:Elliot|'''Elliot''']] 23:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
::I agree. I don't foresee any circumstance that these would be used. --[[User:GuildKnight|GK]][[User_talk:GuildKnight|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--[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|''Arch-Mage Matt'']][[User talk: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! --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|Contribs]] 20:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
::Now Horsey! and Heytherepies! as well--[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|''Arch-Mage Matt'']][[User talk: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) --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|Contribs]] 20:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
::::Who are timen and gk?(just curious...){{unsigned|Lichesarecool}}
:::::They're the two only active admins on the wiki. --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|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|Lichesarecool}}
:::::::Full list of names--[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|''Arch-Mage Matt'']][[User talk: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. --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|Contribs]] 20:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::And Marcus21.--[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|''Arch-Mage Matt'']][[User talk:Arch-Mage Matt|Talk]] 20:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::''Definatly Mmmcookies''--[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|''Arch-Mage Matt'']][[User talk: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. --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|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''--[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|''Arch-Mage Matt'']][[User talk: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. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 21:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

:GK you are a lifesaver! --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|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. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 20:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

:This is an excellent idea! --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|Contribs]] 20:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

::I'm thinking its not only gven to patrollers, but users who have reverted ______ amount of edits.--[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|''Arch-Mage Matt'']][[User talk: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. [[User:Atreus|A]]•[[User_Talk:Atreus|t]]•[[Special:Contributions/Atreus|r]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Atreus|e]]•[[User:Atreus/Peregrine|u]]•[http://atreus.necrolounge.org/ 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.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 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.--[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|''Arch-Mage Matt'']][[User talk: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. --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|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. --[[User:Krusty|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 [[User:Atreus|A]]•[[User_Talk:Atreus|t]]•[[Special:Contributions/Atreus|r]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Atreus|e]]•[[User:Atreus/Peregrine|u]]•[http://atreus.necrolounge.org/ 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?.--[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|''Arch-Mage Matt'']][[User talk: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. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|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. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|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. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|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?) --[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|''Arch-Mage Matt'']][[User talk: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 <s>Forum</s>/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. --[[User:SerCenKing|SerCenKing]] [[User talk:SerCenKing|Talk]] 21:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
::::(aside) i'm not a forum mod ;) [[User:Atreus|A]]•[[User_Talk:Atreus|t]]•[[Special:Contributions/Atreus|r]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Atreus|e]]•[[User:Atreus/Peregrine|u]]•[http://atreus.necrolounge.org/ 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. –[[User talk:Elliot|'''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.--[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|''Arch-Mage Matt'']][[User talk: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. --[[User:SerCenKing|SerCenKing]] [[User talk: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.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 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. [[User:Atreus|A]]•[[User_Talk:Atreus|t]]•[[Special:Contributions/Atreus|r]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Atreus|e]]•[[User:Atreus/Peregrine|u]]•[http://atreus.necrolounge.org/ 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. –[[User talk:Elliot|'''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...''--[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|''Arch-Mage Matt'']][[User talk: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. [[User:Atreus|A]]•[[User_Talk:Atreus|t]]•[[Special:Contributions/Atreus|r]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Atreus|e]]•[[User:Atreus/Peregrine|u]]•[http://atreus.necrolounge.org/ s] 21:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

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

::::::<3 this is a community, mind you.[[User:Atreus|A]]•[[User_Talk:Atreus|t]]•[[Special:Contributions/Atreus|r]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Atreus|e]]•[[User:Atreus/Peregrine|u]]•[http://atreus.necrolounge.org/ 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. --[[User:GuildKnight|GK]][[User_talk:GuildKnight|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! –[[User talk:Elliot|'''Elliot''']] 22:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

:Lets all try to stay calm and '''not''' let this turn into a war!!!--[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|''Arch-Mage Matt'']][[User talk: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. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|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. –[[User talk:Elliot|'''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. [[User:Atreus|A]]•[[User_Talk:Atreus|t]]•[[Special:Contributions/Atreus|r]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Atreus|e]]•[[User:Atreus/Peregrine|u]]•[http://atreus.necrolounge.org/ s] 22:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::That's why admins have mass rolback and blocking rights. –[[User talk:Elliot|'''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.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 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? [[User:Atreus|A]]•[[User_Talk:Atreus|t]]•[[Special:Contributions/Atreus|r]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Atreus|e]]•[[User:Atreus/Peregrine|u]]•[http://atreus.necrolounge.org/ 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. –[[User talk:Elliot|'''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. [[User:Atreus|A]]•[[User_Talk:Atreus|t]]•[[Special:Contributions/Atreus|r]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Atreus|e]]•[[User:Atreus/Peregrine|u]]•[http://atreus.necrolounge.org/ 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.--[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|''Arch-Mage Matt'']][[User talk: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 ([[Special:ListGroupRights|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. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 22:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
::::AMM that is what I said above.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 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. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 22:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

(To Corevette) Woops. The infamous AMM's idiocy strikes again!--[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|''Arch-Mage Matt'']][[User talk: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. –[[User talk:Elliot|'''Elliot''']] 22:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

::I think this proposal makes more sense than the Vandal Brake (which was [[User_talk:Daveh#Requesting_Changes|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. --[[User:GuildKnight|GK]][[User_talk:GuildKnight|talk2me]] 23:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

:::Makes sense to me especialy since misusing that privilge could be considered vandalism.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|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. -- [[User:Nx|'''''Nx''''']] / [[User talk: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. --[[User:Timenn|Timenn]]-<[[User talk: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. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|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. --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|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. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 20:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

:Agreed. I wrote the following draft for the [[UESPWiki:Patrollers]] page, see [[User:Timenn/Sandbox/Example/1|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). --[[User:Timenn|Timenn]]-<[[User talk: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? --[[User:SerCenKing|SerCenKing]] [[User talk:SerCenKing|Talk]] 19:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

::: I'd change "excessively" to "persistently" - "excessive vandalism" is something of <s>an oxymoron</s> 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? [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|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. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|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. [[User talk:Elliot|'''Elliot''']] 20:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

(u/d) Okay, I've [[User_talk:Daveh#New_User_Group|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. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|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". --[[User:GuildKnight|GK]][[User_talk:GuildKnight|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. --'''[[User:GuildKnight|GK]]'''[[User_talk:GuildKnight|talk2me]] 15:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
[[Image:Screenshot RestrictBlock.png|thumb]]
:::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 <nowiki><hookaborted></nowiki>, see the screenshot. I've reported that to mediawiki, see [[wikipedia:bugzilla:22922]] -- [[User:Nx|'''''Nx''''']] / [[User talk: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? [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|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?--[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|''Arch-Mage Matt'']][[User talk:Arch-Mage Matt|Talk]] 20:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
:For the sole reason to argue the block just in case.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 20:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
:{{ec}} It is their right to appeal the block. So, no, I don't think this will happen. –[[User talk:Elliot|'''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. --[[User:SerCenKing|SerCenKing]] [[User talk: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--[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|''Arch-Mage Matt'']][[User talk: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'.'' –[[User talk:Elliot|'''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 ?--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|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. --'''[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Michaeldsuarez|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 [[Special:Mypage|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, --[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|''Arch-Mage Matt'']][[User talk:Arch-Mage Matt|Talk]] 19:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

:Use [[Special:Watchlist]] instead. --'''[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Michaeldsuarez|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. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|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. -- [[User:Nx|'''''Nx''''']] / [[User talk: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 {{tl|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. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 20:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

::Would it be better to simply remove the external link from {{tl|Proposeddeletion}} and {{tl|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. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|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''. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 21:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

::::Good point, I withdraw my suggestion. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|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|83.243.165.190}} 17:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
:What exactly are you referring to? Could you provide a link?--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 17:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
::I believe anon is talking about this: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Collection -- [[User:Nx|'''''Nx''''']] / [[User talk:Nx|''talk'']] 18:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
:Sure, it's pediapress.com [http://pediapress.com] {{unsigned|83.243.165.190}} 18:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
::Yes, that uses the collection extension, which isn't installed at UESP. -- [[User:Nx|'''''Nx''''']] / [[User talk: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. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|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|83.243.165.190}}

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. -- [[User:Daveh|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 [[UESPWiki:Forum Rules#Forum Staff|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. --'''[[User:GuildKnight|GK]]'''[[User_talk:GuildKnight|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.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 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|Walbert|11 April 2010}}

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

==Request for Adminship==
The UESPWiki, at the moment, has only two active [[UESPWiki:Administrators|admins]], and we could use some help.

Our Request for Adminship (RfA) process is based on [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship|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. [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] makes the call, based upon the community's consensus, after about a week.

===Krusty===
:{{userlinks|Krusty}}
:''archived to [[User:Krusty/RfA]]; consensus: support''

== Request for Block of [[User:Rpeh|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 <s>the removal of all rights of his</s> '''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. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk: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. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|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. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk: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. [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Community_Portal&curid=76158&diff=568644&oldid=568623 Here] and [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Community_Portal&curid=76158&diff=568654&oldid=568653&rcid=588526 here] he reinstates a comment that does nothing to advance the debate and only attacks another user while also removing [[User:RobinHood70|another user's]] attempts to seal the debate. I'm not going to respond to this trolling any further. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 22:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

::::How does that pertain to the discussion at hand? (And your [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki%3AAdministrator_Noticeboard&diff=568663&oldid=568662 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. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk: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. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|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. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 23:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::::{| style="border:2px solid #990000; width:100%; background-color:#FFCCCC; margin: 0 auto 1em auto; padding: .2em;"
| width="69" | [[Image:Stop_hand.png]]
| '''Please don't feed the troll'''. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 23:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
|}

::::::::The above is precisely what I am referring to. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk: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. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 00:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

{{od}} 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. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk: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 "[http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard&curid=76157&diff=568712&oldid=568711&rcid=588584 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. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|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. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk: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. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk: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--[[User:GUM!!!|GUM!!!]] 00:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

::::If any other editors voice concerns, I'd be happy to hold a vote regarding to [[User:rpeh|rpeh]]'s eligibility for his position. As it stands, it seems rather personal and irrelevant.
::::*'''Elliot''': {{Pl|UESPWiki:Community Portal|This edit|3=&diff=568341&oldid=568340}} 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 {{Pl|UESPWiki:Community Portal|this edit|3=&diff=next&oldid=568392}}, 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. --'''[[User:GuildKnight|GK]]'''[[User_talk:GuildKnight|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? '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk: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. --'''[[User:GuildKnight|GK]]'''[[User_talk:GuildKnight|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? '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 03:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

{{od}}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 [[UESPWiki:IRC|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. --'''[[User:GuildKnight|GK]]'''[[User_talk:GuildKnight|talk2me]] 03:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
:That's a load of bull and you know it. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk: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. --[[User:Krusty|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. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk: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. --[[User:SerCenKing|SerCenKing]] [[User talk:SerCenKing|Talk]] 08:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::Who knew [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ARpeh&year=&month=-1 such behavior] garners respect? Trust me, I will be in eternal tears for not having left this site sooner. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk: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.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 20:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::::You just have no idea, do you? '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk: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 [[User:TheAlbinoOrc|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.
--[[User:Timenn|Timenn]]-<[[User talk: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.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 18:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
:Timmen, is it okay to call other users trolls? '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk: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. --[[User:Timenn|Timenn]]-<[[User talk: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. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk: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. --'''[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Michaeldsuarez|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.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''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. --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|Contribs]] 20:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard

2010-05-01T08:03:48Z

ModderElGrande: /* Votes */

[[Category:Message Boards|{{PAGENAME}}]]
The '''administrator noticeboard''' is where we discuss and coordinate administrative tasks on the wiki. Although this page is intended for [[UESPWiki:Administrators|administrators]], all users are encouraged to participate in discussions. __NEWSECTIONLINK__

{| class="wikitable compress" style="float: right;"
! Major Discussions
|-
| [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Vandalism|Vandalism]]: Mostly spam, actually.
|-
! Page Archives
|-
| [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive 1|Archive 1]]: Feb 2005 – June 2006.
|-
| [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive 2|Archive 2]]: June 2006 – August 2006.
|-
| [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive 3|Archive 3]]: September 2006 - June 2007.
|-
| [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive 4|Archive 4]]: June 2007 - July 2007.
|-
| [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive 5|Archive 5]]: August 2007 - October 2007.
|-
| [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive 6|Archive 6]]: October 2007 - November 2007.
|-
| [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive 7|Archive 7]]: December 2007 - January 2008.
|-
| [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive 8|Archive 8]]: January 2008 - February 2008.
|-
| [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive 9|Archive 9]]: February 2008 - August 2008.
|-
| [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive 10|Archive 10]]: September 2008 - October 2008.
|-
| [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive 11|Archive 11]]: November 2008 - December 2008.
|-
| [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive 12|Archive 12]]: December 2008 - March 2009.
|-
| [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive 13|Archive 13]]: April 2009 - December 2009.
|-
| [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive 14|Archive 14]]: January 2010 - February 2010.
|-
! Past Administrative Requests
|-
| [[User:Aristeo/RfA|Aristeo's Request for Adminstrator]]: ''Approved June 19, 2006''
|-
| [[User:Nephele/RfA|Nephele's Request for Adminstrator]]: ''Approved Aug. 13, 2006''
|-
| [[User:Aristeo/RfB|Aristeo's Request for Bureaucrat]]: ''Withdrawn by Aristeo Nov. 19, 2006''
|-
| [[User:Ratwar/RfA|Ratwar's Request for Adminstrator]]: ''Approved Jan 31, 2007''
|-
| [[User:TheRealLurlock/RfA|TheRealLurlock's Request for Adminstrator]]: ''Approved Feb. 23, 2007''
|-
| [[User:Rpeh/RfA|Rpeh's Request for Adminstrator]]: ''Approved Oct. 1, 2007''
|-
| [[UESPWiki:Archive/AN Request for Server Access|Nephele's Request for Server Access]]: ''Approved Jan. 4, 2008''
|-
| [[User:Eshe/RfA|Eshe's Request for Adminstrator]]: ''Approved Mar. 31, 2008''
|-
| [[User:GuildKnight/RfA|GuildKnight's Request for Adminstrator]]: ''Approved Nov. 11, 2008''
|-
| [[User:Timenn/RfA|Timenn's Request for Adminstrator]]: ''Approved Aug. 7, 2009''
|}

== 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 <code>editusercssjs</code> [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:User_rights 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. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 09:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

== Elliot - Abuse of Power ==

I want to complain about an abuse of power by [[User:Elliot|Elliot]]. After he added an insult [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Community_Portal&curid=76158&diff=552093&oldid=551933 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? [[Special:Contributions/204.45.58.234|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.--[[User:Corevette789|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. –[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk: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. [[Special:Contributions/204.45.58.234|204.45.58.234]] 17:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

::::It is worth pointing out that [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elliot&curid=72214&diff=552133&oldid=552128 this] comment by Elliot proves that he only warned me out of spite. This is clearly not behavior that should be accepted. [[Special:Contributions/204.45.58.234|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. –[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk: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. [[Special:Contributions/204.45.58.234|204.45.58.234]] 18:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

::::::Oh ''where'' have I heard that before? Oh wait! [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Calliope&diff=next&oldid=471039 Calliope] (rpeh's sockpuppet, mind you) and [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki_talk:Deletion_Review&diff=474502&oldid=474497 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? –[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk: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. [[Special:Contributions/204.45.58.234|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! –[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk: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. --[[User:ModderElGrande|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 [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|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 [[Wikipedia:Gaming the system|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. --[[User:Timenn|Timenn]]-<[[User talk:Timenn|talk]]> 18:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

:Alright. --[[User:ModderElGrande|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. --[[User:ModderElGrande|ModderElGrande]] 01:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
:Okay, I've checked out [[User:MartinAndJuaffreAreLovers|MAJAL's userpage]] and it contains some pretty inappropriate content too, is he block-worthy? --[[User:ModderElGrande|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.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette789]] 01:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
:::There is nothing really wrong with it, nor is it block worthy. –[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|talk]] 01:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
::::{{ec}} 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 [[:Category:Mature Content Images|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. ;) ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|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. --'''[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Michaeldsuarez|Deeds]])''' 02:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

== 98.218.8.19 ==

'''''Note:''' This discussion was originally placed on [[UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard/Vandalism|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 [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Oblivion:Breton&diff=prev&oldid=551948 disruptive], [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Oblivion:Breton&diff=prev&oldid=551950 obscene], [[Special:Contributions/98.218.8.19|and all of his/her contributions]] are [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Oblivion:Breton&diff=prev&oldid=551949 nonsense] [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Oblivion:Breton&diff=prev&oldid=551947 edits.] He/she has already been given a [[User_talk:98.218.8.19|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. --[[User:ModderElGrande|ModderElGrande]] 09:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
:They did not edit once the warning was issued; therefore, no block is needed. –[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk: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.--[[User:Corevette789|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.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette789]] 23:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
:Yes that is another. I am requesting a block for the IP 80.202.122.175--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette789]] 23:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

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

== Redgaurd page protection ==

''Moved from page: [[Oblivion talk:Redguard|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.--[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|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.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 01:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
::This is best brought up on the [[UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard|Administrator Noticeboard]]. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 02:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

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

As I said on the [[Oblivion:Redguard|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? --[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|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. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 00:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

== Superblood ==

I am requesting an Immediate block of the user Superblood for 75+ vandalizing edits.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 23:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

:Timenn you are a lifesaver--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 23:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

