UESPWiki - User Contributions [en]

Lore:Septim Dynasty

2025-05-27T21:54:18Z

Rpeh: Rm utterly unnecessary cruft

{{Featured Article}}{{Trail|Appendices/History}}
The [[Lore:Septim Dynasty|Septim Dynasty]] was the founding dynasty and the first ruling dynasty of the [[Lore:Third Empire|Third Empire]] of [[Lore:Tamriel|Tamriel]] from {{Year|2E 896}} until the dynasty's extinction with the death of [[Lore:Martin Septim|Martin Septim]] in {{Year|3E 433}}. The dynasty and the Empire were founded by the legendary [[Lore:Tiber Septim|Tiber Septim]] in 2E 896 after [[Lore:Tiber War|decades of conquest]], thus marking the end of the [[Lore:Second Era|Second Era]] and the beginning of the [[Lore:Third Era|Third Era]].

Under the Septims, Tamriel prospered and its provinces enjoyed peace and stability that had not been seen since before the chaotic centuries of the [[Lore:Interregnum|Interregnum]]. New conflicts still arose, however, which repeatedly stretched the Empire to its breaking point throughout the Third Era: a battle over the imperial succession ensued during the [[Lore:War of the Red Diamond|War of the Red Diamond]] between {{Year|3E 120}} and {{Year|3E 127}}; the [[Lore:Camoran Usurper|Camoran Usurper]] seized control of [[Lore:Valenwood|Valenwood]] and [[Lore:Hammerfell|Hammerfell]] from {{Year|3E 249}} to {{Year|3E 267}}; Emperor [[Lore:Uriel Septim V|Uriel Septim V]] spearheaded an ill-fated invasion of [[Lore:Akavir|Akavir]] in {{Year|3E 288}}, resulting in the emperor's death and the loss of a considerable portion of the Empire's military strength; and Imperial Battlemage [[Lore:Jagar Tharn|Jagar Tharn]] overthrew Emperor [[Lore:Uriel Septim VII|Uriel Septim VII]] and ruled for a decade beginning in {{Year|3E 389}}, a period that would become known as the [[Lore:Imperial Simulacrum|Imperial Simulacrum]].

Through all of these challenges, the Empire and the Septim line survived. Their end came in 3E 433 with the onset of the [[Lore:Oblivion Crisis|Oblivion Crisis]]. Emperor [[Lore:Uriel VII|Uriel Septim VII]] and his heirs were assassinated by the [[Lore:Mythic Dawn|Mythic Dawn]] in a single night, and the [[Lore:Dragonfires|Dragonfires]] ceased to burn. The [[Lore:Daedric Prince|Daedric Prince]] [[Lore:Mehrunes Dagon|Mehrunes Dagon]] launched a massive invasion of Tamriel. Although one last Septim heir, Martin Septim, was located, he sacrificed himself to repel the Daedra and seal [[Lore:Mundus|Mundus]] off from [[Lore:Oblivion|Oblivion]] forever. With the Septims gone and the Empire's fate uncertain, the Third Era concluded and the [[Lore:Fourth Era|Fourth Era]] began.

==Septim Bloodline==
{| class="wikitable" style="white-space:nowrap; float:left; margin: 0px 1em 1em 0px"
!Name!!Reign!!Regnal Years Length
|-
|'''[[Lore:Tiber Septim|Tiber Septim]]'''||2E 854{{Ref|name=PGE1Cyr|{{Cite Book|PGE|1|Cyrodiil}}}} - 3E 38{{Ref|name=BHotE1|{{Cite Book|Brief History of the Empire v 1}}}}{{Ref|name=DC}}||42 or 81 years
|-
|'''[[Lore:Pelagius Septim I|Pelagius Septim I]]'''{{Ref|group=nb|"There has been some disagreement regarding Pelagius' relationship with Tiber Septim. [[Lore:Brief History of the Empire (Daggerfall)|A version]] of a Brief History of the Empire referred to Pelagius as Tiber's eldest son, but it has since been [[Lore:Brief History of the Empire|revised]]. Some passages in [[Lore:The Real Barenziah|The Real Barenziah]] suggest that Tiber's wife, referred to as the Empress, had multiple "children". The likeliest explanations include that Tiber and the Empress had female children otherwise unrecorded to history, or that the general public were referred to as the Empress' "children". Other possibilities include that the Empress had children that were not Tiber's, the two of them had secret offspring, or a mistake on the part of the author. Regardless, the throne ended up with Kintyra.}}||3E 38{{Ref|name=BHotE1}}{{Ref|name=DC}}-3E 40{{Ref|name=BHotE1}}{{Ref|name=DC}}{{Ref|group=nb|A Brief History of the Empire says that Pelagius reigned for "less than three years", suggesting a date of {{Year|3E 40}}. ''The Daggerfall Chronicles'' explicitly uses this date.}}|| Less than 3 years
|-
|'''[[Lore:Kintyra Septim I|Kintyra Septim I]]'''||3E 40{{Ref|name=BHotE1}}{{Ref|name=DC}} - 3E 48{{Ref|name=DC|Tamriel's Timeline, The Daggerfall Chronicles — ''Ronald Wartow''}}||Less than 7 or greater than 8 years
|-
|'''[[Lore:Uriel Septim I|Uriel Septim I]]'''||3E 53{{Ref|name=DC}} - 3E 64{{Ref|name=BHotE1}}{{Ref|name=DC}}||11 or less than 16 years
|-
|'''[[Lore:Uriel Septim II|Uriel Septim II]]'''||3E 64{{Ref|name=BHotE1}}{{Ref|name=DC}} - 3E 82{{Ref|name=BHotE1}}{{Ref|name=WQ2|{{Cite Book|The_Wolf_Queen, v2}}}}{{Ref|name=DC}}||18 years
|-
|'''[[Lore:Pelagius Septim II|Pelagius Septim II]]'''||3E 82{{Ref|name=BHotE1}}{{Ref|name=WQ2}}{{Ref|name=DC}} - 3E 98{{Ref|name=WQ3|{{Cite Book|The_Wolf_Queen, v3}}}}{{Ref|name=BWQ|{{Cite Book|Biography of the Wolf Queen}}}}{{Ref|name=DC}}||Less than 17 years
|-
|'''[[Lore:Antiochus Septim|Antiochus Septim]]'''||3E 99{{Ref|name=BHotE1}}{{Ref|name=WQ3}}{{Ref|group=nb|Book 3 of The Wolf Queen indicates that Antiochus was not offered the throne until some time had passed after the death of Pelagius II. A Brief History of the Empire indicates that he took the throne twelve years before [[Lore:War of the Isle|the War of the Isle]] in {{Year|3E 110}}, which leads to the same date.}} - 3E 120{{Ref|name=WQ5|{{Cite Book|The Wolf Queen, v5}}}}{{Ref|name=MOP|{{Cite Book|The Madness of Pelagius}}}}{{Ref|name=AntD|group=nb|Book 5 of The Wolf Queen states that Antiochus fell into a coma in {{Year|3E 119}} and that his funeral was in {{Year|3E 120}}. The Madness of Pelagius agrees, stating that Kintyra ascended the throne "just over a year" after Pelagius' birth in {{Year|3E 119}}. Both books are contradicted in the [[Lore:Biography of the Wolf Queen|Biography of the Wolf Queen]], which explicitly places his death in {{Year|3E 112}}. To add to the confusion, see the note about the date of Pelagius III's birth. This chart uses the 120 date, since most references state that to be the correct date.}}||13 or 21 years
|-
|'''[[Lore:Kintyra Septim II|Kintyra Septim II]]'''||3E 120{{Ref|name=WQ5}}{{Ref|name=WQ6|{{Cite Book|The Wolf Queen, v6}}}}{{Ref|name=MOP}} - 3E 121{{Ref|name=WQ7|{{Cite Book|The Wolf Queen, v7}}}}{{Ref|name=KSII|group=nb|In The Wolf Queen, although there is uncertainty over the date of Kintyra's death, it is stated that Uriel III was crowned "four years previously" to the year {{Year|3E 125}}, implying that he was crowned in {{Year|3E 121}}. A Brief History of the Empire explicitly states that Uriel took the throne in 121. The Biography of the Wolf Queen states that Kintyra was executed in {{Year|3E 114}} and that Uriel ascended to the throne "seven years later". Thus, while all three books agree on the date of Uriel's ascension, the Biography implies a seven year interregnum during the War of the Red Diamond when nobody wore the Imperial crown. The precise date given in Broken Diamonds implies that Kintyra was held in captivity for some time before her death.}}{{Ref|name=DC}}||Less than 1 year

|-
|'''[[Lore:Uriel Septim III|Uriel Septim III]]'''||3E 121{{Ref|name=BHotE1}}{{Ref|name=KSII|group=nb}} - 3E 127{{Ref|name=WQ7}}{{Ref|name=BHotE2|{{Cite Book|Brief History of the Empire v 2}}}}||6 years
|-
|'''[[Lore:Cephorus Septim I|Cephorus Septim I]]'''||3E 127{{Ref|name=WQ7}}{{Ref|name=WQ8|{{Cite Book|The Wolf Queen, v8}}}}{{Ref|name=BHotE2}}{{Ref|name=DC}} - 3E 140{{Ref|name=WQ8}}||~12 years
|-
|'''[[Lore:Magnus Septim|Magnus Septim]]'''||3E 140{{Ref|name=WQ8}} - 3E 145{{Ref|name=WQ8}}{{Ref|name=MOP}}||5 years