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

== De-Patrollership Request for [[User:Elliot|Elliot]] ==

After the series of edits and arguments that erupted last Saturday, 6th of March, I have come to the decision that [[User:Elliot|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 [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Template:Gameinfo&diff=prev&oldid=523155 three] [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Users&diff=prev&oldid=524834 latest] [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elliot&diff=prev&oldid=552113 arguments] Elliot has gotten in to, exception made for [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Users&diff=538094&oldid=538088 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 [[UESPWiki:Protection Policy|Protection Policy]]; as with all other site policies and general topics, I studied this very carefully before posting this. The anon [[Special:Contributions/204.45.58.234|204.45.58.234]] posted a [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard&diff=552127&oldid=551938 complaint] on this page because Elliot abused of his Patroller powers by [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:204.45.58.234&diff=552124&oldid=552123 protecting] a warning on the anon’s [[User talk:204.45.58.234|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 [[UESPWiki:Protection Policy#Semi-Protection|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 [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elliot&curid=72214&diff=552133&oldid=552128 spite], since the anon had posted [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elliot&diff=prev&oldid=552111 one] on Elliot’s talk page. Therefore, the anon and more importantly [[User:Corevette789|Corevette789]], were right in removing it; since Corevette had already posted a more appropriate [[User talk:204.45.58.234#Elliot's comment|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 [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=552136 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 [[User talk:Elliot/Archives/2009/July#Protect Tags|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 [[UESPWiki:Etiquette|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 [[Special:Contributions/Elliot|here]] for plenty of examples). Even if we only take the latest case, two comments stand out: [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Community_Portal&diff=next&oldid=551933 "''it is you who cannot read''"] and a particularly [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ModderElGrande&diff=prev&oldid=552165 vicious post] on [[User:ModderElGrande|ModderElGrande]]'s [[User talk:ModderElGrande|talk page]]. Just so we’re clear about this, let me provide two definitions (both from [http://dictionary.reference.com/ 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 [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Community_Portal&diff=prev&oldid=552095 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 [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:204.45.58.234&diff=prev&oldid=552120 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 ([[User_talk:Elliot/Archives/2009/July#You're Doing It Again|here]]), to not use section protection in a wrong way and was also asked to step down for two weeks ([[UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard/Archive 13#Patrolling Style - Elliot|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 [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard&diff=552132&oldid=552129 disagrees] with this doesn’t entitle him to take no heed of this point. He [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard&diff=next&oldid=552137 repeatedly] [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:204.45.58.234&diff=next&oldid=552123 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 [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard&diff=552132&oldid=552129 various], [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard&diff=next&oldid=552137 not-exactly-veiled] [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=552145 insinuations] that the anon was [[User:rpeh|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 [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard&diff=next&oldid=552148 says it] himself: "''there's that record playing in my head''" He also didn’t think of [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=204.45.58.234&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq= looking] the anon up on Google, which would have [http://www.sitelogr.com/s/daveproxy.us told him] it was an [http://daveproxy.us/ 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 [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Community_Portal&diff=552109&oldid=552106 here] To clarify this, let’s take a look at WP’s [[Wikipedia:Ad hominem|article]]. First of all, Elliot complies to the most basic description: he replies to rpeh’s [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Community_Portal&diff=551933&oldid=551932 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 [[Wikipedia:Ad Hominem#Ad hominem abusive|"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 [[UESPWiki:Blocking Policy|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 ([http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard&diff=552139&oldid=552137 here]) and even re-opening the argument as to whether rpeh is [[User:Calliope|Calliope]] ([http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard&diff=next&oldid=552143 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 [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elliot&diff=552162&oldid=552161 rejected] MEG’s, took little notice of Corevette’s while dismissing him as a nuisance and it was finally [[User:Timenn|Timenn]] who had to [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elliot&diff=552159&oldid=552156 post] on Elliot’s page to ask him to stop. (Elliot’s response was again not on topic, but rather an [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elliot&diff=next&oldid=552159 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 [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Template:Gameinfo&diff=prev&oldid=523155 tendency] to [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Template:Gameinfo&diff=next&oldid=523156 engage] in [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:204.45.58.234&diff=prev&oldid=552122 edit] [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:204.45.58.234&diff=next&oldid=552123 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 [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=patrol&user=Elliot&page=&year=&month=-1 most recent entries] in the [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=patrol&user=&page=&year=&month=-1 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 [http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Unofficial_Elder_Scrolls_Pages 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. --[[User:SerCenKing|SerCenKing]] [[User talk: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. --[[User:GuildKnight|GK]][[User_talk:GuildKnight|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. --[[User:ModderElGrande|ModderElGrande]][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|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. --[[User:ModderElGrande|ModderElGrande]][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|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 [[UESPWiki:IRC#Channel Guidelines|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. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|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? –[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|talk]] 22:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

After witnessing [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SerCenKing&diff=prev&oldid=552996 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. --'''[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Michaeldsuarez|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. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|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. --[[User:Krusty|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. --[[User:Timenn|Timenn]]-<[[User talk: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. --[[User:GuildKnight|GK]][[User_talk:GuildKnight|talk2me]] 00:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

== Warnings for Elliot and 204.45.58.234 ==

There were comments by [[User:Timenn|Timenn]] on [[User_talk:Elliot|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 [[User_talk:204.45.58.234|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. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|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. --'''[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Michaeldsuarez|Deeds]])''' 16:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

::Furthermore the anon that warned Elliot was an open proxy per google search as [[User:Timenn|Timenn]] discovered and pointed out to us which is grounds for an immediate perma-block for the anon. --[[User:ModderElGrande|ModderElGrande]][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|contribs]] 18:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

== Archives ==

In view of the number of archives we're developing for this page, I've opted to simply extend Archive 13 to the end of 2009, much in the manner that one of the archive bots on Wikipedia would. I'd like to suggest that for future archives, we move to a more chronologically-oriented division and continue the trend of creating new archives and either expanding them until they get large, or just use a pure chronological division regardless of size. MiszaBot on WP, for instance, uses 250K by default, and after my edits, Archive 13 sits at 258K. Both in terms of size and chronology, it would make sense to start Archive 14 for 2010, then expand it either until it's exceedingly large or until, say, the end of June 2010. Any other opinions? ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 01:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
:Yes, I agree with this. --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|Contribs]] 14:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

== Updating Patroller Guidelines ==
I noticed than on [http://www.uesp.net/wiki/UESPWiki:Patrollers#Nomination_Guidelines 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.'''Vandalism'''If ANY vandalizing edits were made under your name then you are not eligible for nomination for at least 6 months after the incident.
Feedback?--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 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!--[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|Arch-Mage Matt]][[User talk:Arch-Mage Matt|Talk]] 01:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

::It has been at 300 and you just broke 600 edits today.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 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.--[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|'''Arch-Mage Matt''']][[User talk:Arch-Mage Matt|Talk]] 02:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

::::You can use [[Special:Editcount|this]] to check that--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 02:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

::::: The number of edits isn't the be-all and end-all of a good patroller. [[User:SubtleCynicism|SubtleCynicism]] never put a foot wrong, and although his low edit count was mentioned during the [[UESPWiki:Patrollers/Nominations/Completed/2007#SubtleCynicism|nomination process]], he was darn useful during his (all too brief) stay on the site.
::::: Some people have suggested age as a criterion. No. [[User:Vesna|Vesna]] was a great editor and [[UESPWiki:Patrollers/Nominations/Completed/2007#Vesna|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 [[User:PLRDLF|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, [[User:Gez|Gez]] and [[User:Theviking|Theviking]] are great on the {{TR3}} 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. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|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.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 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. [[User:GuildKnight/Sandbox/4|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 [[UESPWiki:Mentor Program|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? --[[User:GuildKnight|GK]][[User_talk:GuildKnight|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.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 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 [[User:Nx|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.)
:::‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|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.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 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? --[[User:GuildKnight|GK]][[User_talk:GuildKnight|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. --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|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. --'''[[User:GuildKnight|GK]]'''[[User_talk:GuildKnight|talk2me]] 16:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
::Yup I think the consensus has been reached what sandbox of yours is this in GK?--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 21:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

::: This looks good to me. I think it's ready for prime-time. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|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. --'''[[User:GuildKnight|GK]]'''[[User_talk:GuildKnight|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 [[User:ModderElGrande/Sandbox4|Sandbox 4]] on my userpage. --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|Contribs]] 18:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
:These are unnecessary because we only give one warning. Wikipedia, on the other hand, gives four warnings. –[[User talk:Elliot|'''Elliot''']] 23:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
::I agree. I don't foresee any circumstance that these would be used. --[[User:GuildKnight|GK]][[User_talk:GuildKnight|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--[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|''Arch-Mage Matt'']][[User talk: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! --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|Contribs]] 20:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
::Now Horsey! and Heytherepies! as well--[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|''Arch-Mage Matt'']][[User talk: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) --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|Contribs]] 20:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
::::Who are timen and gk?(just curious...){{unsigned|Lichesarecool}}
:::::They're the two only active admins on the wiki. --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|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|Lichesarecool}}
:::::::Full list of names--[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|''Arch-Mage Matt'']][[User talk: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. --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|Contribs]] 20:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::And Marcus21.--[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|''Arch-Mage Matt'']][[User talk:Arch-Mage Matt|Talk]] 20:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::''Definatly Mmmcookies''--[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|''Arch-Mage Matt'']][[User talk: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. --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|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''--[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|''Arch-Mage Matt'']][[User talk: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. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 21:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

:GK you are a lifesaver! --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|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. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 20:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

:This is an excellent idea! --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|Contribs]] 20:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

::I'm thinking its not only gven to patrollers, but users who have reverted ______ amount of edits.--[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|''Arch-Mage Matt'']][[User talk: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. [[User:Atreus|A]]•[[User_Talk:Atreus|t]]•[[Special:Contributions/Atreus|r]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Atreus|e]]•[[User:Atreus/Peregrine|u]]•[http://atreus.necrolounge.org/ 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.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 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.--[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|''Arch-Mage Matt'']][[User talk: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. --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|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. --[[User:Krusty|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 [[User:Atreus|A]]•[[User_Talk:Atreus|t]]•[[Special:Contributions/Atreus|r]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Atreus|e]]•[[User:Atreus/Peregrine|u]]•[http://atreus.necrolounge.org/ 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?.--[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|''Arch-Mage Matt'']][[User talk: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. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|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. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|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. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|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?) --[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|''Arch-Mage Matt'']][[User talk: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 <s>Forum</s>/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. --[[User:SerCenKing|SerCenKing]] [[User talk:SerCenKing|Talk]] 21:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
::::(aside) i'm not a forum mod ;) [[User:Atreus|A]]•[[User_Talk:Atreus|t]]•[[Special:Contributions/Atreus|r]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Atreus|e]]•[[User:Atreus/Peregrine|u]]•[http://atreus.necrolounge.org/ 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. –[[User talk:Elliot|'''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.--[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|''Arch-Mage Matt'']][[User talk: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. --[[User:SerCenKing|SerCenKing]] [[User talk: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.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 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. [[User:Atreus|A]]•[[User_Talk:Atreus|t]]•[[Special:Contributions/Atreus|r]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Atreus|e]]•[[User:Atreus/Peregrine|u]]•[http://atreus.necrolounge.org/ 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. –[[User talk:Elliot|'''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...''--[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|''Arch-Mage Matt'']][[User talk: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. [[User:Atreus|A]]•[[User_Talk:Atreus|t]]•[[Special:Contributions/Atreus|r]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Atreus|e]]•[[User:Atreus/Peregrine|u]]•[http://atreus.necrolounge.org/ s] 21:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

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

::::::<3 this is a community, mind you.[[User:Atreus|A]]•[[User_Talk:Atreus|t]]•[[Special:Contributions/Atreus|r]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Atreus|e]]•[[User:Atreus/Peregrine|u]]•[http://atreus.necrolounge.org/ 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. --[[User:GuildKnight|GK]][[User_talk:GuildKnight|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! –[[User talk:Elliot|'''Elliot''']] 22:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

:Lets all try to stay calm and '''not''' let this turn into a war!!!--[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|''Arch-Mage Matt'']][[User talk: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. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|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. –[[User talk:Elliot|'''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. [[User:Atreus|A]]•[[User_Talk:Atreus|t]]•[[Special:Contributions/Atreus|r]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Atreus|e]]•[[User:Atreus/Peregrine|u]]•[http://atreus.necrolounge.org/ s] 22:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::That's why admins have mass rolback and blocking rights. –[[User talk:Elliot|'''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.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 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? [[User:Atreus|A]]•[[User_Talk:Atreus|t]]•[[Special:Contributions/Atreus|r]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Atreus|e]]•[[User:Atreus/Peregrine|u]]•[http://atreus.necrolounge.org/ 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. –[[User talk:Elliot|'''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. [[User:Atreus|A]]•[[User_Talk:Atreus|t]]•[[Special:Contributions/Atreus|r]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Atreus|e]]•[[User:Atreus/Peregrine|u]]•[http://atreus.necrolounge.org/ 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.--[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|''Arch-Mage Matt'']][[User talk: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 ([[Special:ListGroupRights|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. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 22:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
::::AMM that is what I said above.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 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. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 22:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

(To Corevette) Woops. The infamous AMM's idiocy strikes again!--[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|''Arch-Mage Matt'']][[User talk: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. –[[User talk:Elliot|'''Elliot''']] 22:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

::I think this proposal makes more sense than the Vandal Brake (which was [[User_talk:Daveh#Requesting_Changes|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. --[[User:GuildKnight|GK]][[User_talk:GuildKnight|talk2me]] 23:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

:::Makes sense to me especialy since misusing that privilge could be considered vandalism.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|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. -- [[User:Nx|'''''Nx''''']] / [[User talk: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. --[[User:Timenn|Timenn]]-<[[User talk: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. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|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. --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|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. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 20:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

:Agreed. I wrote the following draft for the [[UESPWiki:Patrollers]] page, see [[User:Timenn/Sandbox/Example/1|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). --[[User:Timenn|Timenn]]-<[[User talk: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? --[[User:SerCenKing|SerCenKing]] [[User talk:SerCenKing|Talk]] 19:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

::: I'd change "excessively" to "persistently" - "excessive vandalism" is something of <s>an oxymoron</s> 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? [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|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. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|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. [[User talk:Elliot|'''Elliot''']] 20:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

(u/d) Okay, I've [[User_talk:Daveh#New_User_Group|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. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|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". --[[User:GuildKnight|GK]][[User_talk:GuildKnight|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. --'''[[User:GuildKnight|GK]]'''[[User_talk:GuildKnight|talk2me]] 15:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
[[Image:Screenshot RestrictBlock.png|thumb]]
:::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 <nowiki><hookaborted></nowiki>, see the screenshot. I've reported that to mediawiki, see [[wikipedia:bugzilla:22922]] -- [[User:Nx|'''''Nx''''']] / [[User talk: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? [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|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?--[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|''Arch-Mage Matt'']][[User talk:Arch-Mage Matt|Talk]] 20:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
:For the sole reason to argue the block just in case.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 20:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
:{{ec}} It is their right to appeal the block. So, no, I don't think this will happen. –[[User talk:Elliot|'''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. --[[User:SerCenKing|SerCenKing]] [[User talk: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--[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|''Arch-Mage Matt'']][[User talk: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'.'' –[[User talk:Elliot|'''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 ?--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|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. --'''[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Michaeldsuarez|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 [[Special:Mypage|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, --[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|''Arch-Mage Matt'']][[User talk:Arch-Mage Matt|Talk]] 19:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

:Use [[Special:Watchlist]] instead. --'''[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Michaeldsuarez|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. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|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. -- [[User:Nx|'''''Nx''''']] / [[User talk: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 {{tl|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. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 20:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

::Would it be better to simply remove the external link from {{tl|Proposeddeletion}} and {{tl|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. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|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''. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 21:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

::::Good point, I withdraw my suggestion. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|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|83.243.165.190}} 17:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
:What exactly are you referring to? Could you provide a link?--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 17:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
::I believe anon is talking about this: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Collection -- [[User:Nx|'''''Nx''''']] / [[User talk:Nx|''talk'']] 18:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
:Sure, it's pediapress.com [http://pediapress.com] {{unsigned|83.243.165.190}} 18:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
::Yes, that uses the collection extension, which isn't installed at UESP. -- [[User:Nx|'''''Nx''''']] / [[User talk: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. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|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|83.243.165.190}}

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. -- [[User:Daveh|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 [[UESPWiki:Forum Rules#Forum Staff|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. --'''[[User:GuildKnight|GK]]'''[[User_talk:GuildKnight|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.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 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|Walbert|11 April 2010}}

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

==Request for Adminship==
The UESPWiki, at the moment, has only two active [[UESPWiki:Administrators|admins]], and we could use some help.

Our Request for Adminship (RfA) process is based on [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship|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. [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] makes the call, based upon the community's consensus, after about a week.

===Krusty===
:{{userlinks|Krusty}}

Since joining the UESPWiki in February of '09, [[User:Krusty|Krusty]] has shown great attention to detail and tremendous good-faith. In addition to his apparently-tireless work on the [[UESPWiki:Oblivion NPC Redesign Project|Oblivion NPC Redesign Project]], he has shown a willingness to verify even the most unlikely "anon-edits" and good teamwork skills. He obviously strives for an amicable environment on the wiki and assumes good faith. He's also almost always available, so we might as well give him some extra buttons and take advantage!

====Questions====
'''Q1''': What do you hope to accomplish as an administrator?
* My main objective is to remove some of the pressure from the two active administrators on the site. For the longest time, both of them have worked hard doing a huge amount of admin duties while trying their best to add content to the site, an almost impossible task given the many disturbances we have experienced recently. Basically, we can all agree that the UESP needs more administrators to keep things running smoothly – and it is unfair to expect Timenn and GK to be online 24-7, no matter how many vandal edits we’re experiencing. I’m working at home most of the time so I watch the RC all day long and have often found it frustrating to watch vandals do their thing and not be able to do anything but hand out a warning and play the waiting game. Besides that, my goal is to keep the environment friendly and constructive and I will do the patrolling/deletion/blocking duties when necessary - without slowing down my own work on the Wiki. I also aim to keep the sites’ pages as flawless as I can and make sure the high quality is consistent throughout – which includes my favorite hobby, the undivided attention to even the smallest details. After all, this site is about having fun and I will do my best to solve conflicts and controversy before it gets out of hand. I also plan on joining the community even more and participate in relevant discussions instead of staying in the shadows like I have done a bit too much in the past. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 07:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

'''Q2''': What do you see as the UESP's main challenges in the near future?
* Well, (un)fortunately, Beth has not announced a new ES game yet, so we can put our energy in the many on-going projects – all the new Place Pages, the ONPCRP (yeah, I said it) and the OPRP are all HUGE and time-consuming for everybody involved. The Shivering Isles section also needs to be revamped (and many pages needs to be de-stubbed), and that expansion is much more complicated than anything in Oblivion, to be honest. Still, when Beth finally announces a new ES title, all hell will break loose and we will have to sort out exactly how to deal with that. ESV will probably be the UESP’s biggest challenge to date, and hopefully, we will be ready. Time will tell. Also, the namespaces for the mobile games are still blank for most of the titles (Shadowkey excluded) and it would be a great challenge to change that – it is a secret project of mine, but now everybody knows. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 07:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

'''Q3''': How do you interpret the balance between enforcing policies and being innovative when policies prove to be problematic?
* Honestly, I have never considered UESP policies as problematic; 95% of them make perfect sense to me - because they represent common sense and I will always enforce common sense. The remaining 5% are represented by the necessary “evils” of the wiki-world and being a community. The whole “public”-phenomenon can sometimes get unpleasant – discussing the shortcomings of certain editors on public pages for everybody to see, stuff like that. On the other hand, that is wiki-life and you will have to get used to it eventually. I will, however, try to ensure that the tone stays civil during these necessary evils, something I have done from day one anyway. In short, I will do my best to enforce the various policies, also during the rare instances where they seem more problematic than helpful. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 07:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

'''Q4''': How long do you anticipate remaining active on the wiki, and why?
* Right now, it is forever. Why? Because I suffer from a terrible illness: When I stumble upon a game-world I really like, I hate to leave it behind. That is one of the reasons I like this site so much; it gives me the opportunity to stay in Cyrodiil and investigate the impressive amount of detail. I enjoy the sense of perfectionism that oozes from the site and I really like the people working on it and have found several friends on both the IRC and the Wiki. No need to leave that behind. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 07:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

'''Q5''': What's the recipe for Øllebrød?
*It is a strange soup made by soaking pumpernickel bread in beer overnight, with whipped cream on top = the perfect cure for a light hangover. It has been at least 20 years since my last taste and a quick check in an old cookbook (and a Google search to compare) came up with the following ingredients:
:*8 Slice pumpernickel bread
:*3 cups dark ale
:*1 cup water
:*Sugar
:*Whipping cream, plain or whipped, on top
*Gotta love that! --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 07:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
=====Additional questions by [[User:Elliot|Elliot]]=====
'''Q6''': Under what circumstances would you block an editor who has never received a warning?
* That’s an easy one; I have watched the RC for 14 months and I plan to let the other Administrators (and the written policies) inspire me for the task. It’s easy to tell the difference between some anon adding a profanity to impress his friends, and a true vandal who makes 25 edits to different pages stating the same over and over again. Other than that, it will be business as usual; spammers, open proxies and so on. I do not see any big problems there. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 12:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

'''Q7''': What are your thoughts on mandatory registration? Do you believe it is the duty of a wiki to open editing to all readers? Do you believe the contributions of anonymous editors outweighs the vandalism received from having open editing (proxies, tor, etc.)?
* Hmm, that is an old discussion – and one of the discussions I never participated in, mostly because I am a bit split on the subject and because other editors beat me to it. I’m not sure if my opinion really matters in this context, but here is the short version: The open proxy vandalism will always be a problem when we allow anon editing, no doubt. From that point of view, you can argue that mandatory registration is a good idea. When bots are flying all over the place, the first reaction will always be: ''“damn, we need to put a lock on anon editing!”'', but that feeling rarely lasts for long. Nevertheless, after several months as a patroller, I think anon editing should be allowed. Reason? I have looked through countless useful edits made by anons and they tend to find the spelling mistakes (and general mistakes) we have overlooked for years – also, forcing them to make an account will not change anything. The edits will still be the same. And vandals determined to damage the site will always find a way, with or without registration. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 12:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

'''Q8''': What action will you take if you see another administrator perform an action that you completely disagree with? Do you believe it is ever necessary or permissible to revert the actions of another administrator?
*Another easy one: No. It’s been a LONG time since I doubted the work of the administrators and even if I did – and remember, it is quite human to make an “oops” on occasion, even for administrators – I would never do a full revert without consulting the admin first. We have talk pages, e-mail correspondence and daily gatherings on the IRC for the very same reason. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 12:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

====Votes====
Cast votes with '''Support''', '''Oppose''', or '''Neutral'''. '''Comment'''s are also welcome.
*'''Support''': As nominator. --'''[[User:GuildKnight|GK]]'''[[User_talk:GuildKnight|talk2me]] 20:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''': Of course! Krusty is a great editor and more admins are definitely needed. I see no issues with giving him the rights coming with adminship.--[[User:Corevette789|Corevette]][[User:Corevette789|789]] 20:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
*'''<s>Neutral</s> Support''': This will only be neutral for the meantime. I would like to support Krusty for the most obvious of reasons. Everyone trusts him to make the right decision; however, I worry about him making a decision at all. He often lies low when things either heat up or become surrounded with policy changes. Even when talking to him, he shies away from saying something that may be potentially hurtful although necessary. The only times I have heard his opinion on many matters has been when I dragged it out of him. I have asked a few more questions to get a better feel. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 07:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC) I have decided to support based on what I believe will take place in the future rather than dwelling on what has happened in the past. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 05:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''': This is a very easy decision to make as Krusty has been one of the site's top editors for a long time. He knows the games, knows the site and knows how to behave on a wiki. He also knows that it's not always necessary to give an opinion about every situation - a very useful attribute indeed. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 12:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support:''' Of course. Great editor. --'''[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Michaeldsuarez|Deeds]])''' 15:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''': I can't think of anybody better-suited and ready for the job. ‒ [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|Talk]] 22:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''': I'll crawl out of my hole and show my support for Krusty as well. In my opinion, Krusty's friendly personality and staggering level of dedication to even the most seemingly mundane details will be a great boon to the administrative staff. As Robin Hood says above, I can't think of anyone more appropriate for the job :). [[User:Dlarsh|Dlarsh]]([[User_talk:Dlarsh|T]],[[Special:Contributions/Dlarsh|C]]) 07:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''': Krusty definitely meets the qualifications required of an administrator. Furthermore, he approaches every situation with an open mind and shows a good deal of patience. He doesn't rush into decisions and elaborates on his views rather than just using contradiction when he disagrees. It is reassuring that Krusty knows his recipes, as cooking skills are a must for administrators. --[[User:Timenn|Timenn]]-<[[User talk:Timenn|talk]]> 09:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Not really much left for me to say, everyone else has already said it.--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''TheAlbinoOrc''']] 04:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''': Definitely, he is one of our best editors. He is extremely dedicated, polite, friendly, diplomatic and very knowledgeable about the games, the site and its policies. As Robin Hood said: Can't think of anyone better suited for the job. [[User:Kalrot|Kalrot]] 13:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''': I mean, what else? I've known Krusty for over a year, and I have come to think of him as one of the best editors on the site. Most importantly, Krusty has gained my complete trust - and I'm sure he'll make an excellent Admin. --[[User:SerCenKing|SerCenKing]] [[User talk:SerCenKing|Talk]] 17:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''': For all of the reasons above. Great job, Krusty!--[[User:Arch-Mage Matt|''Arch-Mage Matt'']][[User talk:Arch-Mage Matt|Talk]] 20:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support:''' All the reasons have already been stated above. --[[User:ModderElGrande|'''''ModderElGrande''''']][[User_talk:ModderElGrande|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ModderElGrande|Contribs]] 08:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Oblivion:Undead

2010-03-27T20:49:15Z

ModderElGrande: /* Bones Undead */

{{Trail|Creatures}}[[Category:Oblivion-Creatures-Undead| ]]{{TOCright}}
'''Undead''' creatures consist of various forms of reanimated corpses and spirits. The undead on this page are also all listed in the [[:Category:Oblivion-Creatures-Undead|Oblivion-Creatures-Undead]] category. Information on locations where undead will be encountered is provided at [[Oblivion:Undead Dungeons|Undead Dungeons]].

==Overview==
There are three main classifications of undead:
* '''[[#Bones Undead|Bones]]''': skeletal-type undead, such as skeletons and liches
* '''[[#Ethereal Undead|Ethereal]]''': non-corporeal spirits, such as ghosts and wraiths
* '''[[#Zombie Undead|Zombies]]''': reanimated fleshy corpses
In most places, the game simply specifies that an undead creature (of any type) can appear. However, there are also places where the game specifies that an undead creature must be of one of these three types.

All undead are [[Oblivion:Resist Poison|immune to poison]], and [[Oblivion:Resist Frost|resist frost]] to varying degrees. Undead cannot be drowned: they all have either [[Oblivion:Water Walking|Water Walking]] or [[Oblivion:Water Breathing|Water Breathing]] as a permanent ability. Their [[Oblivion:Fatigue|fatigue]] cannot be damaged or decreased in any way. All undead are affected by [[Oblivion:Turn Undead|Turn Undead]], but are not affected by [[Oblivion:Calm|Calm]] or [[Oblivion:Demoralize|Demoralize]].

Most undead creatures can be [[Oblivion:Summon|summoned]]; a complete list of summonable undead is provided under [[#Summons|Summons]]. [[Oblivion:Dungeons#Necromancers|Necromancers]] are very likely to summon undead, and necromancer dungeons are frequently inhabited with undead (except for liches); necromancers will not attack these undead, because they are both part of the NecromancerDungeon faction.

Almost all undead creatures are members of the [[Oblivion:Factions U#Undead|Undead Faction]]. This ensures that the various undead creatures inhabiting a dungeon will not attack each other. Members of the Undead faction will also be friendly towards [[Oblivion:Necromancer|Necromancer]]s and members of the [[Oblivion:Factions V#Vampires|Vampire Faction]] (i.e., NPC vampires, but not the player even if the player is a full vampire). One notable exception is full Liches: they are members of the [[Oblivion:Factions L#Lich Faction|Lich Faction]] instead of the Undead Faction. See [[#Liches|Liches]] for more information.

==Standard==
These are the standard undead creatures that are generated by commonly used leveled lists; see [[#Leveled Lists|Leveled Lists]] for more details. The vast majority of the undead creatures encountered during the game come from these standard leveled lists.
* The level provided for each creature in the Lvl column is the typical level at which the creature is first encountered.
* Some creatures' health varies depending upon the player level, indicated by an equation in the Health column. The lvl used in the equation is the player's level. The soul for these creatures is usually variable; the souls column indicates the range of soul strengths that are possible. For full details on variable soul strengths see the [[Oblivion:Souls|Souls]] page.