|-
|'''[[Lore:Pelagius Septim III|Pelagius Septim III]]'''||3E 145{{Ref|name=WQ8}}{{Ref|name=BHotE2}}{{Ref|name=BWQ}} - 3E 153{{Ref|name=BHotE2}}{{Ref|name=MOP}}{{Ref|name=Pel3|group=nb|The Madness of Pelagius says that Pelagius III died in the 34th year of his life, which translates to {{Year|3E 153}}.}}||8 years
|-
|'''[[Lore:Katariah Ra'Athim|Katariah Ra'Athim]]'''||3E 153{{Ref|name=BHotE2}}{{Ref|name=MOP}} - 3E 200{{Ref|name=BHotE2}}{{Ref|name=MOP}}{{Ref|name=KatD|group=nb|Both Brief History of the Empire and The Madness of Pelagius put the length of Katariah's reign at forty-six years, and [[Lore:The Third Era Timeline|The Third Era Timeline]] puts her death in {{Year|3E 200}}. To fit in with later events, her reign must end in {{Year|3E 200}}. A possible explanation of the stated length of Katariah's reign by Brief History of the Empire and The Madness of Pelagius could be that Katariah's reign began in late {{Year|3E 153}} but ended in early {{Year|3E 200}}, meaning that her reign may have in reality lasted forty-six years and some months, but not quite forty-seven years.}}||Less than 47 years
|-
|'''[[Lore:Cassynder Septim|Cassynder Septim]]'''||3E 200{{Ref|name=BHotE3|{{Cite Book|Brief History of the Empire v 3}}}} - 3E 202{{Ref|name=BHotE3}}{{Ref|name=CassD|group=nb|The ''Daggerfall'' version of Brief History says "In two years, he was dead" while the later version says that Cassynder died "Three years after [his accession]". It is impossible to determine exactly which year these statements are intended to mean, but {{Year|3E 202}} seems reasonable.}}||2 or less than 3 years
|-
|'''[[Lore:Uriel Septim IV|Uriel Septim IV]]'''||3E 202{{Ref|name=BHotE3}}{{Ref|name=CassD|group=nb}} - 3E 246{{Ref|name=BHotE2}}{{Ref|name=US4|group=nb|Brief History of the Empire describes the reign of Uriel Septim IV lasting 43 years. This must have extended into {{Year|3E 246}}, as [[Lore:The Rear Guard|The Rear Guard]] describes a law made "in 3E 246, during the reign of Uriel IV". ''The Daggerfall Chronicles'' place Uriel's death in {{Year|3E 247}}, but it doesn't seem possible to stretch his reign into this year given other events. It is possible this date has been superseded.}}||~44 years
|-
|'''[[Lore:Cephorus Septim II|Cephorus Septim II]]'''||3E 246{{Ref|name=BHotE2}}{{Ref|name=US4|group=nb}} - 3E 268{{Ref|name=BHotE3}}{{Ref|name=Ceph2|group=nb|Although the Brief History of the Empire states Cephorus II became emperor in {{Year|3E 268}}, this is clearly an error. The same book states that Uriel Septim V also became emperor in 268, so it is more logical to assume the latter is correct and that Cephorus simply followed on from Uriel IV. Cephorus is described as "a cousin more closely related to the original Septim line", although his precise line of descent is not clear.}}||~22 years
|-
|'''[[Lore:Uriel Septim V|Uriel Septim V]]'''||3E 268{{Ref|name=BHotE3}} - 3E 290{{Ref|name=BHotE3}}{{Ref|name=DAI|{{Cite Book|Report: Disaster at Ionith}}}}{{Ref|name=DC}}||22 years
|-
|'''[[Lore:Uriel Septim VI|Uriel Septim VI]]'''||3E 290 (3E 307){{ref|name=BHotE4|{{Cite Book|Brief History of the Empire v 4}}}}{{Ref|group=nb|Uriel VI was too young to rule in his own right when he was crowned, so his mother Thonica ruled as regent. He was eventually allowed to ascend the throne and assume full Imperial powers in {{Year|3E 307}}.}}{{Ref|name=DC}} - 3E 313{{Ref|name=BHotE4}}{{ref|group=nb|name=Morihatha|''[[Lore:The Third Era Timeline|The Third Era Timeline]]'' states that Uriel VI died and Morihatha was crowned in 3E 320, and ''Tamriel's Timeline, The Daggerfall Chronicles'' suggests the year was 3E 317. However, ''[[Lore:Brief History of the Empire|Brief History of the Empire]]'' notes that Morihatha was born a month after her father left for Akavir in 3E 288, and that she was 25-years-old as Empress, which would put her coronation in 3E 313.}}||6(23) years
|-
|'''[[Lore:Morihatha Septim|Morihatha Septim]]'''||3E 313{{ref|name=BHotE4}}{{ref|group=nb|name=Morihatha}} - 3E 339{{Ref|name=BHotE4}}{{Ref|name=DC}}||26 years
|-
|'''[[Lore:Pelagius Septim IV|Pelagius Septim IV]]'''||3E 339{{Ref|name=BHotE4}}{{Ref|name=DC}} - 3E 368{{Ref|name=BHotE4}}{{Ref|name=PS4|group=nb|The Brief History of the Empire states that Pelagius reigned for 49 years, but this has been acknowledged as an error - the correct span is 29 years.}}||29 years
|-
|'''[[Lore:Uriel Septim VII|Uriel Septim VII]]'''||3E 368{{Ref|name=BHotE4}}{{Ref|name=DC}}{{Ref|name=PS4|group=nb}} - 3E 433{{Ref|name=Ass|[[Lore:Assassination!|The Black Horse Courier]], Special Edition}}||55(65) years
|-
|'''[[Lore:Martin Septim|Martin Septim]]'''||3E 433{{Ref|name=TESIV|Events during TES IV: Oblivion}} - 3E 433{{Ref|name=TESIV}}||Less than 1 year
|}

The table to the left shows the emperors and empresses and their regnal dates. The chart below details the lineage of the Septim family in the first-degree only. In both cases, the date of birth and death should be interpreted as ''Era / Year''. For example, "2E/125" should be read as "Second Era in the year 125". All unknown dates and names are noted with the inclusion of "???". A † symbol next to a date of death indicates that the death was not natural. Names in '''bold''' indicate ruling emperors.

References are given in the usual style, but cases where calculation or inference are involved, or where contradictions exist, are marked as "nb" and appear in a separate section.

{{NewLine}}
{{Chart/start}}

{{Chart|border=1|boxstyle=background:white| | | | | | | UNK1 |v| UNK2 | UNK1=??? (2E/???-?E/???) | UNK2=??? (2E/???-?E/???)}}

{{Chart| | | | | | | |,|-|^|-|.}}

{{Chart|border=1|boxstyle=background:white| | | UNK1 |v| TIB | | AGN |v| UNK2 | UNK1=??? (?E/???-?E/???) | AGN=[[Lore:Agnorith|Agnorith]] 2E/???-?E/???|TIB='''[[Lore:Tiber Septim|{{Anchor|Tiber Septim}}]]''' 2E/828{{Ref|group=nb|[[Lore:The_Wolf_Queen,_v1|The Wolf Queen, v1]] suggests Tiber Septim was born in {{Year|2E 288}}, but since that would mean he was nearly 650 years old when he died, it seems more likely that Potema was misremembering her lessons. The Arcturian Heresy states that Tiber was 108 when he died, which places his birth in around {{Year|2E 827}}-{{Year|2E 828|828}}. If Potema simply had the digits in the wrong order, 828 seems more likely.}}-3E/38{{Ref|name=BHotE1}}{{Ref|name=DC}}|UNK2=??? (?E/???-?E/???)}}

{{Chart| | | | | |!| | | | | | | |!}}

{{Chart|border=1|boxstyle=background:white| UNK1 |v| UNK1 | | | | | | KYN |v| UNK1 |UNK1=??? (?E/???-?E/???)| KYN='''[[Lore:Kintyra I|{{Anchor|Kintyra Septim}}]]''' 2E/???-3E/53{{Ref|name=DC}}}}

{{Chart| | | |!| | | | | | | | | | | |!}}

{{Chart|border=1|boxstyle=background:white| | |PEL | | | | | | UNK |v| URI |URI='''[[Lore:Uriel Septim I|{{Anchor|Uriel Septim}}]]''' 2E/???-3E/64{{Ref|name=BHotE1}}| UNK=??? (?E/???-?E/???)|PEL='''[[Lore:Pelagius Septim I|{{Anchor|Pelagius Septim I}}]]''' ?E/???-3E/41†{{Ref|name=BHotE1}}}}

{{Chart| | | | | | | | | |,|-|-|-|'}}

{{Chart|border=1|boxstyle=background:white| | | | | UNK |v| URI | URI='''[[Lore:Uriel Septim II|{{Anchor|Uriel Septim II}}]]''' ?E/???-3E/82{{Ref|name=BHotE1}}| UNK=??? (?E/???-?E/???)}}

{{Chart| | | | | |,|-|+|-|.}}

{{Chart|border=1|boxstyle=background:white| | | | |AMI|!|GAL|-|DON|AMI=Amiel Septim 3E/???-3E/???|GAL=Galana Septim 3E/???-3E/???|DON=Duke of Narsis 3E/???-3E/???}}

{{Chart| | | | | | | |!}}

{{Chart|border=1|boxstyle=background:white| | |UNK1|v|PEL|v|QUI|UNK1=??? 3E/???-3E/52{{Ref|name=WQ1}}{{Ref|group=nb|The Wolf Queen states that Pelagius had been "eleven years a widower" when he visited Camlorn in {{Year|3E 63}}, implying that his first wife died in {{Year|3E 52}}.}}|PEL='''[[Lore:Pelagius Septim II|{{Anchor|Pelagius Septim II}}]]''' ?E/???-3E/98{{Ref|name=WQ3}}{{Ref|name=BWQ}}|QUI=Quintilla Vulstaed or Qizara{{Ref|group=nb|Books 1, 3 and 6 of The Wolf Queen name the wife of Pelagius II as Quintilla Vulstaed, but the Biography of the Wolf Queen calls her Qizara.}} ?E/???-3E/99{{Ref|group=nb|Book 3 of The Wolf Queen contains a scene in {{Year|3E 99}} where Quintilla prophesies that she will die soon, followed by King Mantiarco shortly thereafter. Other sources attest to Mantiarco's death in 3E 99, so assuming Quintilla's prophecy was correct, she must have died in the same year. Certainly, the only reference to her in the book - in {{Year|3E 121}} - is in the past tense..}}}}