{{NewLine}}
{| class=wikitable style = text-align:center width=100%
|-
!colspan=12|Bones Undead
|-
!width=20%| Creature
!width=22 | Lvl
!width=20%| Carries
!width=22|[[Image:OBHealthIcon_small.png|Health]]
!width=22|[[Image:FrostIcon_small.png|Frost Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:PoisonIcon_small.png|Poison Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:ParalyzeIcon_small.png|Paralysis Resist]]
!colspan=4 width=40%|Attacks
!width=10%| Soul
|-
|'''{{Linkable Entry|Skeleton|exname=Melee Skeleton}}''' ''(Melee)'' {{ID|00024DDB}} ''2 in 3 chance''
|1||War Axe Bonemeal||20||70||100||100
|colspan=4 style = text-align:left|
*War Axe (Iron or Steel)
*5pts melee, unarmed
|Petty
|-
|'''{{Linkable Entry|Skeleton|exname=Archer Skeleton}}''' ''(Archer)'' {{ID|00084B1A}} ''1 in 3 chance''
|1||Leveled Bow Arrows Bonemeal||20||70||100||100
|colspan=4 style = text-align:left|
*Leveled Bow (Iron-Elven, possibly enchanted)
*Arrows (Iron plus non-enchanted leveled arrows, Iron-Dwarven)
*5pts melee, unarmed
|Petty
|- bgcolor=#EEEEEE
|'''{{Linkable Entry|Skeleton Guardian|exname=Melee Skeleton Guardian}}''' ''(Melee)'' {{ID|0001E5F2}} ''2 in 3 chance''
|8||Mace Leveled Shield Bonemeal||170||70||100||100
|colspan=4 style = text-align:left|
*Mace (Steel or Silver)
*8pts melee, unarmed
*Leveled Shield (Steel, Dwarven, or Orcish)
|Lesser
|- bgcolor=#EEEEEE
|'''{{Linkable Entry|Skeleton Guardian|exname=Archer Skeleton Guardian}}''' ''(Archer)'' {{ID|00084B19}} ''1 in 3 chance''
|8||Leveled Bow Arrows Bonemeal||170||70||100||100
|colspan=4 style = text-align:left|
*Leveled Bow (Iron-Elven, possibly enchanted)
*Arrows (Iron plus non-enchanted leveled arrows, Iron-Dwarven)
*8pts melee, unarmed
|Lesser
|-
|'''{{Linkable Entry|Skeleton Hero|exname=Melee Skeleton Hero}}''' ''(Melee)'' {{ID|0001E5F4}} ''2 in 3 chance''
|12||Battle Axe Bonemeal||280||70||100||100
|colspan=4 style = text-align:left|
*Battle Axe (Silver, Elven, or Dwarven)
*12pts melee, unarmed
|Common
|-
|'''{{Linkable Entry|Skeleton Hero|exname=Archer Skeleton Hero}}''' ''(Archer)'' {{ID|00084B1B}} ''1 in 3 chance''
|12||Leveled Bow Arrows Bonemeal||280||70||100||100
|colspan=4 style = text-align:left|
*Leveled Bow (Iron-Elven, possibly enchanted)
*Arrows (Steel plus non-enchanted leveled arrows, Iron-Dwarven)
*12pts melee, unarmed
|Common
|- bgcolor=#EEEEEE
|'''{{Linkable Entry|Skeleton Champion|exname=Melee Skeleton Champion}}''' ''(Melee)'' {{ID|0001E5EA}} ''2 in 3 chance''
|17||Claymore Bonemeal||350||70||100||100
|colspan=4 style = text-align:left|
*Claymore (Silver-Glass, possibly enchanted)
*14pts melee, unarmed
*[[Oblivion:Summon|Summon Skeleton Guardian]] {{ID|''Immune to Silence.''}}
|Greater
|- bgcolor=#EEEEEE
|'''{{Linkable Entry|Skeleton Champion|exname=Archer Skeleton Champion}}''' ''(Archer)'' {{ID|00084B1C}} ''1 in 3 chance''
|17||Leveled Bow Arrows Bonemeal||350||70||100||100
|colspan=4 style = text-align:left|
*Leveled Bow (Iron-Elven, possibly enchanted)
*Arrows (Steel plus non-enchanted leveled arrows, Iron-Dwarven)
*9pts melee, unarmed
*[[Oblivion:Summon|Summon Skeleton Guardian]] {{ID|''Immune to Silence.''}}
|Greater
|-
! Creature !! Lvl !! Carries
!width=22|[[Image:OBHealthIcon_small.png|Health]]
!width=22|[[Image:FrostIcon_small.png|Frost Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:PoisonIcon_small.png|Poison Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:FireIcon_small.png|Fire Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:MagicIcon_small.png|Magic Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:ReflectMagicIcon_small.png|Reflect Spell]]
!width=22|[[Image:SpellAbsorbIcon_small.png|Spell Absorption]]
! Attacks !! [[Oblivion:Souls|Soul]]
|-
|'''{{Linkable Entry|Nether Lich}}''' {{ID|000343AA}}
|19||Bonemeal Leveled Staff||15× (lvl-7) {{ID|Min:255}}||100||100||{{FC|red|-25}}||25|| ||25
|style = text-align:left|
*Leveled enchanted staff
*Three leveled destruction spells
*Leveled [[Oblivion:Summon|Summon undead]] spell
*Leveled [[Oblivion:Absorb Health|Absorb Health]] spell
*Leveled [[Oblivion:Shield|Shield]] spell
*Leveled [[Oblivion:Silence|Silence]] spell
*10+((lvl-7)/2) pts melee, unarmed {{ID|(Min:18)}}
|>=Greater[[Oblivion:Souls#Soul Strengths|L:-7]]
|- bgcolor=#EEEEEE
|'''{{Linkable Entry|Lich}}''' {{ID|0001E5EC}}
|26||Bonemeal Leveled Staff||15×lvl {{ID|Min:360}}||100||100||{{FC|red|-25}}||25||25||25
|style = text-align:left|
*Leveled staff with destruction enchantment
*Three leveled destruction spells
*Leveled [[Oblivion:Summon|Summon undead]] spell
*Leveled [[Oblivion:Absorb Health|Absorb Health]] spell
*Leveled [[Oblivion:Shield|Shield]] spell
*Leveled [[Oblivion:Dispel|Dispel]] on target spell
*20+(lvl/2) pts melee, unarmed {{ID|(Min:32)}}
|Grand[[Oblivion:Souls#Soul Strengths|L:+0]]
|-
!colspan=12|Ethereal Undead
|-
! Creature !! Lvl !! Carries
!width=22|[[Image:OBHealthIcon_small.png|Health]]
!width=22|[[Image:FrostIcon_small.png|Frost Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:PoisonIcon_small.png|Poison Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:ArmorIcon_Small.png|Normal Weapon Resist]]
!colspan=4|Attacks
! [[Oblivion:Souls|Soul]]
|-
|'''{{Linkable Entry|Ghost}}''' {{ID|00033E70}}
|6||Ectoplasm||18× (lvl-1) {{ID|Max:72}}||100||100||100
|colspan=4 style = text-align:left|
*'''Ghostly Touch''' {{ID|([[Oblivion:Frost Damage|Frost Damage]] 10pts, [[Oblivion:Damage Fatigue|Damage Fatigue]] 9pts; both on Touch. ''Immune to Silence'')}}
*'''Snowball''' {{ID|([[Oblivion:Frost Damage|Frost Damage]] 10pts, [[Oblivion:Damage Fatigue|Damage Fatigue]] 9pts; both on Target)}}
|<=Lesser[[Oblivion:Souls#Soul Strengths|L:-1]]
|- bgcolor=#EEEEEE
|'''{{Linkable Entry|Ancient Ghost}}''' {{ID|0005D2BC}}
|11||Ectoplasm||170||100||100||100
|colspan=4 style = text-align:left|
*'''Ghostly Touch''' {{ID|([[Oblivion:Frost Damage|Frost Damage]] 20pts, [[Oblivion:Damage Fatigue|Damage Fatigue]] 19pts, both on Touch; [[Oblivion:Drain Fatigue|Drain Fatigue]] 76pts for 1sec on ''Self''). ''Immune to Silence''}}
*'''Icy Blast''' {{ID|([[Oblivion:Frost Damage|Frost Damage]] 20pts, [[Oblivion:Damage Fatigue|Damage Fatigue]] 19pts; both on Target. ''Immune to Silence'')}}
*'''Icy Touch''' {{ID|([[Oblivion:Frost Damage|Frost Damage]] 15pts on ''Target'', [[Oblivion:Damage Fatigue|Damage Fatigue]] 14pts on ''Self''. ''Immune to Silence'')}}
*'''Invisibility''' {{ID|([[Oblivion:Invisibility|Invisibility]] for 15sec on Self. ''Immune to Silence'')}}
|Common
|-
|'''{{Linkable Entry|Faded Wraith|exname=Unarmed Faded Wraith}}''' ''(Unarmed)'' {{ID|0001E5F3}} ''2 in 3 chance''
|14||Ectoplasm||280||100||100||100
|colspan=4 style = text-align:left|
*'''Faded Wraith's Curse''' {{ID|([[Oblivion:Frost Damage|Frost Damage]] 1pt for 30sec + 10pts, [[Oblivion:Drain Endurance|Drain Endurance]] & [[Oblivion:Drain Strength|Strength]] 20pts for 30sec; all on Target. ''Immune to Silence'')}}
*'''Winter's Grasp''' {{ID|([[Oblivion:Frost Damage|Frost Damage]] 45pts on Touch)}}
*'''Frost Bolt''' {{ID|([[Oblivion:Frost Damage|Frost Damage]] 35pts on Target)}}
*'''Silence of the Grave''' {{ID|([[Oblivion:Frost Damage|Frost Damage]] 2pts for 10sec, [[Oblivion:Silence|Silence]] for 10sec; both on Target}}
*24pts melee, unarmed
|Common
|-
|'''{{Linkable Entry|Faded Wraith|exname=Armed Faded Wraith}}''' ''(Armed)'' {{ID|00032656}} ''1 in 3 chance''
|14||Ectoplasm Shortsword Random Poison (25%)||280||100||100||100
|colspan=4 style = text-align:left|
*Same spells as [[#Unarmed Faded Wraith|unarmed Faded Wraith]]
*Shortsword (Dwarven or Elven)
*24pts melee, unarmed
|Common
|- bgcolor=#EEEEEE
|'''{{Linkable Entry|Wraith|exname=Unarmed Wraith}}''' ''(Unarmed)'' {{ID|00098301}} ''1 in 2 chance''
|18||Ectoplasm||400||100||100||100
|colspan=4 style = text-align:left|
*'''Wraith's Curse''' {{ID|([[Oblivion:Absorb Health|Absorb Health]] 2pts for 30sec, [[Oblivion:Damage Endurance|Damage Endurance]] & [[Oblivion:Damage Strength|Strength]] 2pts; both on Touch. ''Immune to Silence'')}}
*'''Winter's Grasp''' {{ID|([[Oblivion:Frost Damage|Frost Damage]] 45pts on Touch)}}
*'''Frost Bolt''' {{ID|([[Oblivion:Frost Damage|Frost Damage]] 35pts on Target)}}
*'''Silence of the Grave''' {{ID|([[Oblivion:Frost Damage|Frost Damage]] 2pts for 10sec, [[Oblivion:Silence|Silence]] for 10sec; both on Target}}
*24pts melee, unarmed
|Greater
|- bgcolor=#EEEEEE
|'''{{Linkable Entry|Wraith|exname=Armed Wraith}}''' ''(Armed)'' {{ID|00098304}} ''1 in 2 chance''
|18||Ectoplasm Longsword||210||100||100||100
|colspan=4 style = text-align:left|
*Same spells as [[#Unarmed Wraith|unarmed Wraith]]
*Longsword (Dwarven, Elven, or Glass)
*20pts melee, unarmed
|Greater
|-
|'''{{Linkable Entry|Gloom Wraith|exname=Unarmed Gloom Wraith}}''' ''(Unarmed)'' {{ID|00032657}} ''1 in 3 chance''
|23||Ectoplasm||24× (lvl-3)||100||100||100
|colspan=4 style = text-align:left|
*'''Gloom Wraith's Curse''' {{ID|([[Oblivion:Absorb Health|Absorb Health]] 4pts for 30sec, [[Oblivion:Burden|Burden]] 50pts for 30sec, [[Oblivion:Damage Willpower|Damage Willpower]] 2pts; all on Touch. ''Immune to Silence'')}}
*'''Arctic Blow''' {{ID|([[Oblivion:Frost Damage|Frost Damage]] 80pts on Touch)}}
*'''Ice Bolt''' {{ID|([[Oblivion:Frost Damage|Frost Damage]] 70pts on Target)}}
*'''Silence of the Grave''' {{ID|([[Oblivion:Frost Damage|Frost Damage]] 3pts for 15sec, [[Oblivion:Silence|Silence]] in 15ft for 15sec)}}
*17+((lvl-3)/2) pts melee, unarmed
|Grand[[Oblivion:Souls#Soul Strengths|L:-3]]
|-
|'''{{Linkable Entry|Gloom Wraith|exname=Armed Gloom Wraith}}''' ''(Armed)'' {{ID|0001E5EB}} ''2 in 3 chance''
|23||Ectoplasm Longsword Random Poison (50%)||24× (lvl-3)||100||100||100
|colspan=4 style = text-align:left|
*Same spells as [[#Unarmed Gloom Wraith|unarmed Gloom Wraith]]
*Longsword (Elven or Glass)
*17+((lvl-3)/2) pts melee, unarmed
|Grand[[Oblivion:Souls#Soul Strengths|L:-3]]
|-
!colspan=12|Zombie Undead
|-
! Creature !! Lvl !! Carries
!width=22|[[Image:OBHealthIcon_small.png|Health]]
!width=22|[[Image:FrostIcon_small.png|Frost Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:PoisonIcon_small.png|Poison Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:FireIcon_small.png|Fire Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:MagicIcon_small.png|Magic Resist]]
!colspan=3|Attacks
! [[Oblivion:Souls|Soul]]
|- bgcolor=#EEEEEE
|'''{{Linkable Entry|Zombie}}''' {{ID|00025E6E}}, {{ID|00025E5E}}, {{ID|00025E55}}, {{ID|00025E4F}}
|4||Minor Loot (15%) Mort Flesh||80||30||100||{{FC|red|-60}}||30
|colspan=3 style = text-align:left|
*10pts melee, unarmed
|Lesser
|-
|'''{{Linkable Entry|Headless Zombie}}''' {{ID|00025E4E}}, {{ID|00025E6F}}, {{ID|00025E4D}}, {{ID|00025E4C}}
|10||Minor Loot (15%) Mort Flesh||175||30||100||{{FC|red|-60}}||30
|colspan=3 style = text-align:left|
*27pts melee, unarmed
|Common
|- bgcolor=#EEEEEE
|'''{{Linkable Entry|Dread Zombie}}''' {{ID|0009851B}}, {{ID|0009F955}}, {{ID|0009F956}}, {{ID|0009F957}}
|16||Minor Loot (15%) Mort Flesh||340||30||100||{{FC|red|-60}}||30
|colspan=3 style = text-align:left|
*38pts melee, unarmed
*Regenerate health 5 pts/sec
|Greater
|}

===Leveled Lists===
The following table summarizes the vast majority of the leveled lists that are used to generate undead creatures. There are a few minor variations, such as liches not always appearing in leveled lists; the notes below the table provide details on such variations.
* All '''skeletons''' come in both melee and archer varieties. In most cases, whether the skeleton is a melee or archer type is randomly determined (with a 2 in 3 chance that it is melee, and a 1 in 3 chance that it is archer). A few leveled lists, however, specifically request only melee skeletons or only archer skeletons.
* All '''wraiths''' come in both armed and unarmed varieties. Which type appears is always randomly determined (Faded Wraiths have a 1 in 3 chance of being armed; plain Wraiths have a 1 in 2 chance of being armed; Gloom Wraiths have a 2 in 3 chance of being armed).
* All '''zombies''' come in four nearly identical varieties (they differ only in appearance and animations). Which of the four appears is always randomly determined, with an equal chance of any of the four varieties appearing.

See [[Oblivion:Leveled Lists|Leveled Lists]] for details on how these lists are used to determine the probabilities of individual creatures appearing.

{| class=wikitable style=text-align:center width=100%
|-
!
! width=13% | Standard
! width=13% | Boss
! width=13% | Bones
! width=13% | Bones Boss
! width=13% | Ethereal
! width=13% | Zombie
|-
!style=text-align:right|Number of Uses
!584!!22!!150!!7!!66!!48
|-
|style=text-align:right|'''Skeleton'''
|1||—||1||1||—||—
|-
|style=text-align:right|'''Zombie'''
|4||—||—||—||—||1
|-
|style=text-align:right|'''Ghost'''
|6||1||—||—||1||—
|-
|style=text-align:right|'''Skeleton Guardian'''
|8||6||8||6||—||—
|-
|style=text-align:right|'''Headless Zombie'''
|10||8||—||—||—||10
|-
|style=text-align:right|'''Ancient Ghost'''
|11||9||—||—||11||—
|-
|style=text-align:right|'''Skeleton Hero'''
|12||10||12||10||—||—
|-
|style=text-align:right|'''Faded Wraith'''
|14||12||—||—||14||—
|-
|style=text-align:right|'''Dread Zombie'''
|16||14||—||—||—||16
|-
|style=text-align:right|'''Skeleton Champion'''
|17||15||17||15||—||—
|-
|style=text-align:right|'''Wraith'''
|18||16||—||—||18||—
|-
|style=text-align:right|'''Nether Lich'''
|19||17||19||17||—||—
|-
|style=text-align:right|'''Gloom Wraith'''
|23||21||—||—||23||—
|-
|style=text-align:right|'''Lich'''
|26||23||—||23||—||—
|}

The editor names of the leveled lists that are covered by this table are as follows (including lists that are nearly identical, except for noted differences):
* '''Standard''' = LL1UndeadLvl50, LL1UndeadLvl75
** Same except Dread Zombie at level 15 (instead of 16): LL1UndeadLvl100
** Same list except no liches: LL1Undead100, LL1Undead25, LL1Undead50, LL1Undead75, LL2Tomb100, LL2Tomb25, LL2Tomb50, LL2Tomb75
** Same list except no liches, with necromancer: LL2NecromancerLair100, LL2NecromancerLair25, LL2NecromancerLair50, LL2NecromancerLair75
** Same list except no liches, with vampire and vampire animals: LL2VampireLair100, LL2VampireLair25, LL2VampireLair50, LL2VampireLair75
* '''Boss''' = LL1UndeadBossLvl100, MG10UndeadBossLvl100
* '''Bones''' = LL1UndeadBones100, LL1UndeadBones25, LL1UndeadBones50, LL1UndeadBones75
** Same list except melee skeletons only, no liches: LL1SkeletonMelee100, LL1SkeletonMelee25, LL1SkeletonMelee50, LL1SkeletonMelee75
** Same list except archer skeletons only, no liches, LL1SkeletonMissile100, LL1SkeletonMissile25, LL1SkeletonMissile50, LL1SkeletonMissile75
* '''Bones Boss''' = LL1UndeadBonesBossLvl100
* '''Ethereal''' = LL1UndeadEthereal100, LL1UndeadEthereal25, LL1UndeadEthereal50, LL1UndeadEthereal75, LL1UndeadEtherealLvl100, LL1UndeadEtherealLvl25, LL1UndeadEtherealLvl50, LL1UndeadEtherealLvl75, LL2UndercroftUndead
* '''Zombie''' = LL1UndeadZombie100, LL1UndeadZombie25, LL1UndeadZombie50, LL1UndeadZombie75, LL1UndeadZombieLvl100, LL1UndeadZombieLvl25, LL1UndeadZombieLvl50, LL1UndeadZombieLvl75

There are some quest-specific undead leveled lists that are not covered by this table. These quest-specific cases generally are just offset from the standard leveled lists by 1 to 3 levels.

==Summons==
The [[Oblivion:Summon|Summon]] effect page provides additional information about summon spells, such as spell cost and spell difficulty.
*Summoned versions of creatures are unable to summon underlings
*Many (but not all) summoned versions of creatures do not drop any ingredients.

{| class=wikitable style = text-align:center width=100%
|-
!colspan=11|Bones: Skeletons
|-
!width=20%| Creature
!width=20%| Carries
!width=22|[[Image:OBHealthIcon_small.png|Health]]
!width=22|[[Image:FrostIcon_small.png|Frost Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:PoisonIcon_small.png|Poison Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:ParalyzeIcon_small.png|Paralysis Resist]]
!colspan=4 width=40%|Attacks
!width=10%| [[Oblivion:Souls|Soul]]
|-
|rowspan=2|'''{{Linkable Entry|Skeleton|exname=Summon Skeleton}}''' {{ID|000C8BCF}}
|War Axe||20||70||100||100
|style = text-align:left colspan=4|
*War Axe (Iron or Steel)
*5pts melee, unarmed
|Petty
|-
|style = text-align:left colspan=10|''Created by the [[Oblivion:Spells#Summon Skeleton|Summon Skeleton]] spell''
|-
|rowspan=2|'''{{Linkable Entry|Skeleton Guardian|exname=Summon Skeleton Guardian}}''' {{ID|000C8BD0}}
|Mace Leveled Shield||170||70||100||100
|style = text-align:left colspan=4|
*Mace (Steel or Silver)
*8pts melee, unarmed
*Leveled Shield (Steel, Dwarven, or Orcish)
|Lesser
|-
|style = text-align:left colspan=10|''Created by the [[Oblivion:Spells#Summon Skeleton Guardian|Summon Skeleton Guardian]] spell''
|-
|rowspan=2|'''{{Linkable Entry|Skeleton Hero|exname=Summon Skeleton Hero}}''' {{ID|000C8BD1}}
|Battle Axe||280||70||100||100
|style = text-align:left colspan=4|
*Battle Axe (Silver, Elven, or Dwarven)
*12pts melee, unarmed
|Common
|-
|style = text-align:left colspan=10|''Created by the [[Oblivion:Spells#Summon Skeleton Hero|Summon Skeleton Hero]] spell''
|-
|rowspan=2|'''{{Linkable Entry|Skeleton Champion|exname=Summon Skeleton Champion}}''' {{ID|0018BA29}}
|Claymore Bonemeal||350||70||100||100
|style = text-align:left colspan=4|
*Claymore (Silver-Glass, possibly enchanted)
*14pts melee, unarmed
|Greater
|-
|style = text-align:left colspan=10|''Created by the [[Oblivion:Spells#Summon Skeleton Champion|Summon Skeleton Champion]] spell''
|-
!colspan=11|Bones: Liches
|-
! Creature !! Carries
!width=22|[[Image:OBHealthIcon_small.png|Health]]
!width=22|[[Image:FrostIcon_small.png|Frost Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:PoisonIcon_small.png|Poison Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:FireIcon_small.png|Fire Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:MagicIcon_small.png|Magic Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:ReflectMagicIcon_small.png|Reflect Spell]]
!width=22|[[Image:SpellAbsorbIcon_small.png|Spell Absorption]]
! Attacks !! [[Oblivion:Souls|Soul]]
|-
|rowspan=2|'''{{Linkable Entry|Lich|exname=Summon Lich}}''' {{ID|0018BA28}}
|Leveled Staff||360||100||100||{{FC|red|-25}}||25||25||25
|style = text-align:left|
*Same leveled enchanted staff as [[#Lich|standard lich]]
*Same spells as [[#Lich|standard lich]], except no summon spell
*20pts melee, unarmed
|Grand
|-
|style = text-align:left colspan=10|''Created by the [[Oblivion:Spells#Summon Lich|Summon Lich]] spell''
|-
!colspan=11|Ethereal: Ghosts
|-
! Creature !! Carries
!width=22|[[Image:OBHealthIcon_small.png|Health]]
!width=22|[[Image:FrostIcon_small.png|Frost Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:PoisonIcon_small.png|Poison Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:ArmorIcon_Small.png|Normal Weapon Resist]]
!colspan=4| Attacks !! [[Oblivion:Souls|Soul]]
|-
|rowspan=2|'''{{Linkable Entry|Ghost|exname=Summon Ghost}}''' {{ID|000C8CA3}}
|nothing||15×lvl {{ID|Max:60}}||100||100||'''50'''
|style = text-align:left colspan=4|
*'''Ghostly Touch''' {{ID|([[Oblivion:Frost Damage|Frost Damage]] 10pts, [[Oblivion:Damage Fatigue|Damage Fatigue]] 9pts; both on Touch. ''Immune to Silence'')}}
*'''Snowball''' {{ID|([[Oblivion:Frost Damage|Frost Damage]] 10pts on Target)}}
*13+(lvl/2) pts melee, unarmed {{ID|(Max:17)}}
|<=Lesser[[Oblivion:Souls#Soul Strengths|L:+0]]
|-
|style = text-align:left colspan=10|''Created by the [[Oblivion:Spells#Summon Ghost|Summon Ghost]] Spell''
|-
|rowspan=2|'''{{Linkable Entry|Ancestor Guardian|exname=Summon Ancestor Guardian}}''' {{ID|000C6573}}
|nothing||12×lvl {{ID|Max:48}}|||100||100||'''50'''
|style = text-align:left colspan=4|
*Same spells as [[#Summon Ghost|standard summoned ghost]]
*13+(lvl/2) pts melee, unarmed {{ID|(Max:17)}}
|<=Lesser[[Oblivion:Souls#Soul Strengths|L:+0]]
|-
|style = text-align:left colspan=10|''Created by the [[Oblivion:Dunmer|Dunmer]] Ancestor Guardian power''
|-
|rowspan=2|'''{{Linkable Entry|Summoned Ghost of Rufio}}''' {{ID|00175F5F}}
|Ectoplasm||18×lvl||100||100||100
|style = text-align:left colspan=4|
*Same spells as [[#Ghost|standard ghost]]
|leveled[[Oblivion:Souls#Soul Strengths|L:+0]]
|-
|style = text-align:left colspan=10|''Created by the [[Oblivion:Summon Rufio's Ghost|Summon Rufio's Ghost scroll]]''
|-
!colspan=11|Ethereal: Wraiths
|-
! Creature !! Carries
!width=22|[[Image:OBHealthIcon_small.png|Health]]
!width=22|[[Image:FrostIcon_small.png|Frost Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:PoisonIcon_small.png|Poison Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:ArmorIcon_Small.png|Normal Weapon Resist]]
!colspan=4| Attacks !! [[Oblivion:Souls|Soul]]
|-
|rowspan=2|'''{{Linkable Entry|Faded Wraith|exname=Summon Faded Wraith}}''' {{ID|000C8C97}}
|Ectoplasm||280||'''200'''||'''200'''||'''150'''
|style = text-align:left colspan=4|
*Same spells as [[#Faded Wraith|standard Faded Wraith]]
*24pts melee, unarmed
|Common
|-
|style = text-align:left colspan=10|''Created by the [[Oblivion:Spells#Summon Faded Wraith|Summon Faded Wraith]] spell''
|-
|rowspan=2|'''{{Linkable Entry|Wraith|exname=Summon Wraith}}''' {{ID|000C8BD2}}
|nothing||400||100||100||'''50'''
|style = text-align:left colspan=4|
*Same spells as [[#Wraith|standard Wraith]]
*24pts melee, unarmed
|Grand
|-
|style = text-align:left colspan=10|''Created by the Summon Wraith spell (not in game; note that the [[Oblivion:Scrolls#Summon|Summon Wraith scroll]] summons a Faded Wraith)''
|-
|rowspan=2|'''{{Linkable Entry|Gloom Wraith|exname=Summon Gloom Wraith}}''' {{ID|000C8CA2}}
|Ectoplasm||500||100||100||100
|style = text-align:left colspan=4|
*Same spells as [[#Gloom Wraith|standard Gloom Wraith]]
*17pts melee, unarmed
|Grand
|-
|style = text-align:left colspan=10|''Created by the [[Oblivion:Spells#Summon Gloom Wraith|Summon Gloom Wraith]] spell''
|-
!colspan=11|Zombies
|-
! Creature !! Carries
!width=22|[[Image:OBHealthIcon_small.png|Health]]
!width=22|[[Image:FrostIcon_small.png|Frost Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:PoisonIcon_small.png|Poison Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:FireIcon_small.png|Fire Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:MagicIcon_small.png|Magic Resist]]
!colspan=3| Attacks !! [[Oblivion:Souls|Soul]]
|-
|rowspan=2|'''{{Linkable Entry|Zombie|exname=Summon Zombie}}''' {{ID|000C8BD3}}
|Minor Loot (15%) Mort Flesh||80||30||100||{{FC|red|-60}}|||30
|style = text-align:left colspan=3|
*10pts melee, unarmed
|Lesser
|-
|style = text-align:left colspan=10|''Created by the [[Oblivion:Spells#Summon Zombie|Summon Zombie]] spell''
|-
|rowspan=2|'''{{Linkable Entry|Headless Zombie|exname=Summon Headless Zombie}}''' {{ID|000C8C2C}}
|Minor Loot (15%) Mort Flesh||175||30||100||{{FC|red|-60}}|||30
|style = text-align:left colspan=3|
*27pts melee, unarmed
|Common
|-
|style = text-align:left colspan=10|''Created by the [[Oblivion:Spells#Summon Headless Zombie|Summon Headless Zombie]] spell''
|}

==Bones Undead==
Bones-type undead creatures include all skeletons and all liches. All bones undead drop [[Oblivion:Bonemeal|Bonemeal]].

Skeletons are encountered at all levels. They rely upon weapons for attacking. Standard skeletons all come in both melee and archer varieties; the melee varieties are about twice as common. All skeletons have the following resistances and abilities:
* 70% [[Oblivion:Resist Frost|resist frost]]
* 100% [[Oblivion:Resist Poison|resist poison]] (immune to poison)
* 100% [[Oblivion:Resist Paralysis|resist paralysis]] (immune to paralysis)
* permanent [[Oblivion:Water Breathing|Water Breathing]] ability
Higher level skeletons (Guardians, Heroes, and Champions) have greater health and better weapons.

Liches are generally only encountered at high levels; Nether Liches are somewhat weaker than standard Liches. They rely upon magical attacks, both from their staves and from their spells (which are generally randomly determined). They will also usually summon an undead underling. All liches have the following weaknesses, resistances, and abilities:
* 25% [[Oblivion:Weakness to Fire|weakness to fire]]
* 100% [[Oblivion:Resist Frost|resist frost]] (immune to frost)
* 100% [[Oblivion:Resist Poison|resist poison]] (immune to poison)
* 25% [[Oblivion:Resist Magic|resist magic]]
* 25% [[Oblivion:Spell Absorption|spell absorption]]
* permanent [[Oblivion:Water Walking|Water Walking]] ability
In addition, standard Liches also have a 25% [[Oblivion:Reflect Spell|Reflect Spell]] ability. Overall, Liches have more health and more powerful staves than Nether Liches.

<gallery>
Image:OBCreature-Skeleton.jpg|Skeleton
Image:OBCreature-Skeletons.jpg|Skeletons
Image:OBCreature-Skeleton_Guardian_Archer.jpg|Skeleton Guardian (archer)
Image:OBCreature-Skeleton_Guardian.jpg|Skeleton Guardian (melee)
Image:OBCreature-Skeleton_Hero.jpg|Skeleton Hero
Image:OBCreature-Skeleton_Champion.jpg|Skeleton Champion
Image:OBCreature-Nether_Lich.jpg|Nether Lich
Image:OBCreature-Lich.jpg|Lich
Image:OB-LichErandurVanagaril.jpg|Erandur-Vangaril
</gallery>

===Skeletons===
{| class=wikitable style = text-align:center width=100%
|-
!width=20%| Creature
!width=20%| Carries
!width=22|[[Image:OBHealthIcon_small.png|Health]]
!width=22|[[Image:FrostIcon_small.png|Frost Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:PoisonIcon_small.png|Poison Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:ParalyzeIcon_small.png|Paralysis Resist]]
!width=40%|Attacks
!width=10%| [[Oblivion:Souls|Soul]]
|-
|'''{{Linkable Entry|Skeleton|exname=Standard Skeleton}}''' {{ID|00024DDB}} ''Standard, Melee''
|War Axe Bonemeal||20||70||100||100
|style = text-align:left|
*War Axe (Iron or Steel)
*5pts melee, unarmed
|Petty
|-
|'''{{Linkable Entry|Skeleton|exname=Standard Archer Skeleton}}''' {{ID|00084B1A}} ''Standard, Archer''
|Leveled Bow Arrows Bonemeal||20||70||100||100
|style = text-align:left|
*Leveled Bow (Iron-Elven, possibly enchanted)
*Arrows (Iron plus non-enchanted leveled arrows, Iron-Dwarven)
*5pts melee, unarmed
|Petty
|-
|'''Skeleton''' {{ID|000C8BCF}} ''[[Oblivion:Spells#Summon Skeleton|Summoned]]''
|War Axe||20||70||100||100
|style = text-align:left|
*War Axe (Iron or Steel)
*5pts melee, unarmed
|Petty
|-
!colspan=8|Specialized Skeletons
|-
|rowspan=2|'''{{Linkable Entry|Dark Guardian|exname=Sanctuary Dark Guardian}}''' {{ID|00088FA6}}
|Leveled Weapon Leveled Shield Bonemeal||30×lvl||70||100||100
|style = text-align:left|
*Many possibilities for leveled melee weapon (never enchanted)
*8+(lvl/2) pts melee, unarmed
|leveled[[Oblivion:Souls#Soul Strengths|L:+0]]
|-
|style = text-align:left colspan=7|
''[[Oblivion:Cheydinhal|Cheydinhal]] [[Oblivion:Dark Brotherhood Sanctuary|Dark Brotherhood Sanctuary]]. This skeleton is considered to be a member of the [[Oblivion:Dark Brotherhood|Dark Brotherhood]]; killing him will get you [[Oblivion:A Dark Exile|expelled]].''
|-
|rowspan=2|'''{{Linkable Entry|Dark Guardian|exname=Farragut Dark Guardian}}''' {{ID|0006AB45}}
|Leveled Weapon Leveled Shield Bonemeal||28×lvl||70||100||100
|style = text-align:left|
*Many possibilities for leveled melee weapon (never enchanted)
*5+(lvl/2) pts melee, unarmed
|leveled[[Oblivion:Souls#Soul Strengths|L:+0]]
|-
|style = text-align:left colspan=7|
''Found in [[Oblivion:Fort Farragut|Fort Farragut]] (melee version).''
|-
|rowspan=2|'''Dark Guardian''' {{ID|0006AB4A}}
|Leveled Bow Arrows Bonemeal||28×lvl||70||100||100
|style = text-align:left|
*Leveled Bow (Iron-Glass, never enchanted)
*Arrows (Silver plus non-enchanted leveled arrows, Iron-Glass)
*5+(lvl/2) pts melee, unarmed
|leveled[[Oblivion:Souls#Soul Strengths|L:+0]]
|-
|style = text-align:left colspan=7|
''Found in [[Oblivion:Fort Farragut|Fort Farragut]] (archer version).''
|-
|rowspan=2|'''{{Linkable Entry|Undead Akaviri Soldier}}''' {{ID|0001C176}}
|Ruined Akaviri Katana Ruined Akaviri Shield Bonemeal||16× (lvl-1)||70||100||100
|style = text-align:left|
*Ruined Akaviri Katana
*3+((lvl-1)/2) pts melee, unarmed
|leveled[[Oblivion:Souls#Soul Strengths|L:-1]]
|-
|style = text-align:left colspan=7|
''Found in [[Oblivion:Pale Pass|Pale Pass]] during the [[Oblivion:Lifting the Vale|Lifting the Vale]] quest.''
|-
!colspan=8|Unique Skeletons
|-
|rowspan=2|'''{{Linkable Entry|Undead Blade|exname=Ghost of Rielus}}''' {{ID|000364BA}}
|Ancient Blades Helmet Ancient Blades Shield Ancient Akaviri Katana [[Oblivion:Amulet of the Ansei|Amulet of the Ansei]]||26×lvl||70||100||100
|style = text-align:left|
*Ancient Akaviri Katana
*8+(lvl/2) pts melee, unarmed
|leveled[[Oblivion:Souls#Soul Strengths|L:+0]]
|-
|style = text-align:left colspan=7|
''In [[Oblivion:Sancre Tor|Sancre Tor]] during the [[Oblivion:Blood of the Divines|Blood of the Divines]] quest. Turns into [[Oblivion:Ghost of Rielus|Ghost of Rielus]] once defeated.''
|-
|rowspan=2|'''{{Linkable Entry|Undead Blade|exname=Ghost of Casnar}}''' {{ID|000364BB}}
|Ancient Blades Helmet [[Oblivion:Mishaxhi's Cleaver|Mishaxhi's Cleaver]]||28×lvl||70||100||100
|style = text-align:left|
*[[Oblivion:Mishaxhi's Cleaver|Mishaxhi's Cleaver]] (unique leveled blade)
*8+(lvl/2) pts melee, unarmed
|leveled[[Oblivion:Souls#Soul Strengths|L:+0]]
|-
|style = text-align:left colspan=7|
''In [[Oblivion:Sancre Tor|Sancre Tor]] Hall of Judgement during the [[Oblivion:Blood of the Divines|Blood of the Divines]] quest. Turns into [[Oblivion:Ghost of Casnar|Ghost of Casnar]] once defeated.''
|-
|rowspan=2|'''{{Linkable Entry|Undead Blade|exname=Ghost of Valdemar}}''' {{ID|000364BC}}
|Ancient Blades Helmet Ancient Akaviri Katana [[Oblivion:Valdemar's Shield|Valdemar's Shield]]||28×lvl||70||100||100
|style = text-align:left|
*Ancient Akaviri Katana
*8+(lvl/2) pts melee, unarmed
|leveled[[Oblivion:Souls#Soul Strengths|L:+0]]
|-
|style = text-align:left colspan=7|
''In [[Oblivion:Sancre Tor|Sancre Tor]] Prison during the [[Oblivion:Blood of the Divines|Blood of the Divines]] quest. Turns into [[Oblivion:Ghost of Valdemar|Ghost of Valdemar]] once defeated.''
|-
|rowspan=2|'''{{Linkable Entry|Undead Blade|exname=Ghost of Alain}}''' {{ID|00033CD6}}
|Ancient Blades Helmet Ancient Blades Shield [[Oblivion:Northwind|Northwind]]||28×lvl||70||100||100
|style = text-align:left|
*[[Oblivion:Northwind|Northwind]] (unique leveled blade)
*8+(lvl/2) pts melee, unarmed
|leveled[[Oblivion:Souls#Soul Strengths|L:+0]]
|-
|style = text-align:left colspan=7|
''In [[Oblivion:Sancre Tor|Sancre Tor]] Catacombs during the [[Oblivion:Blood of the Divines|Blood of the Divines]] quest. Turns into [[Oblivion:Ghost of Alain|Ghost of Alain]] once defeated.''
|-
|rowspan=2|'''{{Linkable Entry|Warden Kastav}}''' {{ID|00035DA9}}
|Leveled Mace Warden Kastav's Key||22×lvl||70||100||100
|style = text-align:left|
*Leveled Mace (Iron-Daedric)
*4+(lvl/2) pts melee, unarmed
|leveled[[Oblivion:Souls#Soul Strengths|L:+0]]
|-
|style = text-align:left colspan=7|
''Guarding the entrance to [[Oblivion:Sancre Tor|Sancre Tor]] Prison during [[Oblivion:Blood of the Divines|Blood of the Divines]] quest.''
|}

===Skeleton Guardians===
{| class=wikitable style = text-align:center width=100%
|-
!width=20%| Creature
!width=20%| Carries
!width=22|[[Image:OBHealthIcon_small.png|Health]]
!width=22|[[Image:FrostIcon_small.png|Frost Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:PoisonIcon_small.png|Poison Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:ParalyzeIcon_small.png|Paralysis Resist]]
!width=40%|Attacks
!width=10%| [[Oblivion:Souls|Soul]]
|-
|'''{{Linkable Entry|Skeleton Guardian|exname=Standard Skeleton Guardian}}''' {{ID|0001E5F2}} ''Standard, Melee''
|Mace Leveled Shield Bonemeal||170||70||100||100
|style = text-align:left|
*Mace (Steel or Silver)
*8pts melee, unarmed
*Leveled Shield (Steel, Dwarven, or Orcish)
|Lesser
|-
|'''Skeleton Guardian''' {{ID|00084B19}} ''Standard, Archer''
|Leveled Bow Arrows Bonemeal||170||70||100||100
|style = text-align:left|
*Leveled Bow (Iron-Elven, possibly enchanted)
*Arrows (Iron plus non-enchanted leveled arrows, Iron-Dwarven)
*8pts melee, unarmed
|Lesser
|-
|'''Skeleton Guardian''' {{ID|000C8BD0}} ''[[Oblivion:Spells#Summon Skeleton Guardian|Summoned]]''
|Mace Leveled Shield||170||70||100||100
|style = text-align:left|
*Mace (Steel or Silver)
*8pts melee, unarmed
*Leveled Shield (Steel, Dwarven, or Orcish)
|Lesser
|}

===Skeleton Heroes===
{| class=wikitable style = text-align:center width=100%
|-
!width=20%| Creature
!width=20%| Carries
!width=22|[[Image:OBHealthIcon_small.png|Health]]
!width=22|[[Image:FrostIcon_small.png|Frost Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:PoisonIcon_small.png|Poison Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:ParalyzeIcon_small.png|Paralysis Resist]]
!width=40%|Attacks
!width=10%| [[Oblivion:Souls|Soul]]
|-
|'''{{Linkable Entry|Skeleton Hero|exname=Standard Skeleton Hero}}''' {{ID|0001E5F4}} ''Standard, Melee''
|Battle Axe Bonemeal||280||70||100||100
|style = text-align:left|
*Battle Axe (Silver, Elven, or Dwarven)
*12pts melee, unarmed
|Common
|-
|'''Skeleton Hero''' {{ID|00084B1B}} ''Standard, Archer''
|Leveled Bow Arrows Bonemeal||280||70||100||100
|style = text-align:left|
*Leveled Bow (Iron-Elven, possibly enchanted)
*Arrows (Steel plus non-enchanted leveled arrows, Iron-Dwarven)
*12pts melee, unarmed
|Common
|-
|'''Skeleton Hero''' {{ID|000C8BD1}} ''[[Oblivion:Spells#Summon Skeleton Hero|Summoned]]''
|Battle Axe||280||70||100||100
|style = text-align:left|
*Battle Axe (Silver, Elven, or Dwarven)
*12pts melee, unarmed
|Common
|}