{{Chart| | | | | |!| | | |`|-|-|-|v|-|v|-|.}}

{{Chart|border=1|boxstyle=background:white|MAG|-|ANT|v|GYS|,|CEP|!|POT|v|MAN|MAG=Magna{{Ref|name=MagnaGysilla|group=nb|There is slightly contradictory evidence about Antiochus' wives and the mother of his daughter, Kintyra. The [[Lore:Biography of the Wolf Queen|Biography of the Wolf Queen]] says that Kintyra's mother was called Magna, and mentions no other wife. [[Lore:The Wolf Queen, v4|The Wolf Queen, v4]], however, states that Kintyra was born to Antiochus' second wife, Gysilla, but doesn't mention the name of his first wife. Adding to the confusion, [[Lore:The Wolf Queen, v5|The Wolf Queen, v5]] copies the Biography's paragraph on the subject almost word for word, with the only major change being the substitution of "Magna" with "Gysilla". Neither woman is mentioned in any other book. Since the Biography is known to be inaccurate on several other points, it makes sense to follow the lineage described in The Wolf Queen, and to use Magna as the name of Antiochus' first wife.}} 3E/???-3E/???|ANT='''[[Lore:Antiochus|{{Anchor|Antiochus Septim}}]]''' 3E/50{{Ref|name=BWQ}} or 3E/55{{Ref|name=WQ3}}{{Ref|group=nb|The Wolf Queen states that Antiochus was 43 in {{Year|3E 98}}, implying a birth year of {{Year|3E 54}}-{{Year|3E 54|55}}. The Biography of the Wolf Queen has him aged 48 in 3E 98, suggesting that he was born five years earlier.}}-3E/120{{Ref|name=WQ5}}|GYS=Gysilla{{Ref|name=MagnaGysilla|group=nb}} 3E/???-3E/???|CEP='''[[Lore:Cephorus I|{{Anchor|Cephorus Septim I}}]]''' 3E/77{{Ref|name=WQ3}}{{Ref|group=nb|The Wolf Queen states that Cephorus was 21 in {{Year|3E 98}} and 60 in {{Year|3E 137}}, implying a birth year of {{Year|3E 77}}-{{Year|3E 78|78}}.}}-3E/140{{Ref|name=WQ8}}{{Ref|name=BHotE2}}{{Ref|group=nb|Book 2 of Brief History of the Empire states that Cephorus outlived Potema by three years.}}|POT=[[Lore:Potema|Potema Septim]] 3E/67{{Ref|name=BWQ}}{{Ref|name=WQ8}}{{Ref|group=nb|The Wolf Queen states that Potema was 14 in {{Year|3E 80}}, 53 in {{Year|3E 120}} and 70 in {{Year|3E 137}}, implying a birth year of {{Year|3E 66}}-{{Year|3E 67}}; it also states that she was 30 in {{Year|3E 98}}, which favors the latter date.}}-3E/137{{Ref|name=WQ8}}{{Ref|name=BHotE2}}{{Ref|name=BWQ}}|MAN=[[Lore:Mantiarco|Mantiarco]] 3E/19{{Ref|name=WQ1|{{Cite Book|The Wolf Queen, v1}}}}{{Ref|group=nb|The Wolf Queen states that Mantiarco was 62 in {{Year|3E 80}}, implying a birth year of {{Year|3E 18}}-{{Year|3E 19|19}}.}}-3E/99{{Ref|name=WQ4|{{Cite Book|The Wolf Queen, v4}}}}{{Ref|group=nb|The Wolf Queen states that {{Year|3E 109}} was nine years after Mantiarco's death, implying that he died in {{Year|3E 99}}-{{Year|3E 100|100}}, and the [[Lore:Biography of the Wolf Queen|Biography of the Wolf Queen]] states he "the springtide after Pelagius II", whose death in {{Year|3E 98}} is well-documented.}}}}

{{Chart| | | | | | | |!| | | |!| | | |!| | | |`|-|.}}

{{Chart|border=1|boxstyle=background:white| |,|-|-|-|-|-|'| | | BIA | |MAG|v|HEL|!|MAG='''[[Lore:Magnus Septim|{{Anchor|Magnus Septim}}]]''' 3E/79{{Ref|name=WQ3}}{{Ref|group=nb|The Wolf Queen states that Magnus was 19 in {{Year|3E 98}}, implying a birth year of {{Year|3E 78}}-{{Year|3E 79|79}}.}}-3E/145{{Ref|name=WQ8}}{{Ref|name=MOP}}|HEL=[[Lore:Hellena|Hellena]] or [[Lore:Utheilla Direnni|Utheilla]]{{Ref|group=nb|Book 7 of The Wolf Queen clearly identifies Magnus' wife and Pelagius' mother as "Hellena"; The Madness of Pelagius is equally clear that her name is "Utheilla".}}{{Ref|group=UOL|Concerning the Hellena/Utheilla inconsistency, [[General:Ted Peterson|Ted Peterson]] stated in a {{TIL|forum post|inconsistencies}}: "Unfortunately, there's no way around the fact that the books contradict one another. In Wolf Queen, young Pelagius makes reference to his mother, who is Hellena, still being alive at the time of Potema's death. Madness says that {{Sic|Uthiella|Utheilla}}, a Direnni of Balfiera, is his mom; and Wolf Queen says that Hellena, Queen of Lilmoth is his mom. Madness is wrong: Pelagius did not have a Direnni mom. Tsathenes got Pelagius's birthdate and his early history completely wrong."}} 3E/???-3E/???|BIA=Bianki{{Ref|group=nb|The Wolf Queen makes several references to Cephorus' Redguard Bride named Bianki but The Madness of Pelagius is equally clear, stating that "Cephorus never married and died childless". Bianki is included here for completeness. Her death in {{Year|3E 136}} comes from a phrase in the Wolf Queen, where Pelagius reflects that "Aunt Bianki" died "last year" in an entry dated {{Year|3E 137}}. Book 4 suggests that the marriage resulted in "a healthy brood of children", but Book 8 states they all died either in the war or as the result of famine after it.}} 3E/???-3E/136}}

{{Chart| |!| | | | | | | | | | | |,|-|-|-|(| | | |!}}

{{Chart|border=1|boxstyle=background:white|KIN| |GAL|v|KAT|v|PEL| |JOL| |URI|KIN='''[[Lore:Kintyra II|{{Anchor|Kintyra Septim II}}]]'''{{Ref|group=nb|Book 4 of The Wolf Queen says that Antiochus named Kintyra after his "great-great-great grandaunt", but from other sources, she was actually his great-great grandmother.}}{{Ref|name=KintyraConsorts|group=nb|Brief History of the Empire indicates that [[Lore:Kontin Arynx|Kontin Arynx]] is the consort of Kintyra II, however The Wolf Queen historical fiction books have Lord [[Lore:Modellus|Modellus]] of the [[Lore:Elder Council|Elder Council]] as her husband-to-be.}} 3E/104{{Ref|name=WQ5}}{{Ref|group=nb|The Wolf Queen states that Kintyra was 15 in both {{Year|3E 119}} and {{Year|3E 120}}, implying a birth year of {{Year|3E 104}}.}}-3E123†{{Ref|name=DB|{{Cite Book|Broken Diamonds}}}}{{Ref|name=KSII|group=nb}}|GAL=[[Lore:Gallivere Lariat|Gallivere Lariat]] 3E/???-3E/???|KAT='''[[Lore:Katariah|{{Anchor|Katariah Ra'Athim}}]]''' 3E/???-3E/199†{{Ref|name=KatD|group=nb}}|PEL='''[[Lore:Pelagius Septim III|{{Anchor|Pelagius Septim III}}]]''' 3E/119{{Ref|name=MOP}}{{Ref|name=BHotE2}} or 3E/125{{Ref|group=nb|It is impossible to be certain about the date of Pelagius III's birth. The Wolf Queen explicitly states it as {{Year|3E 125}} while The Madness of Pelagius is equally explicit in a date of {{Year|3E 119}}. Book 2 of Brief History of the Empire says that Pelagius died at the age of 34 in {{Year|3E 153}}, which supports the date of 119.}}{{Ref|name=WQ7}}- 3E/153{{Ref|name=BHotE2}}{{Ref|name=MOP}}{{Ref|name=Pel3|group=nb}}|JOL=[[Lore:Jolethe|Jolethe Septim]]{{Ref|name=JoletheNord|group=nb}} 3E/???-3E/???|URI='''[[Lore:Uriel Septim III|{{Anchor|Uriel Septim III}}]]''' 3E/97{{Ref|name=BWQ}}{{Ref|name=WQ3}}{{Ref|group=nb|He was one year old in {{Year|3E 98}} according to The Wolf Queen, and the Biography of the Wolf Queen explicitly states {{Year|3E 97}}. Book 4 of The Wolf Queen, however, has Uriel's age as 11 in {{Year|3E 110}}, which may push his birth up to 3E 98. The same book calls Tiber Septim Uriel's "great great great great great granduncle". This either contains one too many "greats" or the "grand" should be removed; in reality, Tiber is Uriel's great-great-great-great-great uncle, or great-great-great-great-grand uncle.}}-3E/127†{{Ref|name=WQ7}}{{Ref|name=BHotE2}}}}