===Skeleton Champions===
{| class=wikitable style = text-align:center width=100%
|-
!width=20%| Creature
!width=20%| Carries
!width=22|[[Image:OBHealthIcon_small.png|Health]]
!width=22|[[Image:FrostIcon_small.png|Frost Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:PoisonIcon_small.png|Poison Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:ParalyzeIcon_small.png|Paralysis Resist]]
!width=40%|Attacks
!width=10%| [[Oblivion:Souls|Soul]]
|-
|'''{{Linkable Entry|Skeleton Champion|exname=Standard Skeleton Champion}}''' {{ID|0001E5EA}} ''Standard, Melee''
|Claymore Bonemeal||350||70||100||100
|style = text-align:left|
*Claymore (Silver-Glass, possibly enchanted)
*14pts melee, unarmed
*[[Oblivion:Summon|Summon Skeleton]]
|Greater
|-
|'''Skeleton Champion''' {{ID|00084B1C}} ''Standard, Archer''
|Leveled Bow Arrows Bonemeal||350||70||100||100
|style = text-align:left|
*Leveled Bow (Iron-Elven, possibly enchanted)
*Arrows (Steel plus non-enchanted leveled arrows, Iron-Dwarven)
*9pts melee, unarmed
*[[Oblivion:Summon|Summon Skeleton]]
|Greater
|-
|'''Skeleton Champion''' {{ID|0018BA29}} ''[[Oblivion:Spells#Summon Skeleton Champion|Summoned]]''
|Claymore Bonemeal||350||70||100||100
|style = text-align:left|
*Claymore (Silver-Glass, possibly enchanted)
*14pts melee, unarmed
|Greater
|}

===Nether Liches===
{| class=wikitable style = text-align:center width=100%
|-
!width=20%| Creature
!width=20%| Carries
!width=22|[[Image:OBHealthIcon_small.png|Health]]
!width=22|[[Image:FrostIcon_small.png|Frost Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:PoisonIcon_small.png|Poison Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:FireIcon_small.png|Fire Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:MagicIcon_small.png|Magic Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:ReflectMagicIcon_small.png|Reflect Spell]]
!width=22|[[Image:SpellAbsorbIcon_small.png|Spell Absorption]]
!width=40%|Attacks
!width=10%| [[Oblivion:Souls|Soul]]
|-
|'''{{Linkable Entry|Nether Lich|exname=Standard Nether Lich}}''' {{ID|000343AA}} ''Standard''
|Bonemeal Leveled Staff||15× (lvl-7) {{ID|Min:255}}||100||100||{{FC|red|-25}}||25|| ||25
|style = text-align:left|
*Leveled enchanted staff
*Three leveled destruction spells
*Leveled [[Oblivion:Summon|Summon undead]] spell
*Leveled [[Oblivion:Absorb Health|Absorb Health]] spell
*Leveled [[Oblivion:Shield|Shield]] spell
*Leveled [[Oblivion:Silence|Silence]] spell
*10+((lvl-7)/2) pts melee, unarmed {{ID|(Min:18)}}
|>=Greater[[Oblivion:Souls#Soul Strengths|L:-7]]
|-
|}

===Liches===
Full Liches (but not [[#Nether Liches|Nether Liches]]) are members of their own [[Oblivion:Factions L#LichFaction|Lich faction]] instead of the standard [[Oblivion:Factions U#Undead|Undead faction]]. The disposition modifiers for the factions ensure that Liches will not fight other undead and, conversely, that other undead will not fight Liches.

The primary difference between the Lich faction and the standard Undead faction is the relationship to [[Oblivion:Necromancer|Necromancer]]s and [[Oblivion:Vampire|Vampires]]: standard Undead will happily cohabitate with Necromancers and Vampires, but Liches hate them and will immediately attack (and the feeling is mutual: the faction modifiers ensure that members of the [[Oblivion:Factions N#Necromancers Cult|Necromancers cult]] and [[Oblivion:Factions V#Vampire Faction|Vampire faction]] also hate Liches).

One other implication (possibly an unintentional developer oversight) of the special Lich faction is that full Liches do not like each other. If two full Liches spawn near each other in a dungeon they are very likely to start fighting each other.

Most liches carry a magical [[Oblivion:Staves|staff]] that is randomly selected from a list of 25 possible staves. These staves are all high-level varieties (e.g., "greater" varieties of [[Oblivion:Generic Staves|Generic Staves]] and [[Oblivion:Staves#Other Staves|other staves]] that normally only appear at level 18), since standard liches are only encountered starting at level 26. However, summoned liches and the King of Miscarcand can be encountered at any level. They therefore provide a possible way to obtain very powerful staves as early as level 1 (see [[Oblivion:Disintegrate Weapon|Disintegrate Weapon]] for notes on how to obtain a summoned creature's weapon).

{| class=wikitable style = text-align:center width=100%
|-
!width=20%| Creature
!width=20%| Carries
!width=22|[[Image:OBHealthIcon_small.png|Health]]
!width=22|[[Image:FrostIcon_small.png|Frost Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:PoisonIcon_small.png|Poison Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:FireIcon_small.png|Fire Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:MagicIcon_small.png|Magic Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:ReflectMagicIcon_small.png|Reflect Spell]]
!width=22|[[Image:SpellAbsorbIcon_small.png|Spell Absorption]]
!width=40%|Attacks
!width=10%| [[Oblivion:Souls|Soul]]
|-
|'''{{Linkable Entry|Lich|exname=Standard Lich}}''' {{ID|0001E5EC}} ''Standard''
|Bonemeal Random Staff||15×lvl {{ID|Min:360}}||100||100||{{FC|red|-25}}||25||25||25
|style = text-align:left|
*Random staff with destruction enchantment
*Three leveled destruction spells
*Leveled [[Oblivion:Summon|Summon Undead]] spell
*Leveled [[Oblivion:Absorb Health|Absorb Health]] spell
*Leveled [[Oblivion:Dispel|Dispel]] on target spell
*Leveled [[Oblivion:Shield|Shield]] spell
*20+(lvl/2) pts melee, unarmed {{ID|(Min:32)}}
|Grand[[Oblivion:Souls#Soul Strengths|L:+0]]
|-
|'''{{Linkable Entry|Lich|exname=Summon Lich}}''' {{ID|0018BA28}} ''[[Oblivion:Spells#Summon Lich|Summoned]]''
|Random Staff||360||100||100||{{FC|red|-25}}||25||25||25
|style = text-align:left|
*Same staff as [[#Standard Lich|standard lich]] ''{{ID|(see notes)}}''
*Same spells as [[#Standard Lich|standard lich]], except no summon spell
*20pts melee, unarmed
|Grand
|-
!colspan=11|Unique Liches
|-
|rowspan=2|'''{{Linkable Entry|Erandur-Vangaril}}''' {{ID|00064C18}}
|Bonemeal Random Staff||15||100||100||{{FC|red|-25}}||25||25||25
|style = text-align:left|
*Same staff and leveled spells as [[#Standard Lich|Standard Lich]]
*20pts melee, unarmed
|Grand
|-
|colspan=10 style=text-align:left|''Encountered in ''Lost Boy's Hidden Bastion'' in [[Oblivion:Lost Boy Cavern|Lost Boy Cavern]]. Can only be attacked if you are level 23 or higher. This lich has unusually small health (its health was probably supposed to be level-dependent, but was accidentally set to be constant).''
|-
|rowspan=2|'''{{Linkable Entry|King of Miscarcand}}''' {{ID|0009589E}}
|Bonemeal Random Staff [[Oblivion:Miscarcand Key|Miscarcand Key]]||15× (lvl+1) {{ID|Min:90}}||100||100||{{FC|red|-25}}||25||25||25
|style = text-align:left|
*Same staff as [[#Standard Lich|Standard Lich]] ''{{ID|(see notes)}}''
*Leveled [[Oblivion:Shock Damage|Shock Damage]] on target spell
*'''Corrode Weapon''' {{ID|([[Oblivion:Disintegrate Weapon|Disintegrate Weapon]] 60pts on Touch)}}
*'''Absorb Magicka''' {{ID|([[Oblivion:Damage Magicka|Damage Magicka]] 25pts on Touch. ''Immune to Silence'')}}
*Leveled [[Oblivion:Dispel|Dispel]] on target spell
*Leveled [[Oblivion:Shield|Shield]] spell
*10+((lvl+1)/2) pts melee, unarmed {{ID|(Min:13)}}
|>=Lesser[[Oblivion:Souls#Soul Strengths|L:+1]]
|-
|colspan=10 style=text-align:left|''Appears in [[Oblivion:Miscarcand (place)|Miscarcand]] with three [[#Zombie Guardian|Zombie Guardians]] when you take the Great Welkynd Stone, see the [[Oblivion:Miscarcand (quest)|Miscarcand quest]]''.
|-
|rowspan=2|'''{{Linkable Entry|Lorgren Benirus}}''' {{ID|000855A4}}
|Bonemeal [[Oblivion:Staff of Flame|Staff of Flame]]||20× (lvl+2)||100||100||{{FC|red|-25}}||25||25||25
|style = text-align:left|
*[[Oblivion:Staff of Flame|Staff of Flame]] (unique staff)
*20+((lvl+2)/2) pts melee, unarmed
*Same leveled spells as [[#Standard Lich|Standard Lich]], plus
*'''Absorb Magicka''' {{ID|([[Oblivion:Damage Magicka|Damage Magicka]] 25pts on Touch. ''Immune to Silence'')}}
|>=Lesser[[Oblivion:Souls#Soul Strengths|L:+2]]
|-
|colspan=10 style=text-align:left|''Appears in the basement of Benirus Manor during the [[Oblivion:Where_Spirits_Have_Lease|Where Spirits Have Lease]] quest.''
|}

==Ethereal Undead==
Ethereal undead include all ghosts and wraiths. All ethereal undead drop [[Oblivion:Ectoplasm|Ectoplasm]]. They all have the following resistances and abilities:
* 100% [[Oblivion:Resist Frost|resist frost]] (immune to frost)
* 100% [[Oblivion:Resist Poison|resist poison]] (immune to poison)
* 100% [[Oblivion:Resist Normal Weapons|resist normal weapons]] (immune to normal weapons; can only be damaged by enchanted, silver, Dremora, or daedric weapons.)
* Permanent [[Oblivion:Water Walking|Water Walking]] ability
There are a couple of exceptions, where the exact value of the resistance is not 100%. These exceptions are highlighted in bold-face in the following tables.

Ghosts are encountered at all levels; ancient ghosts are a somewhat stronger (more health, more powerful attacks) version. Ghosts rely upon magical attacks, in particular [[Oblivion:Frost Damage|Frost Damage]]. They have both touch and targeted attacks; the touch attacks are generally immune to [[Oblivion:Silence|Silence]] (i.e., these spells are still effective even if a silence spell is cast on the ghost).

Wraiths include faded wraiths (the weakest), wraiths, and gloom wraiths (the strongest). The more powerful versions have more health and more powerful spells. All wraiths have a powerful curse that they can cast on you (effects vary with type of wraith) that is immune to silence. Most wraiths have several additional spells, in particular [[Oblivion:Frost Damage|Frost Damage]] and [[Oblivion:Silence|Silence]] spells. In addition, about half of all wraiths carry a sword.

<gallery>
Image:OBCreature-Ghost.jpg|Ghost
Image:OBCreature-Ancient_Ghost.jpg|Ancient Ghost
Image:OBCreature-FadedWraith.jpg|Faded Wraith
Image:OBCreature-Wraith.jpg|Wraith
Image:OB-creature-Gloom_Wraith.jpg|Gloom Wraith
</gallery>

===Ghosts===
In addition:
*At levels 1-8 [[#Llathasa's Spirit|Llathasa's Spirit]] is a ghost.
*At levels 1-11 [[#Sanctified Dead|Sanctified Dead]] are ghosts.

{| class=wikitable style = text-align:center width=100%
|-
!width=20%| Creature
!width=20%| Carries
!width=22|[[Image:OBHealthIcon_small.png|Health]]
!width=22|[[Image:FrostIcon_small.png|Frost Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:PoisonIcon_small.png|Poison Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:ArmorIcon_Small.png|Normal Weapon Resist]]
!width=40%|Attacks
!width=10%| [[Oblivion:Souls|Soul]]
|-
|'''{{Linkable Entry|Ghost|exname=Standard Ghost}}''' {{ID|00033E70}} ''Standard''
|Ectoplasm||18× (lvl-1) {{ID|Max:72}}||100||100||100
|style = text-align:left|
*'''Ghostly Touch''' {{ID|([[Oblivion:Frost Damage|Frost Damage]] 10pts, [[Oblivion:Damage Fatigue|Damage Fatigue]] 9pts; both on Touch. ''Immune to Silence'')}}
*'''Snowball''' {{ID|([[Oblivion:Frost Damage|Frost Damage]] 10pts, [[Oblivion:Damage Fatigue|Damage Fatigue]] 9pts; both on Target)}}
|<=Lesser[[Oblivion:Souls#Soul Strengths|L:-1]]
|-
|'''{{Linkable Entry|Ghost|exname=Summon Ghost}}''' {{ID|000C8CA3}} ''[[Oblivion:Spells#Summon Ghost|Summoned]]''
|nothing||15×lvl {{ID|Max:60}}||100||100||'''50'''
|style = text-align:left|
*'''Ghostly Touch''' {{ID|([[Oblivion:Frost Damage|Frost Damage]] 10pts, [[Oblivion:Damage Fatigue|Damage Fatigue]] 9pts; both on Touch. ''Immune to Silence'')}}
*'''Snowball''' {{ID|([[Oblivion:Frost Damage|Frost Damage]] 10pts on Target)}}
*13+(lvl/2) pts melee, unarmed {{ID|(Max:17)}}
|<=Lesser[[Oblivion:Souls#Soul Strengths|L:+0]]
|-
!colspan=8|Specialized Ghosts
|-
|rowspan=2|'''{{Linkable Entry|Benirus Manor Ghost}}''' {{ID|000855A2}}, {{ID|000855A3}}
|Ectoplasm||18× (lvl-1)||100||100||100
|style = text-align:left|
*Same spells as [[#Standard Ghost|Standard Ghost]]
|leveled[[Oblivion:Souls#Soul Strengths|L:-1]]
|-
|colspan=7 style=text-align:left|
''These are the ghosts encountered in Benirus Manor during the quest [[Oblivion:Where_Spirits_Have_Lease|Where Spirits Have Lease]]. {{ID|000855A2}} is the FormID for the first three encountered; {{ID|000855A3}} is the FormID for all of the others.''
|-
|rowspan=2|'''{{Linkable Entry|Ghost of Perennia Draconis}}''' {{ID|0006AAA2}}
|Ectoplasm||18× (lvl-1) {{ID|Max:72}}||100||100||100
|style = text-align:left|
*Same spells as [[#Standard Ghost|Standard Ghost]]
|<=Lesser[[Oblivion:Souls#Soul Strengths|L:-1]]
|-
|colspan=7 style=text-align:left|
''The ghost of [[Oblivion:Perennia Draconis|Perennia Draconis]] is encountered after the [[Oblivion:Dark Brotherhood|Dark Brotherhood]] quest [[Oblivion:Next of Kin|Next of Kin]] if you activate her tombstone at [[Oblivion:Applewatch|Applewatch]].''
|-
|rowspan=2|'''{{Linkable Entry|Mishaxhi}}''' {{ID|0001C48D}}
|Blades Armor Dai-Katana Gold||NPC||100||100||100
|style = text-align:left|
*Akaviri Dai-Katana
|Black
|-
|colspan=7 style=text-align:left|
''Found in the Serpent level of [[Oblivion:Pale Pass|Pale Pass]] Ruins during [[Oblivion:Lifting the Vale|Lifting the Vale]] quest; see [[Oblivion:Akaviri Commander Mishaxhi|Akaviri Commander Mishaxhi]]. He fights you if you do not have Akaviri orders, or if you have them but choose not to give to him. He is actually implemented as a [[Oblivion:NPCs|NPC]] with ghost abilities, which means that his health and attack damage cannot be easily provided.''
|}

===Ancient Ghosts===
In addition:
*At levels 9-11 [[#Llathasa's Spirit|Llathasa's Spirit]] is an ancient ghost.
*At levels 12-14 [[#Sanctified Dead|Sanctified Dead]] are ancient ghosts.

{| class=wikitable style = text-align:center width=100%
|-
!width=20%| Creature
!width=20%| Carries
!width=22|[[Image:OBHealthIcon_small.png|Health]]
!width=22|[[Image:FrostIcon_small.png|Frost Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:PoisonIcon_small.png|Poison Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:ArmorIcon_Small.png|Normal Weapon Resist]]
!width=40%|Attacks
!width=10%| [[Oblivion:Souls|Soul]]
|-
|'''{{Linkable Entry|Ancient Ghost|exname=Standard Ancient Ghost}}''' {{ID|0005D2BC}} ''Standard''
|Ectoplasm||170||100||100||100
|style = text-align:left|
*'''Ghostly Touch''' {{ID|([[Oblivion:Frost Damage|Frost Damage]] 20pts, [[Oblivion:Damage Fatigue|Damage Fatigue]] 19pts, both on Touch; [[Oblivion:Drain Fatigue|Drain Fatigue]] 76pts for 1sec on ''Self''). ''Immune to Silence''}}
*'''Icy Blast''' {{ID|([[Oblivion:Frost Damage|Frost Damage]] 20pts, [[Oblivion:Damage Fatigue|Damage Fatigue]] 19pts; both on Target. ''Immune to Silence'')}}
*'''Icy Touch''' {{ID|([[Oblivion:Frost Damage|Frost Damage]] 15pts on ''Target'', [[Oblivion:Damage Fatigue|Damage Fatigue]] 14pts on ''Self''. ''Immune to Silence'')}}
*'''Invisibility''' {{ID|([[Oblivion:Invisibility|Invisibility]] for 15sec on Self. ''Immune to Silence'')}}
|Common
|}

===Faded Wraiths===
In addition:
*At levels 12-15 [[#Llathasa's Spirit|Llathasa's Spirit]] is a faded wraith.
*At levels 15-18 [[#Sanctified Dead|Sanctified Dead]] are faded wraiths.