{{Chart| | | | | | | |!| | | |!}}

{{Chart|border=1|boxstyle=background:white| | |UNK|v|URI| |CAS|UNK=??? 3E/???-3E/???|URI='''[[Lore:Uriel Septim IV|{{Anchor|Uriel Septim IV}}]]''' 3E/???-3E/247{{Ref|name=BHotE2}}{{Ref|name=US4|group=nb}}|CAS='''[[Lore:Cassynder|{{Anchor|Cassynder Septim}}]]''' 3E/148{{Ref|name=MOP}}{{Ref|group=nb|The Madness of Pelagius says that Katariah became pregnant just after Pelagius was sent to a private asylum, which happened two years into his reign. Assuming a full nine-month pregnancy, Cassynder's birth would be some time between 3E/147 and 3E/149. This would also fit with a Brief History of the Empire, which notes that he was middle-aged when he came to the throne - with these dates he would have been in his early 50s.}}-3E/201{{Ref|name=BHotE3}}{{Ref|name=CassD|group=nb}}}}

{{Chart| | | | | |!}}

{{Chart|border=1|boxstyle=background:white| | | | |AND|AND='''[[Lore:Andorak Septim|{{Anchor|Andorak Septim}}]]''' 3E/???-3E/???}}

{{Chart|border=1|boxstyle=background:white| | | | | | | | | | |CEP|v|UNK|CEP='''[[Lore:Cephorus II|{{Anchor|Cephorus Septim II}}]]'''{{Ref|name=JoletheNord|group=nb|Brief History of the Empire asserts that Cephorus II is a Nord. It is possible Cephorus II is descended from Jolethe Septim, who became Queen of Solitude after her brother, Pelagius III, left the city.}} 3E/???-3E/268{{Ref|name=BHotE3}}{{Ref|name=Ceph2|group=nb}}|UNK=??? 3E/???-3E/???}}

{{Chart| | | | | | | | | | | | | |!}}

{{Chart|border=1|boxstyle=background:white| | | | | | | | |THO|v|URI|M|UNK|THO=[[Lore:Thonica|Thonica]] 3E/???-3E/???|URI='''[[Lore:Uriel Septim V|{{Anchor|Uriel Septim V}}]]''' 3E/???-3E/290{{Ref|name=BHotE3}}{{Ref|name=DAI}}|UNK=??? 3E/???-3E???}}
{{Chart| | | | | |,|-|-|-|-|-|'| |S|P|W|P|T}}

{{Chart|border=1|boxstyle=background:white| | | | |URI| |ULF|-|MOR| |ELO|v|UNK|ULF=[[Lore:Ulfe Gersen|Ulfe Gersen]] 3E/???-3E/???|MOR='''[[Lore:Morihatha|{{Anchor|Morihatha Septim}}]]''' 3E/288{{Ref|name=BHotE4}}{{Ref|name=MORELO|group=nb|Morihatha and Eliosa are described by the Brief History of the Empire as being twins born a month after their father left for Akavir. Since the report of the Disaster at Ionith states the fleet left in Rain's Hand, {{Year|3E 288}}, they must have been born in Second Seed of the same year.}}-3E/339†{{Ref|name=BHotE4}}|URI='''[[Lore:Uriel Septim VI|{{Anchor|Uriel Septim VI}}]]''' 3E/286{{Ref|name=BHotE4}}{{Ref|group=nb|Uriel VI is described as being five years old on his father's death in {{Year|3E 290}} and 22 in {{Year|3E 307}}, implying he was born in {{Year|3E 285}}-{{Year|3E 286|286}}.}}-3E/313{{ref|name=BHotE4}}{{ref|group=nb|name=Morihatha}}|ELO=[[Lore:Eloisa Septim|Eloisa]] 3E/288{{Ref|name=BHotE4}}{{Ref|name=MORELO|group=nb}}-3E/335{{Ref|name=BHotE4}}{{Ref|group=nb|Book 4 of Brief History of the Empire says that Eloisa died of fever four years before Morihatha, making the date {{Year|3E335}}.}}|UNK=??? 3E/???-3E/???}}

{{Chart| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |,|-|-|-|'}}

{{Chart|border=1|boxstyle=background:white| | | | | | | | | | |UNK|v|PEL|UNK=??? 3E/???-3E/???|PEL='''[[Lore:Pelagius Septim IV|{{Anchor|Pelagius Septim IV}}]]''' 3E/314{{Ref|name=BHotE4}}{{Ref|group=nb|Pelagius IV is stated to be 25 years of age at his succession in the year {{Year|3E 339}} in Brief History of the Empire, implying a birth date of {{Year|3E 314}}-{{Year|3E 315|315}}.}}-3E/368}}

{{Chart| | | | |F|~|V|~|~|~|~|~|7|!}}

{{Chart|border=1|boxstyle=background:white| | | |UNK|:| |CAU|v|URI|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|V|GEM|UNK=??? 3E/???-3E/???|CAU=[[Lore:Caula Voria|Caula Voria]] 3E/???-3E/???|URI='''[[Lore:Uriel Septim VII|{{Anchor|Uriel Septim VII}}]]''' 3E/346{{Ref|name=DC}}{{Ref|name=Ass}}{{Ref|group=nb|The Black Horse Courier describes Uriel VII as being 87 in {{Year|3E 433}}, implying a birth year of {{Year|3E 346}}-{{Year|3E 347|347}}. ''The Daggerfall Chronicles'' explicitly give a date of 3E 346.}}-3E/433†{{Ref|name=TESIV}}|GEM=Gemile{{Ref|group=UOL|The only source for the name of Martin's mother is a {{TIL|forum post|cosadesvisit}} by [[General:Ken Rolston|Ken Rolston]] in which Caius Cosades suggests the name while visiting Uriel's newly-dug grave.}} 3E/???-3E/???}}

{{Chart| | | |F|~|~|J|,|-|-|-|+|-|-|-|v|-|-|-|v|-|-|-|.|L|~|7}}

{{Chart|border=1|boxstyle=background:white| | |CAL| |ARI| |GEL| |EMM| |EBE| |PELA4| |MAR|CAL=[[Lore:Calaxes Septim|Calaxes Septim]] 3E/???-3E/???†{{Ref|{{Cite Book|Words and Philosophy}}}}{{Ref|group=nb|Words and Philosophy gives the date of Calaxes' disappearance as 3E 498, which is clearly a misprint since the third age ended in 433. Words and Philosophy" is the biography of Lady Benoch, who says she was sixteen in 3E 396 during the War of the Blue Divide. The book describes her career from that age on spanning many years until she eventually becomes Commander of the Imperial Guard. The book also clearly ascribes the actions of the Emperor to Uriel. So, it is not possible that the this date is a typo for 3E 398, when Benoch would have been 18 in Hammerfell, and Jagar Tharn was impersonating Uriel. The exact date of Calaxes' disappearance is thus unknown. It happened many years after the War of the Blue Divide and before the events of the game Morrowind. Although no source states definitively that Calaxes died, no other outcome seems likely.}}|ARI=[[Lore:Ariella Septim|Ariella Septim]] 3E/374{{Ref|name=DISSMISS|group=nb|In the Manual narrative for Arena, Talin Warhaft tells a story where he briefly compares his age at the time to Ariella's age contemporary; he had just turned sixteen and was barely older than Princess Ariella. This indicates the Princess was currently around age fifteen during the narrative, meaning she was born around {{Year|3E 373}}-{{Year|3E 374|374}}}}-3E/???|GEL=[[Lore:Geldall Septim|Geldall Septim]] 3E/377{{Ref|name=Ass}}{{Ref|name=Sons|group=nb|The Black Horse Courier has Geldall, Enman and Ebel being 56, 55 and 53 respectively in the year {{Year|3E 433}}, implying birth years of {{Year|3E 377}}, {{Year|3E 378}} and {{Year|3E 380}}.}}-3E/433†{{Ref|name=TESIV}}|EMM=[[Lore:Enman Septim|Enman Septim]] 3E/378{{Ref|name=Ass}}{{Ref|name=Sons|group=nb}}-3E/433†{{Ref|name=TESIV}}|EBE=[[Lore:Ebel Septim|Ebel Septim]] 3E/380{{Ref|name=Ass}}{{Ref|name=Sons|group=nb}}-3E/433†{{Ref|name=TESIV}}|PELA4=???{{Ref|name=HEIRSDF|group=nb|In ''[[Daggerfall:Daggerfall|Daggerfall]]'', the player character is given a personal [[Daggerfall:Background History#Notes|Background History]] that is determined by their class. In some scenarios such as the Bard and the Rogue, the player character meets the Emperor's child and Prince to the Empire. There are six possible names given to the prince. These include "Cassynder" (would be Cassynder II), "Cephorus" (would be Cephorus III), "Pelagius" (would be Pelagius V), "Trabbatus", "Uriel" (would be Uriel VIII), and "Voragiel". In the Ranger scenario, this Imperial Prince mentions that his brothers, are also on the run, this would imply at least two (based on the plurality of the word "brothers") to possibly five additional brothers to this Prince (the additional three being based on the total number of possible names). These characters precede the invention of Geldall, Enman, and Ebel as the Emperor's sons as introduced in ''[[Morrowind:Morrowind|Morrowind]]'', these new princes do not share the same names as the princes of ''Daggerfall''. Ultimately there is no available information on the status of their canonicity post-''Daggerfall'', though it is quite notable that the princes of ''Daggerfall'' are not mentioned whatsoever in ''[[Oblivion:Oblivion|Oblivion]]''}} 3E/???{{ref|name=HistpryDF|''[[Daggerfall:Background History|Player Background History]]'' in ''[[Daggerfall:Daggerfall|Daggerfall]]''}}-3E/???|MAR='''[[Lore:Martin Septim|{{Anchor|Martin Septim}}]]''' 3E/???-3E/433†{{Ref|name=TESIV}}}}

{{Chart/end}}

==References==
<references/>

==Notes==
<references group="nb"/>
{{UOL}}
<references group=UOL/>
{{Lore Empires}}

[[fr:Lore:Dynastie Septim]]

Skyrim:Talen-Jei

2020-08-13T18:32:12Z

Rpeh: /* Conversations= */ good grief

{{NPC Summary
|essential=Yes (with patch 1.1+)
|race=Argonian
|gender=Male
|class=Food Vendor
|faction={{Faction|CrimeFactionRift}}; {{Faction|JobMerchantFaction}}; {{Faction|Prevents filling aliases in WITavern}}; {{Faction|Riften Bee and Barb Faction}}; {{Faction|Server}}; {{Faction|ServicesRiftenBeeandBarbTalenJeiExtra}}; {{Faction|TownRiftenFaction}}
|refid=00019DC9
|baseid=00013373
|level=8
|image=SR-npc-Talen-Jei.jpg
|imgdesc=Talen-Jei at the Bee and Barb
|buys=Innkeeper ([[Skyrim:Food|Food]], [[Skyrim:Raw Food|Raw Food]])
|city=[[Skyrim:Riften|Riften]]
|gold=100
|sells=2 [[Skyrim:Cliff Racer|Cliff Racer]], 2 [[Skyrim:Velvet LeChance|Velvet LeChance]], 2 [[Skyrim:White-Gold Tower|White-Gold Tower]]; also sells [[Skyrim:The Bee and Barb#Standard Merchandise|the Bee and Barb]]'s merchandise when running the inn
|store=[[Skyrim:The Bee and Barb|The Bee and Barb]]
|aggress=Unaggressive
|moral=Any Crime
|skills='''[[Skyrim:Pickpocket|Pickpocket]]''', '''[[Skyrim:Speech|Speech]]''', [[Skyrim:Lockpicking|Lockpicking]], [[Skyrim:One-handed|One-handed]], [[Skyrim:Sneak|Sneak]]
|health=108
|magicka=73
|stamina=74
|voicetype=MaleArgonian
}}__NOTOC__
'''Talen-Jei''' is an [[Skyrim:Argonian|Argonian]] living in [[Skyrim:Riften|Riften]] who works at [[Skyrim:The Bee and Barb|the Bee and Barb]]. He reveals that he is smitten over [[Skyrim:Keerava|Keerava]] and is planning to marry her. You can [[Skyrim:Sealing the Deal|offer]] to help him complete his wedding ring in the [[Lore:Black Marsh|Black Marsh]] tradition.

Talen-Jei wears a set of barkeep [[Skyrim:Clothing#0005b6a1|clothes]] along with a pair of [[Skyrim:Clothing#0005b6a0|shoes]]. He carries his [[Skyrim:Bee and Barb Key|key]] to the inn, a [[Skyrim:Belted Tunic|belted tunic]], and a selection [[Skyrim:Leveled Lists#Common|common loot and gold]]. He also carries one bottle of the [[Skyrim:Velvet LeChance|Velvet LeChance]], [[Skyrim:White-Gold Tower|White-Gold Tower]], and [[Skyrim:Cliff Racer|Cliff Racer]] wines. In combat, he relies on a leveled [[Skyrim:Dagger|dagger]] which can be up to [[Skyrim:Elven|Elven]] in quality.
{{NewLeft}}

==Related Quests==
* {{Quest Link|Sealing the Deal}}
* {{Quest Link|Spread the Love}}
* {{Quest Link|Taking Care of Business}}
* {{Quest Link|A Cornered Rat}}

==Dialogue==
As you enter the tavern, Talen may greet you.
:''"Welcome to the Bee and Barb, milord/milady. If I can interest you in one of our special drinks, you let me know."''
:''"Is there something I do for you?"''

When exiting conversation, Talen may say:
:''"If you'll excuse me, I have other things to attend to."''

You can ask about the special drinks.
:'''You mentioned you served special drinks?'''
:''"Three in fact. They're my own recipe. Brought them over here from my days as a bartender in {{Lore Link|Gideon}}."''
The drinks are Elder Scrolls-themed:
{|class="wikitable"
|-
!style="width:110px"|Specialty Wine!!Dialogue!!Elder Scrolls Reference
|-
|Velvet LeChance||''"First is the 'Velvet Lechance' which is a mixture of blackberry, honey, spiced wine and a touch of [[Skyrim:Nightshade|nightshade]]... perfectly safe, I assure you."''||[[Oblivion:Lucien Lachance|Lucien Lachance]] of the [[Oblivion:Dark_Brotherhood|Dark Brotherhood]] in [[Oblivion:Oblivion|Oblivion]]
|-
|White-Gold Tower||''"Second, we have the 'White-Gold Tower' which is heavy cream with a layer of blended mead, lavender and dragon's tongue on top."''||The [[Lore:White-Gold Tower|White-Gold Tower]] in the center of the [[Lore:Imperial City|Imperial City]]
|-
|Cliff Racer||''"Last, and only for the bravest of souls, we have the 'Cliff Racer' which is Firebrand Wine, Cyrodiilic Brandy, Flin and Sujamma."''||The [[Morrowind:Cliff Racer|infamous monsters]] found on [[Lore:Vvardenfell|Vvardenfell]]
|}

He has a negative view of the [[Skyrim:Thieves Guild (faction)|Thieves Guild]], as shown when he tells you about the Guild.
:'''Tell me about the Thieves Guild.'''
:''"They're vermin... garbage. They're exactly what makes this city such a horrible place to live. How appropriate they should live in the [[Skyrim:The Ratway|Ratway]] with the rest of the trash."''
:'''What's the Ratway?'''
:''"Disgusting. Ruined sewers filled with goodness knows what. There's an entrance down by the canal, but I'd highly advise you stay out of there... {{sic|its|it's}} the Thieves Guild's territory."''

===Quest-Related Events===
===A Cornered Rat===
During [[Skyrim:A Cornered Rat|A Cornered Rat]], you can inquire with Talen-Jei about your mission, saying that you're looking for an [[Skyrim:Esbern|old guy]], hiding out somewhere in Riften. He will direct you to the Ratway.
:''"Never heard of anybody like that. But if you want to hide out in Riften, the Ratway's where you'd be. There's a sort of tavern down there, the [[Skyrim:The Ragged Flagon|Ragged Flagon]]. Where all the lowlifes in Riften get drunk and knife each other. You might try there, if you can get through the Ratway alive."''

====Sealing the Deal====
To start Sealing the Deal, you must ask Talen-Jei how he met Keerava.
:'''How did you meet Keerava?'''
:''"I met her when I wandered into Riften a few years ago. Been smitten with her ever since. In fact, I'm thinking of asking her to marry me. In Black Marsh, tradition dictates we present a potential mate a unique wedding ring to represent our future bond. I already have the gold band, but all I need are three [[Skyrim:Flawless Amethyst|flawless amethysts]] to complete the setting."''
You can offer to find them for him.
:'''I could find those for you.'''
:''"I was hoping you'd offer. I didn't think it was my place to ask such a favor of you. I thank you."''
You can also politely decline to help.
:'''Can't help you there.'''
:''"I understand. Hopefully I'll be able to save my meager earnings up to buy them one day."''
If you already have the amethysts, you can give them to him. If not, you'll need to go find them. Once you have the flawless amethysts, you can give them to Talen-Jei, who will be immensely grateful.
:'''I have them right here.'''
:''"I... I... I don't know what to say. Such kindness is unheard of in these times. Here. I want you to accept this as payment for your sacrifice and I... well, we both thank you."''

He will give you a random potion in return.

You can also ask Talen-Jei to tell you about the wedding ring.
:'''Can you tell me about the wedding ring?'''
''"Every Argonian wedding proposal band is supposed to have three flawless amethysts as part of their design. Two of the gems, the ones on the outside, represent the couple to be married... one for the husband, one for the wife. The amethyst in the center represents The {{Lore Link|Hist}}, the entity that all Argonians consider a sacred part of our lives."''

===Spread the Love===
When you [[Skyrim:Spread the Love|give]] a [[Skyrim:The Warmth of Mara|religious pamphlet]] to Talen-Jei, he will be appreciative.
:'''Here, brother. Blessings of Mara upon you.'''
:''"Interesting. I'll look it over. Thanks."''

====Taking Care of Business====
During Taking Care of Business, you can approach Talen-Jei for help. He will be less trusting than usual, however.
:''"What do you want?"'' You can now mention that he might want to talk some sense into Keerava, which will be replied to with ''"With the rumors going around about how poorly your Guild's been doing, she's become much too bold. I'm not that foolish. The last thing I want is a war with your people."''
:'''Then help me convince her to pay.'''
:''"Look, I'm only telling you this because I care for her. Don't mistake this as acceptance for what you do. Keerava has some family at a farm just inside of Morrowind. If you mention you know about it, she might just listen to you. Just please, don't harm anyone. I couldn't bear the thought."''

After the quest, he greets you with distrust.
:''"We got the message... now just take your business elsewhere."''

When you idle or pass him by in the tavern, he may say:
:'''Talen-Jei:''' ''"You have some nerve coming back here after what you did to Keerava."''

:'''Talen-Jei:''' ''"Just get out of here."''

==Conversations==
Talen-Jei can be seen talking with Keerava about their life in Riften:
:'''Talen-Jei:''' ''"Keerava, we're running low on Black-Briar Mead."''
:'''Keerava:''' ''"If only Maven would stop raising the price on it maybe I could afford to stock more cases."''
:'''Talen-Jei:''' ''"We could always look for another brand."''
:'''Keerava:''' ''"That isn't an option. Maven sees me serve a competitor's brand here and we may as well dig our own graves."''

They talk about their finances.
:'''Keerava:''' ''"Don't worry, the time will come when we can walk away from here."''
:'''Talen-Jei:''' ''"I hope so. I can't stand this city anymore."''
:'''Keerava:''' ''"Damn it, Talen. We still don't have enough this year to get out of Riften."''