{| class=wikitable style = text-align:center width=100%
|-
!width=20%| Creature
!width=20%| Carries
!width=22|[[Image:OBHealthIcon_small.png|Health]]
!width=22|[[Image:FrostIcon_small.png|Frost Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:PoisonIcon_small.png|Poison Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:ArmorIcon_Small.png|Normal Weapon Resist]]
!width=40%|Attacks
!width=10%| [[Oblivion:Souls|Soul]]
|-
|'''{{Linkable Entry|Faded Wraith|exname=Standard Faded Wraith}}''' {{ID|0001E5F3}} ''Standard, Unarmed''
|Ectoplasm||280||100||100||100
|style = text-align:left|
*'''Faded Wraith's Curse''' {{ID|([[Oblivion:Frost Damage|Frost Damage]] 1pt for 30sec + 10pts, [[Oblivion:Drain Endurance|Drain Endurance]] & [[Oblivion:Drain Strength|Strength]] 20pts for 30sec; all on Target. ''Immune to Silence'')}}
*'''Winter's Grasp''' {{ID|([[Oblivion:Frost Damage|Frost Damage]] 45pts on Touch)}}
*'''Frost Bolt''' {{ID|([[Oblivion:Frost Damage|Frost Damage]] 35pts on Target)}}
*'''Silence of the Grave''' {{ID|([[Oblivion:Frost Damage|Frost Damage]] 2pts for 10sec, [[Oblivion:Silence|Silence]] for 10sec; both on Target}}
*24pts melee, unarmed
|Common
|-
|'''Faded Wraith''' {{ID|00032656}} ''Standard, Armed''
|Ectoplasm Shortsword Random Poison (25%)||280||100||100||100
|style = text-align:left|
*Same spells as [[#Standard Faded Wraith|unarmed Faded Wraith]]
*Shortsword (Dwarven or Elven)
*24pts melee, unarmed
|Common
|-
|'''Faded Wraith''' {{ID|000C8C97}} ''[[Oblivion:Spells#Summon Faded Wraith|Summoned]]''
|Ectoplasm||280||'''200'''||'''200'''||'''150'''
|style = text-align:left|
*Same spells as [[#Standard Faded Wraith|standard Faded Wraith]]
*24pts melee, unarmed
|Common
|}

===Wraiths===
In addition:
*At levels 16-20 [[#Llathasa's Spirit|Llathasa's Spirit]] is a wraith.
*At levels 19-22 [[#Sanctified Dead|Sanctified Dead]] are wraiths.

{| class=wikitable style = text-align:center width=100%
|-
!width=20%| Creature
!width=20%| Carries
!width=22|[[Image:OBHealthIcon_small.png|Health]]
!width=22|[[Image:FrostIcon_small.png|Frost Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:PoisonIcon_small.png|Poison Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:ArmorIcon_Small.png|Normal Weapon Resist]]
!width=40%|Attacks
!width=10%| [[Oblivion:Souls|Soul]]
|-
|'''{{Linkable Entry|Wraith|exname=Standard Wraith}}''' {{ID|00098301}} ''Standard, Unarmed''
|Ectoplasm||400||100||100||100
|style = text-align:left|
*'''Wraith's Curse''' {{ID|([[Oblivion:Absorb Health|Absorb Health]] 2pts for 30sec, [[Oblivion:Damage Endurance|Damage Endurance]] & [[Oblivion:Damage Strength|Strength]] 2pts; both on Touch. ''Immune to Silence'')}}
*'''Winter's Grasp''' {{ID|([[Oblivion:Frost Damage|Frost Damage]] 45pts on Touch)}}
*'''Frost Bolt''' {{ID|([[Oblivion:Frost Damage|Frost Damage]] 35pts on Target)}}
*'''Silence of the Grave''' {{ID|([[Oblivion:Frost Damage|Frost Damage]] 2pts for 10sec, [[Oblivion:Silence|Silence]] for 10sec; both on Target}}
*24pts melee, unarmed
|Greater
|-
|'''Wraith''' {{ID|00098304}} ''Standard, Armed''
|Ectoplasm Longsword||210||100||100||100
|style = text-align:left|
*Same spells as [[#Standard Wraith|unarmed Wraith]]
*Longsword (Dwarven, Elven, or Glass)
*20pts melee, unarmed
|Greater
|-
!colspan=8|Unique Wraiths
|-
|rowspan=2|'''{{Linkable Entry|Spectral Sailor}}''' {{ID|000055AC}}
|Ectoplasm Sharpened Cutlass||30× (lvl+1)||100||100||100
|style = text-align:left|
*Same spells as [[#Standard Wraith|standard Wraith]]
*20+((lvl+1)/2) pts melee, unarmed
|>=Lesser[[Oblivion:Souls#Soul Strengths|L:+1]]
|-
|colspan=7 style=text-align:left|
''On the Serpent's Wake during the [[Oblivion:The_Ghost_Ship_of_Anvil|The Ghost Ship of Anvil]] quest''
|}

===Gloom Wraiths===
In addition:
*At levels 21+ [[#Llathasa's Spirit|Llathasa's Spirit]] is a gloom wraith.
*At levels 23+ [[#Sanctified Dead|Sanctified Dead]] are gloom wraiths.
{| class=wikitable style = text-align:center width=100%
|-
!width=20%| Creature
!width=20%| Carries
!width=22|[[Image:OBHealthIcon_small.png|Health]]
!width=22|[[Image:FrostIcon_small.png|Frost Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:PoisonIcon_small.png|Poison Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:ArmorIcon_Small.png|Normal Weapon Resist]]
!width=40%|Attacks
!width=10%| [[Oblivion:Souls|Soul]]
|-
|'''{{Linkable Entry|Gloom Wraith|exname=Standard Gloom Wraith}}''' {{ID|00032657}}
|Ectoplasm||24× (lvl-3)||100||100||100
|style = text-align:left|
*'''Gloom Wraith's Curse''' {{ID|([[Oblivion:Absorb Health|Absorb Health]] 4pts for 30sec, [[Oblivion:Burden|Burden]] 50pts for 30sec, [[Oblivion:Damage Willpower|Damage Willpower]] 2pts; all on Touch. ''Immune to Silence'')}}
*'''Arctic Blow''' {{ID|([[Oblivion:Frost Damage|Frost Damage]] 80pts on Touch)}}
*'''Ice Bolt''' {{ID|([[Oblivion:Frost Damage|Frost Damage]] 70pts on Target)}}
*'''Silence of the Grave''' {{ID|([[Oblivion:Frost Damage|Frost Damage]] 3pts for 15sec, [[Oblivion:Silence|Silence]] in 15ft for 15sec)}}
*17+((lvl-3)/2) pts melee, unarmed
|Grand[[Oblivion:Souls#Soul Strengths|L:-3]]
|-
|'''Gloom Wraith''' {{ID|0001E5EB}}
|Ectoplasm Longsword Random Poison (50%)||24× (lvl-3)||100||100||100
|style = text-align:left|
*Same spells as [[#Standard Gloom Wraith|unarmed Gloom Wraith]]
*Longsword (Elven or Glass)
*17+((lvl-3)/2) pts melee, unarmed
|Grand[[Oblivion:Souls#Soul Strengths|L:-3]]
|-
|'''Gloom Wraith''' {{ID|000C8CA2}} ''[[Oblivion:Spells#Summon Gloom Wraith|Summoned]]''
|Ectoplasm||500||100||100||100
|style = text-align:left|
*Same spells as [[#Standard Gloom Wraith|standard Gloom Wraith]]
*17pts melee, unarmed
|Grand
|-
!colspan=8|Unique Gloom Wraiths
|-
|rowspan=2|'''{{Linkable Entry|Gable the Traitor}}''' {{ID|000366BA}}
|[[Oblivion:Small Key|Small Key]]||24× (lvl+1)||100||100||100
|style = text-align:left|
*'''Gloom Wraith's Curse''' {{ID|([[Oblivion:Absorb Health|Absorb Health]] 4pts for 30sec, [[Oblivion:Burden|Burden]] 50pts for 30sec, [[Oblivion:Damage Willpower|Damage Willpower]] 2pts; all on Touch. ''Immune to Silence'')}}
*17+((lvl+1)/2) pts melee, unarmed
|>=Lesser[[Oblivion:Souls#Soul Strengths|L:+1]]
|-
|colspan=7 style=text-align:left|
''Lower deck of the Emma May during [[Oblivion:The Forlorn Watchman (quest)|The Forlorn Watchman quest]]''
|-
|rowspan=2|'''{{Linkable Entry|Wrath of Sithis}}''' {{ID|0006D683 0006D684 0006D682}}
|Ectoplasm [[Oblivion:Dagger of Discipline|Dagger of Discipline]]||215 500 700||100||100||100
|style = text-align:left|
*'''Gloom Wraith's Curse''' {{ID|([[Oblivion:Absorb Health|Absorb Health]] 4pts for 30sec, [[Oblivion:Burden|Burden]] 50pts for 30sec, [[Oblivion:Damage Willpower|Damage Willpower]] 2pts; all on Touch. ''Immune to Silence'')}}
*Leveled Frost Damage on Touch spell
*[[Oblivion:Dagger of Discipline|Dagger of Discipline]]
*16pts melee, unarmed
|Grand
|-
|colspan=7 style=text-align:left|
''Attack you during your sleep after being [[Oblivion:A Dark Exile|exiled]] from the [[Oblivion:Dark Brotherhood|Dark Brotherhood]]. The 215-health wraith is sent the first time you are kicked out; the 500-health wraith is sent the second time; the 700-health wraith is sent the third time.''
|}

===Leveled Ethereal Undead===
{| class=wikitable style = text-align:center width=100%
|-
!colspan=9|'''{{Linkable Entry|Llathasa's Spirit}}''' 
''Found in [[Oblivion:Cheydinhal|Cheydinhal]] Chapel Undercroft during [[Oblivion:The Elven Maiden|The Elven Maiden]] quest.''
|-
!width=20%| Creature
!width=22 |Level
!width=20%| Carries
!width=22|[[Image:OBHealthIcon_small.png|Health]]
!width=22|[[Image:FrostIcon_small.png|Frost Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:PoisonIcon_small.png|Poison Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:ArmorIcon_Small.png|Normal Weapon Resist]]
!width=40%|Attacks
!width=10%| [[Oblivion:Souls|Soul]]
|-
|''(Ghost)'' {{ID|0000AA02}}
|1-8||Ectoplasm||18× (lvl-1)||100||100||100
|style = text-align:left|
*Same spells as [[#Standard Ghost|standard Ghost]]
|<=Lesser[[Oblivion:Souls#Soul Strengths|L:-1]]
|-
|''(Ancient Ghost)'' {{ID|0000AA03}}
|9-11||Ectoplasm||170||100||100||100
|style = text-align:left|
*Same spells as [[#Standard Ancient Ghost|standard Ancient Ghost]]
|Common
|-
|''(Faded Wraith)'' {{ID|0000AA04}}
|12-15||Ectoplasm||280||100||100||100
|style = text-align:left|
*Same spells as [[#Standard Faded Wraith|standard Faded Wraith]]
*24pts melee, unarmed
|Common
|-
|''(Wraith)'' {{ID|0000AA05}}
|16-20||Ectoplasm||400||100||100||100
|style = text-align:left|
*Same spells as [[#Standard Wraith|standard Wraith]]
*24pts melee, unarmed
|Greater
|-
|''(Gloom Wraith)'' {{ID|0000AA06}}
|21+||Ectoplasm||24× (lvl-3) {{ID|Min:504}}||100||100||100
|style = text-align:left|
*Same spells as [[#Standard Gloom Wraith|standard Gloom Wraith]]
*17+((lvl-3)/2) pts melee, unarmed {{ID|(Min:27)}}
|Grand[[Oblivion:Souls#Soul Strengths|L:-3]]
|-
!colspan=9|'''{{Linkable Entry|Sanctified Dead}}''' 
''Found in Chapel Undercrofts in most cities''
|-
! Creature !! Level !! Carries
!width=22|[[Image:OBHealthIcon_small.png|Health]]
!width=22|[[Image:FrostIcon_small.png|Frost Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:PoisonIcon_small.png|Poison Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:ArmorIcon_Small.png|Normal Weapon Resist]]
!Attacks !! [[Oblivion:Souls|Soul]]
|-
|'''{{Linkable Entry|Sanctified Dead}}''' ''(Ghost)'' {{ID|0007091A}}
|1-11||Ectoplasm||18× (lvl-1) {{ID|Max:72}}||100||100||100
|style = text-align:left|
*Same spells as [[#Standard Ghost|standard Ghost]]
|<=Lesser[[Oblivion:Souls#Soul Strengths|L:-1]]
|-
|'''{{Linkable Entry|Ancient Sanctified Dead}}''' ''(Ancient Ghost)'' {{ID|00070913}}
|12-14||Ectoplasm||170||100||100||100
|style = text-align:left|
*Same spells as [[#Standard Ancient Ghost|standard Ancient Ghost]]
|Common
|-
|'''{{Linkable Entry|Sanctified Ancient Spectre}}''' ''(Faded Wraith)'' {{ID|00070914}}
|15-18||Ectoplasm||280||100||100||100
|style = text-align:left|
*Same spells as [[#Standard Faded Wraith|standard Faded Wraith]]
*24pts melee, unarmed
|Common
|-
|'''Sanctified Ancient Spectre''' ''(Wraith)'' {{ID|00070916}}
|19-22||Ectoplasm||400||100||100||100
|style = text-align:left|
*Same spells as [[#Standard Wraith|standard Wraith]]
*24pts melee, unarmed
|Greater
|-
|'''Sanctified Ancient Spectre''' ''(Gloom Wraith)'' {{ID|00070918}}
|23+||Ectoplasm||24× (lvl-3) {{ID|Min:504}}||100||100||100
|style = text-align:left|
*Same spells as [[#Standard Gloom Wraith|standard Gloom Wraith]]
*17+((lvl-3)/2) pts melee, unarmed
|Grand[[Oblivion:Souls#Soul Strengths|L:-3]]
|}

==Zombie Undead==
Zombie Undead are reanimated corpses. They have mottled, muddy green flesh, various deep and fatal-looking wounds, and they are often missing an arm. Zombies can be deceiving for players having not encountered one before, as they ''can'' run and give chase, and have a distinctive groaning voice when they detect prey.

All zombies drop [[Oblivion:Mort Flesh|Mort Flesh]] (except for [[#Deranged Zombies|Deranged Zombies]], which drop [[Oblivion:Bonemeal|Bonemeal]]). They rely upon unarmed melee attacks, which are made more dangerous by the many [[Oblivion:Disease|diseases]] that zombies can carry. All zombies have the following weaknesses, resistances, and abilities:
* 60% [[Oblivion:Weakness to Fire|weakness to fire]]
* 30% [[Oblivion:Resist Frost|resist frost]]
* 100% [[Oblivion:Resist Poison|resist poison]] (immune to poison)
* 30% [[Oblivion:Resist Magic|resist magic]]
* permanent [[Oblivion:Water Breathing|Water Breathing]] ability
Higher level zombies (Headless Zombies and Dread Zombies) have more health, more powerful attacks, and more dangerous diseases. Also, Dread Zombies are able to regenerate health.

<gallery>
Image:OBCreature-Zombie.jpg|Zombie
Image:OBCreature-Headless_Zombie.jpg|Headless Zombie
Image:OBCreature-Dread_Zombie.JPG|Dread Zombie
</gallery>

===Zombies===
Zombies have a 25% chance of carrying one of the following [[Oblivion:Disease|diseases]]:
* Ataxia, Brown Rot, Dampworm, Droops, Greenspore, Helljoint, Rockjoint, Rust Chancre, Witbane
In addition:
*At levels 1-7 [[#Deranged Zombie|Deranged Zombies]] are regular Zombies.

{| class=wikitable style = text-align:center width=100%
|-
!width=20%| Creature
!width=20%| Carries
!width=22|[[Image:OBHealthIcon_small.png|Health]]
!width=22|[[Image:FrostIcon_small.png|Frost Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:PoisonIcon_small.png|Poison Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:FireIcon_small.png|Fire Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:MagicIcon_small.png|Magic Resist]]
!width=40%|Attacks
!width=10%| [[Oblivion:Souls|Soul]]
|-
|'''{{Linkable Entry|Zombie|exname=Standard Zombie}}''' {{ID|00025E6E}}, {{ID|00025E5E}}, {{ID|00025E55}}, {{ID|00025E4F}}
|Minor Loot (15%) Mort Flesh||80||30||100||{{FC|red|-60}}||30
|style = text-align:left|
*10pts melee, unarmed
|Lesser
|-
|'''Zombie''' {{ID|000C8BD3}} ''[[Oblivion:Spells#Summon Zombie|Summoned]]''
|Minor Loot (15%) Mort Flesh||80||30||100||{{FC|red|-60}}||30
|style = text-align:left|
*10pts melee, unarmed
|Lesser
|-
!colspan=9|Unique Zombies
|-
|rowspan=2|'''{{Linkable Entry|Motierre Zombie}}''' {{ID|00071B99}}
|Minor Loot (15%) Mort Flesh||20×lvl {{ID|Max:200}}||30||100||{{FC|red|-60}}||30
|style = text-align:left|
*10+(lvl/2) pts melee, unarmed {{ID|(Max:15)}}
|<=Common[[Oblivion:Souls#Soul Strengths|L:+0]]
|-
|colspan=8 style=text-align:left|
''[[Oblivion:Chorrol|Chorrol]] Chapel Undercroft during [[Oblivion:The Assassinated Man|The Assassinated Man]] quest. This is the second of the three zombies you meet; see [[#Motierre Headless Zombie|Headless Zombies]] for the first.''
|-
|rowspan=2|'''Motierre Zombie''' {{ID|00071B9A}}
|Minor Loot (15%) Mort Flesh||80||30||100||{{FC|red|-60}}||30
|style = text-align:left|
*10pts melee, unarmed
|Lesser
|-
|colspan=8 style=text-align:left|
''[[Oblivion:Chorrol|Chorrol]] Chapel Undercroft during [[Oblivion:The Assassinated Man|The Assassinated Man]] quest. This is the third of the three zombies you meet.''
|-
|rowspan=2|'''{{Linkable Entry|Mucianus Allias}}''' {{ID|00091AA9}}
|Minor Loot (15%) Mort Flesh||50× (lvl-1)||30||100||{{FC|red|-60}}||30
|style = text-align:left|
*10+((lvl-1)/2) pts melee, unarmed
|leveled[[Oblivion:Souls#Soul Strengths|L:-1]]
|-
|colspan=8 style=text-align:left|
''[[Oblivion:Nenyond Twyll|Nenyond Twyll]] Reillesel during [[Oblivion:Liberation or Apprehension?|Liberation or Apprehension?]]. He is technically a {{Linkable Entry|Worm Thrall}}. Note that his health is unusually high. See also [[Oblivion:Mucianus Allias|Mucianus Allias]]''
|-
|rowspan=2|'''{{Linkable Entry|Zombie Guardian}}''' {{ID|000C5B3E 000C5B3F 000C5B40}}
|Minor Loot (15%) Mort Flesh||18× (lvl-1) {{ID|Min:54}}||30||100||{{FC|red|-60}}||30
|style = text-align:left|
*8+((lvl-1)/2) pts melee, unarmed {{ID|(Min:9)}}
|>=Lesser[[Oblivion:Souls#Soul Strengths|L:-1]]
|-
|colspan=8 style=text-align:left|''These three zombies appear in [[Oblivion:Miscarcand (place)|Miscarcand]] with the [[#King of Miscarcand|King of Miscarcand]] when you take the Great Welkynd Stone, see the [[Oblivion:Miscarcand (quest)|Miscarcand quest]]''.
|}

===Headless Zombies===
Headless zombies have a 33% chance of carrying one of the following [[Oblivion:Disease|diseases]]:
* Black-Heart Blight, Chanthrax Blight, Chills, Collywobbles, Rattles, Serpiginous Dementia, Swamp Fever, Wither, Yellow Tick
In addition:
*At 8+ [[#Deranged Zombie|Deranged Zombies]] are Headless Zombies.