They'll also talk about the [[SR:Dragon|Dragons]].
:'''Keerava:''' ''"Talen, do you believe what they're saying? Do you really think the dragons have returned?"''
:'''Talen-Jei:''' ''"I don't know what to believe. If it's true, then dark times may be upon us."''
:'''Keerava:''' ''"What should we do?"''
:'''Talen-Jei:''' ''"We hold each other close and hope that all of this ends well."''

He can also be seen having random conversations with other guests at the Bee and Barb. One of these guests is [[Skyrim:Bolli|Bolli]].
: '''Bolli:''' ''"Talen my friend, up for some fishing this week?"''
:'''Talen-Jei:''' ''"I don't know Bolli. It's getting dangerous outside the walls"''
:'''Bolli:''' ''"Oh come now, what's a dragon or two compared to a day full of fishing!"''
:'''Talen-Jei:''' ''"That's not funny, Bolli. People are scared."''

He also speaks with [[Skyrim:Vulwulf Snow-Shod|Vulwulf Snow-Shod]].
:'''Vulwulf Snow-Shod:''' ''"Talen! Another round!"''
:'''Talen-Jei:''' ''"I think you've had plenty, Vulwulf. Maybe you should head on home."''
:'''Vulwulf:''' ''"You stupid lizard! I said give me some more drink, or I'll have your head on a pike!"''
:'''Talen-Jei:''' ''"Suit yourself."''

Maven's son, [[Skyrim:Hemming Black-Briar|Hemming Black-Briar]] may also approach him with an "offer".
:'''Hemming Black-Briar:''' ''"So, Talen. Have you reconsidered my offer?"''
:'''Talen-Jei:''' ''"Sorry Hemming, I've no interest in becoming your valet."''
:'''Hemming Black-Briar:''' ''"What's the matter, I thought you people were used to indentured servitude."''
:'''Talen-Jei:''' ''"Xhuth! Black-Briar or not, say that again and so help me you're going to need more than your mother to protect you from me."''

==Notes==
*Even after Sealing the Deal has been completed, Talen-Jei still may show some disdain towards you for your actions during Taking Care of Business.
{{Bug|If Talen-Jei dies before the Taking Care of Business quest is started, it may not start at all.|OSP|1.1|Talen-Jei is made essential.}}

User:Rpeh

2020-06-20T00:48:04Z

Rpeh: Replaced content with "Retired. So please stop contacting me."

Retired. So please stop contacting me.

User talk:Rpeh

2012-04-22T20:06:18Z

Rpeh: /* Blocked */ reply

{{DISPLAYTITLE:user talk:rpeh}}
{| style="width: 100%; background: #f0f0ff; border: solid 5px #666699; box-shadow: 10px 10px 10px #888888" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0
|-valign="top"
| width="33%" | __TOC__
|
This is the talk page for [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]]. Please feel free to leave me a message by clicking the "+" button at the top of the page, the "Add new section" link at the bottom of the page, or by clicking [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rpeh&action=edit&section=new here].

Please note. If you leave me a message here, I will reply here. If I leave you a message on your talk page, you should reply there - I will be watching it for a response.
|
{|class="wikitable compress" style="margin: 0; margin-left: 2em"
!colspan=6|Archive
|-
|colspan=6 style="text-align:center" |[[User:Rpeh/Cookies|Cookies]] : [[User_talk:Rpeh/Warnings|Warnings]]
|-
!'07||'08||'09||'10||'11||'12
|-
|Jan
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200801|Jan]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200901|Jan]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_201001|Jan]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_201101|Jan]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_201201|Jan]]
|-
|Feb
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200802|Feb]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200902|Feb]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_201002|Feb]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_201102|Feb]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_201202|Feb]]
|-
|Mar
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200803|Mar]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200903|Mar]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_201003|Mar]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_201103|Mar]]
|Mar
|-
|Apr
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200804|Apr]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200904|Apr]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_201004|Apr]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_201104|Apr]]
|Apr
|-
|May
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200805|May]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200905|May]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_201005|May]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_201105|May]]
|May
|-
|Jun
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200806|Jun]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200906|Jun]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_201006|Jun]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_201106|Jun]]
|Jun
|-
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200707|Jul]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200807|Jul]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200907|Jul]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_201007|Jul]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_201107|Jul]]
|Jul
|-
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200708|Aug]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200808|Aug]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200908|Aug]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_201008|Aug]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_201108|Aug]]
|Aug
|-
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200709|Sep]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200809|Sep]]
|Sep
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_201009|Sep]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_201109|Sep]]
|Sep
|-
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200710|Oct]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200810|Oct]]
|Oct
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_201010|Oct]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_201110|Oct]]
|Oct
|-
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200711|Nov]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200811|Nov]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200911|Nov]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_201011|Nov]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_201111|Nov]]
|Nov
|-
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200712|Dec]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200812|Dec]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200912|Dec]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_201012|Dec]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_201112|Dec]]
|Dec
|}
|}
 
<div style="background: #f0f0ff; border: solid 5px #666699; box-shadow: 10px 10px 10px #888888; padding: 1em">

== Short Description for Marog ==

Rpeh,
Marog has a fairly content-full article on its own page, but the "places" page for Tamriel Rebuilt (here: http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Tes3Mod:Tamriel_Rebuilt/Places ) still lacks a tagline description for it. I know I've tried editing those before but they're made by some very complicated process instead of just editing the text there. Could you write a brief description for it so the Places article can be updated to reflect that there's info on the Marog page? Right now it looks like the link to the Marog article is going to be a stub just like the other towns that lack a description. Thanks! [[User:Zhukant|Zhukant]] 00:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

: Added a description. What you do is edit the place's article. Right at the top you'll find something that looks like this:
<nowiki>{</nowiki>{Morrowind Town Table 
| Town=Baldrahn 
| Alignment={{TR3|House Telvanni}} 
| Region=Boethian Mountains 
| Almsivi=*{{TR3|Ranyon-ruhn}} 
| Divine=*{{TR3|Helnim}} 
| Description=A tiny [[Morrowind:muck|muck]] farming community just south of {{TR3|Llothanis}}. 
}<nowiki>}</nowiki>

:The green part is where the description goes. For now I just put "A small Telvanni town, built into the cliff face opposite the Imperial city of {{TR3|Helnim}}". Hope this helps! • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 01:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

== For what it's worth... ==

I think you should still be an admin. Whatever anybody else says, you're a great contributor to the site, and I don't think your personal conflicts on other sites should be grounds for punishment on this one. I just wanted you to know that. [[User:ThuumofReason|ThuumofReason]] 22:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

: Thank you. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 18:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
::Seconded - for as long as I've been on this wiki there was never a day I didn't see you at least somewhere in the Recent Changes. The wiki without you seems a bit... eerie. Also thanks for standing up for UESP. Just keep your cool and don't let them get to you, they're not worth it. -- [[User:Kertaw48|kertaw48]] 19:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

::: Thank you too. Alas, it seems other opinions rule at the moment. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 19:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

== Imperial City image ==

I wonder how you captured the image of the Imperial City with all parts loaded. I'm trying to replace what you captured, with higher resolution and highest settings, but whatever part I am in, all the city's parts will not load simultaneously. What did you do to load all parts? Did you use any console commands? [[User:SFK363|SFK363]] 19:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

:Rpeh has been inactive for several months now, according to the [[UESPWiki:Featured_Images/Past_Nominations/Archive_1#OB-place-Imperial_City.jpg|Featured Image Nomination]], he used [http://tes.nexusmods.com/downloads/file.php?id=20053 this mod] to do it. [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 19:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

:: Yup, that's the mod to use for this kind of thing. Be warned, though, that it can kill your machine if you over-do the detail settings! [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 18:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

== Blocked ==

{{Blocked|1=This account has been '''[[UESPWiki:Blocking Policy|blocked]]''' from editing UESPWiki for several personal attacks against other users of the site and multiple disruptions to the site. 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:Alpha Kenny Buddy|AKB]] [[User_talk:Alpha_Kenny_Buddy|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Cont]] [[Special:Emailuser/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Mail]] 01:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)}}

: Please specify the alleged "personal attacks" and "multiple disruptions", and please highlight the warnings given about them. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 17:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

::I would first like to start off by saying that no formal warning has been given about this. However, as UESP [[UESPWiki:Blocking Policy|Blocking Policy]] states: ''"Although this three-step process [Warn, Temporary Block, Permanent Block] is the normal procedure, administrators have the authority to bypass one or more steps at their discretion."'' The policy page goes onto include personal attacks as a reason to not just bypass a warning, but can be grounds for an immediate permanent block. I made note to remove any mention of a warning from this block due to this.

::As for your request for examples, you have [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki_talk:Skyrim_Map_Design&diff=prev&oldid=886821 claimed that Daveh is sycophant and incompetent], [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=889261 left a sarcastic reply to a user during a previous request to have you blocked], [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=934992 claimed that RH70 was sucking up to other users] (according to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F Wikipedia Policy], accusing a user of a certain kind of behavior without evidence to back it up is considered a personal attack), and you were disruptive when a user's eligibility in a discussion was called into question due to perceived signs of meat puppetry [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=935811 here] and [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=935902 here].

::I apologize that I don't have time to go into detail with anything but I'm rather busy IRL at the moment. I may be disposed to reply swiftly to any other message, but I will try to get back to you. --[[User:Alpha Kenny Buddy|AKB]] [[User_talk:Alpha_Kenny_Buddy|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Cont]] [[Special:Emailuser/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Mail]] 18:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

::: Quite simply, none of those are personal attacks. At a pinch, the comment to Daveh was on the line, but it took place over two months ago so handing out a three month block now is a clear violation of natural justice. As for my comments on RH, Krusty had already provided the evidence. I was simply adding my voice in support. No justification for this block, so please undo ASAP. Thanks. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 19:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

::::I do have to add that, and I quote: "A pattern of hostility reduces the likelihood of the community assuming good faith, and can be considered [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing disruptive editing]." Considering your inactivity on the site, it is likely these posts were meant to harm the wiki.

::::If that doesn't convince you this block was justified, I'll add [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=935490 this link], a vote which is suspected to be [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry meat puppetry]. Since meat puppetry is as good as impossible to prove, it is up to an administrator to act as a judge. Considering the user in question has made a total of only 4 [[Special:Contributions/Haysie|contributions]], of which 2 are edits to their userpage, and the other 2 being the vote on the rfa, it is highly unlikely this person has sufficient knowledge to cast an actual vote. While it is not impossible for the user to have observed the wiki, the lack of previous votes since they subscribed leads one to believe they also lack the interest to vote. If you check their [[User:Haysie|userpage]], you can read the following line: ''"I am a newbie to the Elder Scrolls world - having been introduced by Rob, one of the admins on this very portal."'' At the time this addition was made, you, '''Robert''', were an admin. This should provide enough evidence of you two being friends, which makes their vote (in which your argument was simply repeated) a mere "back-up" from a friend, which is prohibited ~ [[User:Dwarfmp|Dwarfmp]] 18:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

::::: I'm quite honestly astonished by the hypocrisy taking place on this site at the moment. I was de-adminned because I committed "censorship" by removing a totally unproductive discussion from the site. Now I'm blocked for standing up for my right to comment on an RfA and a user's right to cast a vote? Seriously???
::::: The entire premise behind this block is that nobody making the active users list deserves a right to vote. That is, quite simply, wrong. The reasons behind ''my'' block then move on to what ''another user'' has said on their user page! Seriously, people! Try putting forward this kind of "evidence" in a real court and see how far you get!
::::: I have made ''no'' personal attacks and committed ''no'' other blockable offence, yet was banned without warning. An unblock is the least that needs to be done. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 19:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

{{od}}Per the [[UESPWiki:Blocking Policy#Appealing_Blocks|Blocking Policy]], all users are entitled to an appeal on the AN. Is this to be considered and appeal, and shall I move this for you, Rpeh? [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 19:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

: I was wondering how long it would take. Yes, please. There's absolutely no justification for this block. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 19:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
::OK, I'll do it. [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 19:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
:::That is why the vote wasn't removed ~ [[User:Dwarfmp|Dwarfmp]] 20:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
::::And yet I was blocked for it. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 20:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Rpeh

2012-04-22T19:46:34Z

Rpeh: /* Blocked */ reply

User talk:Rpeh

2012-04-22T19:30:40Z

Rpeh: /* For what it's worth... */ reply

User talk:Rpeh

2012-04-22T19:29:26Z

Rpeh: /* Blocked */ reply

{{DISPLAYTITLE:user talk:rpeh}}
{| style="width: 100%; background: #f0f0ff; border: solid 5px #666699; box-shadow: 10px 10px 10px #888888" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0
|-valign="top"
| width="33%" | __TOC__
|
This is the talk page for [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]]. Please feel free to leave me a message by clicking the "+" button at the top of the page, the "Add new section" link at the bottom of the page, or by clicking [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rpeh&action=edit&section=new here].

Please note. If you leave me a message here, I will reply here. If I leave you a message on your talk page, you should reply there - I will be watching it for a response.
|
{|class="wikitable compress" style="margin: 0; margin-left: 2em"
!colspan=6|Archive
|-
|colspan=6 style="text-align:center" |[[User:Rpeh/Cookies|Cookies]] : [[User_talk:Rpeh/Warnings|Warnings]]
|-
!'07||'08||'09||'10||'11||'12
|-
|Jan
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200801|Jan]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200901|Jan]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_201001|Jan]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_201101|Jan]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_201201|Jan]]
|-
|Feb
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200802|Feb]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200902|Feb]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_201002|Feb]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_201102|Feb]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_201202|Feb]]
|-
|Mar
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200803|Mar]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200903|Mar]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_201003|Mar]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_201103|Mar]]
|Mar
|-
|Apr
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200804|Apr]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200904|Apr]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_201004|Apr]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_201104|Apr]]
|Apr
|-
|May
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200805|May]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200905|May]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_201005|May]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_201105|May]]
|May
|-
|Jun
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200806|Jun]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200906|Jun]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_201006|Jun]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_201106|Jun]]
|Jun
|-
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200707|Jul]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200807|Jul]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200907|Jul]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_201007|Jul]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_201107|Jul]]
|Jul
|-
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200708|Aug]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200808|Aug]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200908|Aug]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_201008|Aug]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_201108|Aug]]
|Aug
|-
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200709|Sep]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200809|Sep]]
|Sep
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_201009|Sep]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_201109|Sep]]
|Sep
|-
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200710|Oct]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200810|Oct]]
|Oct
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_201010|Oct]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_201110|Oct]]
|Oct
|-
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200711|Nov]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200811|Nov]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200911|Nov]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_201011|Nov]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_201111|Nov]]
|Nov
|-
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200712|Dec]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200812|Dec]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_200912|Dec]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_201012|Dec]]
|[[User_talk:Rpeh/Arc_201112|Dec]]
|Dec
|}
|}
 
<div style="background: #f0f0ff; border: solid 5px #666699; box-shadow: 10px 10px 10px #888888; padding: 1em">

== Short Description for Marog ==

Rpeh,
Marog has a fairly content-full article on its own page, but the "places" page for Tamriel Rebuilt (here: http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Tes3Mod:Tamriel_Rebuilt/Places ) still lacks a tagline description for it. I know I've tried editing those before but they're made by some very complicated process instead of just editing the text there. Could you write a brief description for it so the Places article can be updated to reflect that there's info on the Marog page? Right now it looks like the link to the Marog article is going to be a stub just like the other towns that lack a description. Thanks! [[User:Zhukant|Zhukant]] 00:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

: Added a description. What you do is edit the place's article. Right at the top you'll find something that looks like this:
<nowiki>{</nowiki>{Morrowind Town Table 
| Town=Baldrahn 
| Alignment={{TR3|House Telvanni}} 
| Region=Boethian Mountains 
| Almsivi=*{{TR3|Ranyon-ruhn}} 
| Divine=*{{TR3|Helnim}} 
| Description=A tiny [[Morrowind:muck|muck]] farming community just south of {{TR3|Llothanis}}. 
}<nowiki>}</nowiki>

:The green part is where the description goes. For now I just put "A small Telvanni town, built into the cliff face opposite the Imperial city of {{TR3|Helnim}}". Hope this helps! • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 01:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

== For what it's worth... ==

I think you should still be an admin. Whatever anybody else says, you're a great contributor to the site, and I don't think your personal conflicts on other sites should be grounds for punishment on this one. I just wanted you to know that. [[User:ThuumofReason|ThuumofReason]] 22:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

: Thank you. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 18:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
::Seconded - for as long as I've been on this wiki there was never a day I didn't see you at least somewhere in the Recent Changes. The wiki without you seems a bit... eerie. Also thanks for standing up for UESP. Just keep your cool and don't let them get to you, they're not worth it. -- [[User:Kertaw48|kertaw48]] 19:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
== Imperial City image ==

I wonder how you captured the image of the Imperial City with all parts loaded. I'm trying to replace what you captured, with higher resolution and highest settings, but whatever part I am in, all the city's parts will not load simultaneously. What did you do to load all parts? Did you use any console commands? [[User:SFK363|SFK363]] 19:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

:Rpeh has been inactive for several months now, according to the [[UESPWiki:Featured_Images/Past_Nominations/Archive_1#OB-place-Imperial_City.jpg|Featured Image Nomination]], he used [http://tes.nexusmods.com/downloads/file.php?id=20053 this mod] to do it. [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 19:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

:: Yup, that's the mod to use for this kind of thing. Be warned, though, that it can kill your machine if you over-do the detail settings! [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 18:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

== Blocked ==

{{Blocked|1=This account has been '''[[UESPWiki:Blocking Policy|blocked]]''' from editing UESPWiki for several personal attacks against other users of the site and multiple disruptions to the site. 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:Alpha Kenny Buddy|AKB]] [[User_talk:Alpha_Kenny_Buddy|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Cont]] [[Special:Emailuser/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Mail]] 01:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)}}

: Please specify the alleged "personal attacks" and "multiple disruptions", and please highlight the warnings given about them. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 17:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

::I would first like to start off by saying that no formal warning has been given about this. However, as UESP [[UESPWiki:Blocking Policy|Blocking Policy]] states: ''"Although this three-step process [Warn, Temporary Block, Permanent Block] is the normal procedure, administrators have the authority to bypass one or more steps at their discretion."'' The policy page goes onto include personal attacks as a reason to not just bypass a warning, but can be grounds for an immediate permanent block. I made note to remove any mention of a warning from this block due to this.

::As for your request for examples, you have [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki_talk:Skyrim_Map_Design&diff=prev&oldid=886821 claimed that Daveh is sycophant and incompetent], [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=889261 left a sarcastic reply to a user during a previous request to have you blocked], [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=934992 claimed that RH70 was sucking up to other users] (according to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F Wikipedia Policy], accusing a user of a certain kind of behavior without evidence to back it up is considered a personal attack), and you were disruptive when a user's eligibility in a discussion was called into question due to perceived signs of meat puppetry [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=935811 here] and [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=935902 here].