{| class=wikitable style = text-align:center width=100%
|-
!width=20%| Creature
!width=20%| Carries
!width=22|[[Image:OBHealthIcon_small.png|Health]]
!width=22|[[Image:FrostIcon_small.png|Frost Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:PoisonIcon_small.png|Poison Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:FireIcon_small.png|Fire Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:MagicIcon_small.png|Magic Resist]]
!width=40%|Attacks
!width=10%| [[Oblivion:Souls|Soul]]
|-
|'''{{Linkable Entry|Headless Zombie|exname=Standard Headless Zombie}}''' {{ID|00025E4E 00025E6F 00025E4D 00025E4C}}
|Minor Loot (15%) Mort Flesh||175||30||100||{{FC|red|-60}}||30
|style = text-align:left|
*27pts melee, unarmed
|Common
|-
|'''{{Linkable Entry|Headless Zombie|exname=Summon Headless Zombie}}''' {{ID|000C8C2C}} ''[[Oblivion:Spells#Summon Headless Zombie|Summoned]]''
|Minor Loot (15%) Mort Flesh||175||30||100||{{FC|red|-60}}||30
|style = text-align:left|
*27pts melee, unarmed
|Common
|-
|rowspan=2|'''{{Linkable Entry|Motierre Zombie|exname=Motierre Headless Zombie}}''' {{ID|00071B98}}
|Minor Loot (15%) Mort Flesh||15×lvl {{ID|Max:150}}||30||100||{{FC|red|-60}}||30
|style = text-align:left|
*10+(lvl/2) pts melee, unarmed {{ID|(Max:15)}}
|<=Common[[Oblivion:Souls#Soul Strengths|L:+0]]
|-
|colspan=8 style=text-align:left|
''[[Oblivion:Chorrol|Chorrol]] Chapel Undercroft during [[Oblivion:The Assassinated Man|The Assassinated Man]] quest. This is the first of the three zombies you meet; see [[#Motierre Zombie|Motierre Zombie]] for the other two.''
|}

===Dread Zombies===
All dread zombies carry the [[Oblivion:Disease|disease]] Astral Vapors, which is particularly nasty because it causes [[Oblivion:Stunted Magicka|Stunted Magicka]], [[Oblivion:Weakness to Magic|Weakness to Magic]] and [[Oblivion:Damage Magicka|Damage Magicka]]. Adding insult to injury is the fact that, unless you have the [[Tes4Mod:Unofficial Oblivion Patch|Unofficial Oblivion Patch]] installed, it bypasses disease resistance. Your magicka will not regenerate until you [[Oblivion:Cure Disease|cure]] yourself. Obviously, Atronach birthsigns can still contract the disease although they already have stunted magicka.
{| class=wikitable style = text-align:center width=100%
|-
!width=20%| Creature
!width=20%| Carries
!width=22|[[Image:OBHealthIcon_small.png|Health]]
!width=22|[[Image:FrostIcon_small.png|Frost Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:PoisonIcon_small.png|Poison Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:FireIcon_small.png|Fire Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:MagicIcon_small.png|Magic Resist]]
!width=40%|Attacks
!width=10%| [[Oblivion:Souls|Soul]]
|-
|'''{{Linkable Entry|Dread Zombie|exname=Standard Dread Zombie}}''' {{ID|0009851B 0009F955 0009F956 0009F957}}
|Minor Loot Mort Flesh||340||30||100||{{FC|red|-60}}||30
|style = text-align:left|
*38pts melee, unarmed
*Regenerate health 5 pts/sec
|Greater
|}

===Leveled Zombies===
{| class=wikitable style = text-align:center width=100%
|-
!colspan=10|{{Linkable Entry|Deranged Zombie}} 
''Found in [[Oblivion:Bleak Flats Cave|Bleak Flats Cave]] during the [[Oblivion:Skingrad Recommendation|Skingrad Recommendation]] quest. Do not carry any diseases.''
|-
!width=20%| FormID
!width=22 | Level
!width=20%| Carries
!width=22|[[Image:OBHealthIcon_small.png|Health]]
!width=22|[[Image:FrostIcon_small.png|Frost Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:PoisonIcon_small.png|Poison Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:FireIcon_small.png|Fire Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:MagicIcon_small.png|Magic Resist]]
!width=40%|Attacks
!width=10%| [[Oblivion:Souls|Soul]]
|-
|rowspan=4|''(Zombies)'' {{ID|00099925}} {{ID|0003F138}} {{ID|0003F136}} {{ID|000474FF}}
|{{ID|(template)}}||Bonemeal*||80||30||100||{{FC|red|-60}}||30
|style = text-align:left|
*10pts melee, unarmed
|Lesser
|-
|1-3||Bonemeal*||80||30||100||{{FC|red|-60}}||30
|style = text-align:left|
*10pts melee, unarmed
|Lesser
|-
|4-5||Bonemeal*||112||30||100||{{FC|red|-60}}||30
|style = text-align:left|
*12pts melee, unarmed
|Lesser
|-
|6-7||Bonemeal*||144||30||100||{{FC|red|-60}}||30
|style = text-align:left|
*14pts melee, unarmed
|Lesser
|-
|rowspan=4|''(Headless Zombies)'' {{ID|00047500}} {{ID|00047501}} {{ID|00047502}} {{ID|00047503}}
|8-9||Bonemeal*||175||30||100||{{FC|red|-60}}||30
|style = text-align:left|
*15pts melee, unarmed
|Common
|-
|10-11||Bonemeal*||207||30||100||{{FC|red|-60}}||30
|style = text-align:left|
*17pts melee, unarmed
|Common
|-
|12-13||Bonemeal*||240||30||100||{{FC|red|-60}}||30
|style = text-align:left|
*25pts melee, unarmed
|Common
|-
|14+||Bonemeal*||260||30||100||{{FC|red|-60}}||30
|style = text-align:left|
*27pts melee, unarmed
|Greater
|}

<nowiki>*</nowiki> The Deranged Zombies all drop [[Oblivion:Bonemeal|Bonemeal]] instead of [[Oblivion:Mort Flesh|Mort Flesh]]. The bonemeal they drop is actually a different type of bonemeal than that dropped by skeletons and liches, and will show up as a separate stack in your inventory. The two types of bonemeal are treated as two separate alchemy ingredients, which means they can be combined to make a potion which has all of bonemeal's alchemy effects. However, there are only seven of the Deranged Zombies and they do not respawn, so you can only obtain seven samples of their rare bonemeal, unless you duplicate a sample by using the Arch-mage's enchanted chest.

==Dead==
These creatures are all already dead, and are mainly of interest because of the possibility of finding loot on some of their corpses.

{| class=wikitable style = text-align:center width=100%
|-
! Creature !! Carries !! Found
|-
!colspan=3| Skeletons
|-
|'''{{Linkable Entry|Dead Akaviri Soldier}}''' {{ID|000980E1}}
|Ruined Akaviri Katana Ruined Akaviri Shield Bonemeal
|''Found in [[Oblivion:Pale Pass|Pale Pass]] during [[Oblivion:Lifting the Vale|Lifting the Vale]] quest.''
|-
|'''{{Linkable Entry|Gran Struthe}}''' {{ID|000568AE}}
|[[Oblivion:Scinia Crypt Key|Scinia Crypt Key]]
|''[[Oblivion:Fort Scinia|Fort Scinia]]'' Note: the construction set shows that Gran Struthe is supposed to carry a piece of leveled magical armor. However, the armor will never actually appear in game because of the details of how the leveled list works. See [[Oblivion_Talk:Undead#A Question|the talk page]] for details.
*{{UOP}}
|-
|'''Skeleton''' {{ID|00027338}}
|style="white-space:nowrap"|Rusty Iron Dagger Rough Leather Boots Rough Leather Cuirass Torch 6 Lockpicks 28 Iron Arrows
|''Imperial Dungeon (during [[Oblivion:Escape From Prison|the tutorial]])''
|-
|'''Skeleton''' {{ID|00159833}}
|Gold 2 Lockpicks Spoon
|''Imperial Dungeon (during [[Oblivion:Escape From Prison|the tutorial]])''
|-
|'''Skeleton''' {{ID|0001E798}}
|Minor Loot (15%) Bonemeal
|''Found in 212 locations''
|-
|'''Skeleton''' {{ID|0001E58D}}
|Minor Loot (15%) Random Ring (25%) Bonemeal
|''Found in 84 locations''
|-
!colspan=3|Zombies
|-
|'''Headless Zombie''' {{ID|00086787}}
|Minor Loot (15%) Mort Flesh
|''Found in 49 locations''
|-
|'''{{Linkable Entry|Nath Dyer}}''' {{ID|000C654F}}
|[[Oblivion:Notes#Note0006B5C2|Letter]] [[Oblivion:Primrose Leaves|Primrose Leaves]] Minor Loot (15%)
|''Found near [[Oblivion:Fort Nikel|Fort Nikel]]; an [[Oblivion:Easter Eggs#Nath Dyer|easter egg]]''
|-
|'''Zombie''' {{ID|0001B79E}}
|Mort Flesh
|''Found in 37 locations''
|-
|}

==Test==
These creatures are listed in the construction set but are never found in-game.
{| class=wikitable style = text-align:center width=100%
|-
!colspan=12|Ghosts
|-
!width=20%| Creature
!width=20%| Carries
!width=22|[[Image:OBHealthIcon_small.png|Health]]
!width=22|[[Image:FrostIcon_small.png|Frost Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:PoisonIcon_small.png|Poison Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:ArmorIcon_Small.png|Normal Weapon Resist]]
!colspan=2 width=40%|Attacks
!width=10%| [[Oblivion:Souls|Soul]]
|-
|'''Dark Broodling''' {{ID|000C509E}}
|Ectoplasm||10|| || ||
|style = text-align:left colspan=2|
*2pts melee, unarmed
|Lesser
|-
|'''TestCreature GhostHugh07Array''' {{ID|00051DB3}}
|nothing||40||100||100||100
|style = text-align:left colspan=2|
*Same spells as [[#Summon Ghost|standard summoned Ghost]]
*10pts melee, unarmed
|Lesser
|-
!colspan=12|Skeletons
|-
! Creature !! Carries
!width=22|[[Image:OBHealthIcon_small.png|Health]]
!width=22|[[Image:FrostIcon_small.png|Frost Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:PoisonIcon_small.png|Poison Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:ParalyzeIcon_small.png|Paralysis Resist]]
!colspan=2| Attacks !! [[Oblivion:Souls|Soul]]
|-
|'''Manduin's Remains''' {{ID|0003CD2C}}
|style=whitespace=nowrap|Random Iron Armor Manduin's Amulet||0|| || ||
|style = text-align:left colspan=2|
*none (already dead)
|none
|-
|'''Skeleton''' {{ID|00028F60}}
|nothing||50|| || ||
|style = text-align:left colspan=2|
|Common
|-
|'''Skeleton''' {{ID|0002F473}}
|nothing||50|| || ||
|style = text-align:left colspan=2|
|Common
|-
|'''Skeleton''' {{ID|0002F474}}
||Iron Longsword Iron Shield||50|| || ||
|style = text-align:left colspan=2|
*melee weapon
|Common
|-
|'''Skeleton''' {{ID|0002F475}}
|Iron Claymore||50|| || ||
|style = text-align:left colspan=2|
*melee weapon
|Common
|-
|'''Skeleton''' {{ID|0001F118}}
|nothing||150|| || ||
|style = text-align:left colspan=2|
|Common
|-
|'''Skeleton''' {{ID|0009077C}}
|Leveled Weapon Leveled Shield Bonemeal||40||70||100||100
|style = text-align:left colspan=2|
*5pts melee, unarmed, leveled weapon
|Petty
|-
|'''Skeleton''' {{ID|00088BF2}}
|Iron Longsword Iron Shield||50|| || ||
|style = text-align:left colspan=2|
*melee weapon
|Common
|-
|rowspan=2|'''Skeleton''' {{ID|00014BB1}}
|Leveled Weapon Bonemeal||20||70||100||100
|style = text-align:left colspan=2|
*5pts melee, unarmed, leveled weapon
|Petty
|-
|style = text-align:left colspan=9|
''Template for boss undead in [[Oblivion:Vahtacen|Vahtacen]] during [[Oblivion:Vahtacen's Secret|Vahtacen's Secret]]; provides default behaviour for leveled list creatures.''
|-
|rowspan=2|'''Skeleton''' {{ID|00014BB2}}
|Leveled Weapon Bonemeal||20||70||100||100
|style = text-align:left colspan=2|
*5pts melee, unarmed, leveled weapon
|Petty
|-
|style = text-align:left colspan=9|
''Template for undead in final room of [[Oblivion:Vahtacen|Vahtacen]] during [[Oblivion:Vahtacen's Secret|Vahtacen's Secret]]; provides default behaviour for leveled list creatures.''
|-
|'''Skeleton Hero''' {{ID|0006C3A1}}
|Leveled Weapon Bonemeal||160×lvl||70||100||100
|style = text-align:left colspan=2|
*8+(lvl/2) pts melee, unarmed, leveled weapon
|leveled[[Oblivion:Souls#Soul Strengths|L:+0]]
|-
|rowspan=2|'''Template Creature''' {{ID|000A933F}}
|nothing||40||70||100||100
|style = text-align:left colspan=2|
*5pts melee, unarmed, leveled weapon
|Petty
|-
|style = text-align:left colspan=9|
''Template for undead in final room of [[Oblivion:Nenalata|Nenalata]] during [[Oblivion:Secrets of the Ayleids|Secrets of the Ayleids]]; provides default behaviour for leveled list creatures.''
|-
!colspan=12|Wraiths
|-
! Creature !! Carries
!width=22|[[Image:OBHealthIcon_small.png|Health]]
!width=22|[[Image:FrostIcon_small.png|Frost Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:PoisonIcon_small.png|Poison Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:ParalyzeIcon_small.png|Paralysis Resist]]
!colspan=2| Attacks !! [[Oblivion:Souls|Soul]]
|-
|'''TestWraith01''' {{ID|0001E779}}
|Steel Longsword||120||100||100||100
|style = text-align:left colspan=2|
*Same spells as [[#Standard Wraith|standard Wraith]]
*16pts melee, unarmed
|Common
|-
|'''TestWraith02''' {{ID|0001E77A}}
|Silver Longsword||120||100||100||100
|style = text-align:left colspan=2|
*Same spells as [[#Standard Wraith|standard Wraith]]
*Silver Longsword
*16pts melee, unarmed
|Common
|-
|'''WraithGloomTest''' {{ID|00039303}}
|Silver Longsword||240||100||100||100
|style = text-align:left colspan=2|
*Same spells as [[#Standard Gloom Wraith|standard Gloom Wraith]]
*Silver Longsword
*16pts melee, unarmed
|Grand
|-
!colspan=12|Zombies
|-
! Creature !! Carries
!width=22|[[Image:OBHealthIcon_small.png|Health]]
!width=22|[[Image:FireIcon_small.png|Fire Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:FrostIcon_small.png|Frost Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:PoisonIcon_small.png|Poison Resist]]
!width=22|[[Image:MagicIcon_small.png|Magic Resist]]
! Attacks !! [[Oblivion:Souls|Soul]]
|-
|'''Zombie''' {{ID|00097A36}}
|Minor Loot Mort Flesh||5||{{FC|red|-60}}||30||100||30
|style = text-align:left|
*10pts melee, unarmed
|Lesser
|-
|rowspan=2|'''Zombie''' {{ID|000C87E0}}
|Bonemeal||50||{{FC|red|-60}}||30||100||30
|style = text-align:left|
*10pts melee, unarmed
|Lesser
|-
|style = text-align:left colspan=9|
''Template for undead in [[Oblivion:Bruma|Bruma]] [[Oblivion:Mages Guild|Mages Guild]] during [[Oblivion:A Plot Revealed|A Plot Revealed]]; provides default behaviour for leveled list creatures.''
|}