::I apologize that I don't have time to go into detail with anything but I'm rather busy IRL at the moment. I may be disposed to reply swiftly to any other message, but I will try to get back to you. --[[User:Alpha Kenny Buddy|AKB]] [[User_talk:Alpha_Kenny_Buddy|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Cont]] [[Special:Emailuser/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Mail]] 18:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

::: Quite simply, none of those are personal attacks. At a pinch, the comment to Daveh was on the line, but it took place over two months ago so handing out a three month block now is a clear violation of natural justice. As for my comments on RH, Krusty had already provided the evidence. I was simply adding my voice in support. No justification for this block, so please undo ASAP. Thanks. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 19:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

::::I do have to add that, and I quote: "A pattern of hostility reduces the likelihood of the community assuming good faith, and can be considered [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing disruptive editing]." Considering your inactivity on the site, it is likely these posts were meant to harm the wiki.

::::If that doesn't convince you this block was justified, I'll add [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=935490 this link], a vote which is suspected to be [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry meat puppetry]. Since meat puppetry is as good as impossible to prove, it is up to an administrator to act as a judge. Considering the user in question has made a total of only 4 [[Special:Contributions/Haysie|contributions]], of which 2 are edits to their userpage, and the other 2 being the vote on the rfa, it is highly unlikely this person has sufficient knowledge to cast an actual vote. While it is not impossible for the user to have observed the wiki, the lack of previous votes since they subscribed leads one to believe they also lack the interest to vote. If you check their [[User:Haysie|userpage]], you can read the following line: ''"I am a newbie to the Elder Scrolls world - having been introduced by Rob, one of the admins on this very portal."'' At the time this addition was made, you, '''Robert''', were an admin. This should provide enough evidence of you two being friends, which makes their vote (in which your argument was simply repeated) a mere "back-up" from a friend, which is prohibited ~ [[User:Dwarfmp|Dwarfmp]] 18:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

::::: I'm quite honestly astonished by the hypocrisy taking place on this site at the moment. I was de-adminned because I committed "censorship" by removing a totally unproductive discussion from the site. Now I'm blocked for standing up for my right to comment on an RfA and a user's right to cast a vote? Seriously???
::::: The entire premise behind this block is that nobody making the active users list deserves a right to vote. That is, quite simply, wrong. The reasons behind ''my'' block then move on to what ''another user'' has said on their user page! Seriously, people! Try putting forward this kind of "evidence" in a real court and see how far you get!
::::: I have made ''no'' personal attacks and committed ''no'' other blockable offence, yet was banned without warning. An unblock is the least that needs to be done. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 19:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Rpeh

2012-04-21T19:04:39Z

Rpeh: /* Blocked */ reply

User talk:Rpeh

2012-04-21T17:46:32Z

Rpeh: /* Blocked */ reply

UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard

2012-04-20T16:35:34Z

Rpeh: /* Votes */ reply

[[Category:Message Boards|{{PAGENAME}}]] __NEWSECTIONLINK__
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. For certain specific requests, see instead:
* [[UESPWiki:Purge Requests|Purge Requests]]
* [[UESPWiki:New Page Requests|New Page Requests]]
{{Archive Table|title=Major Discussions
|UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Vandalism|Vandalism|Mostly spam, actually.
|!|History|
|History#Page Archives|Page Archives|
|History#Past Administrative Requests|Past Administrative Requests|
}}

== SEVERE caching issues on ths mobile site ==

Title says it all. On a whim, I checked the CP on my iPhone, and it's '''way''' out of date. I'm talking December out of date. Hard refreshing did not fix it, so it's definitely server-side. When I log in, it takes me away from (and keeps me off of) the mobile site, so I can't purge it. Can someone please take a look at this? • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 01:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

== Discontinuing creation limits ==

I belatedly realized that page creation limits [[UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard/Archives/More Skyrim-Related Policy Changes|originally proposed]] to be discontinued on February 29th were still in place. I've now gone ahead and lifted the limits. I'd expect that we'll probably start to get the usual assortment of unnecessarily-created pages that need to be proposed for deletion. If the problems seem unusually numerous, we can of course discuss whether other measures are needed. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 00:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
: Why not make it another 6-month deal? Page creation is one of the few things we have under control - and we're alive because of that. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 04:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
::I'd rather see what happens over the next week or so first. Having to put some pages up for deletion is no more work than having to respond to new page requests, and it has the additional bonus that more editors can help out with tasks such as creating redirects. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 04:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
:::I just asked this on RH's page, but since he didn't know of anywhere on the site, maybe one of you might. Is there somewhere on the site which shows a list of the most recently created articles? It's not really important, I'm mostly just curious about it. [[User:Alphabetface|ABCface]][[User_talk:Alphabetface|◥]] 19:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
::::Have you tried [[Special:Newpages]]? Is that what you're looking for? [[User:Eshe|eshe]][[User talk:Eshe|talk]] 19:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)`
:::::Yes, thank you! And thanks to ES, too :) [[User:Alphabetface|ABCface]][[User_talk:Alphabetface|◥]] 19:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::D'oh! Thanks, Eshe. I thought there should be one somewhere, but I went looking for it under Logs and didn't think to check Special Pages like I should have. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 19:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I just went ahead and re-instituted the page creation limits in the main namespace. The only pages created in the main namespace since March 17th have been spam pages that needed to be speedy-deleted. Furthermore, I don't think we want to allow even most typical editors to create main namespace pages, since such pages have historically always been pages that actually belonged in a game namespace but were created by an editor who wasn't familiar with our namespace system. So I think it's best overall if we limit main namespace page creation to admins/patrollers/etc. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 01:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

== Request for a New User Group ==

During the patroller nomination for [[UESPWiki:Patrollers/Nominations/Completed#Helenaannevalentine|Helenaannevalentine]] I noticed that while she's a fine editor, one that doesn't need to have her edits checked by a patroller, she doesn't actually patrol much as was denied due to this. Due to the backlog with unpatrolled edits, several editors have been put forward for patroller rights on the grounds that we wouldn't have to patrol their edits if they were made a patroller. I think it would be easier to simply create a new user group which puts its members on autopatrol, saving everyone else the hassle. The only requirement for joining the group is that an administrator believes their edits don't require any oversight, and that it would be a waste of time having to manually patrol their edits. Likewise, it can be taken away if an administrator doesn't believe their edits don't require a second look.

While I don't understand the technicalities of creating a group, I'm sure this can be done. While I don't think this group will have a particularly large number of members as a few of those who would of been part of this group went on to be patrollers, I still think it would do the site some good. --[[User:Alpha Kenny Buddy|AKB]] [[User_talk:Alpha_Kenny_Buddy|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Cont]] [[Special:Emailuser/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Mail]] 19:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

:I second this. Also put [[User:Alphabetface|Alphabetface]] and [[User:Elliot|Elliot]] into this group. • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 20:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

::I'm in favour of the idea, and I can handle the technical side of things easily enough. If we're collecting names, I'd also suggest [[User:PLRDLF|PLRDLF]].
::However, I'd like to suggest that perhaps patrollers should be the ones responsible for deciding who belongs in the group, rather than administrators -- since patrollers are the ones affected if someone is added to the group (it doesn't even have any affect on the editor who is added to the group). Perhaps any patroller can nominate someone to join the group; as long as another patroller seconds the nomination, it can take effect immediately (and any admin would be able to do the promotion). (Where "patroller" implicitly includes administrators, since admins all have patroller rights). --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 22:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

:::I guess that's not that much more difficult, while allowing more people into the pool to help make decisions here. If we are collecting names, let me add [[User:Manic|Manic]] and [[User:Helenaannevalentine|Helenaanevalentine]] to my list of candidates to start this group off. --[[User:Alpha Kenny Buddy|AKB]] [[User_talk:Alpha_Kenny_Buddy|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Cont]] [[Special:Emailuser/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Mail]] 23:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

::::Good idea. It may be premature, but [[User:The Silencer|The Silencer]] is also on my list of up-and-coming users that could go into this user group. • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 00:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::We should definitely keep the number of users on this low. As of now, the only users that would truly make sense are myself, [[User:Manic|Manic]], and [[User:PLRDLF|PLRDLF]]. The other ones I would hesitate with; however, since I am not a patroller, it won't matter much. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 01:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

::::::Since we're putting forth names, I agree with most of the above suggestions, and would like to add [[User:Kimi the Elf|Kimi the Elf]] and [[User:Aliana|Aliana]] to the list. (Note: Aliana tends to be active in spurts, but she's been around the wiki for years and I completely trust her edits at this point.) Also, I think at this point, Alphabetface should just plain run for Patroller and skip the new group altogether.

::::::As a side note to this discussion, our level of unpatrolled edits has slowly been creeping down, though all it would take to start going the other direction very fast would be for one of the top five Patrollers to stop doing so. As of right now, we're sitting at a little under 1500 unpatrolled edits over the last 28 days. Looking at all the editors mentioned to this point, they have 1418 total edits between them in that same 28 days, 104 of which remain unpatrolled at this point. It goes without saying that not having to patrol those edits would make a ''huge'' difference. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 06:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::::I seriously think we should limit it to 5 or 6. And RH, until Kimi can provide reasonable edit summaries, I really do not think she belongs in this group. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 02:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

{{od}} I don’t think we should go down this path whatsoever. Basically, everybody makes factual mistakes in SR-namespace these days and, to be perfectly honest, not even administrators should be auto-patrolled. After playing Skyrim since November (every day), I feel knowledgeable about 10-15% of the game, and I definitely take comfort knowing that another editor looks/reads through my edits. So, what am I saying here? Well, I believe that handing out too many of these high-fashion auto-patroller-thingy’s is an open invitation to lower standards, simply because the editors in question will be aware that their edits will no longer be cross-checked by another editor. It is also an invitation to patrollers to easily ignore edits and instead jump straight to the latest addition to the Blood on the Ice talk page. Admitted, when somebody edits a page on my watch-list, I patrol the edit regardless of exclamation marks, editor and status, because that’s what I’m supposed to do. I think that this attempt to make life easy will end up making it harder – and I believe we need to halt this uprising ‘un-patrolled edits panic’ and focus on quality content. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 06:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

:The counter-point to that, though, is that by allowing the more trusted editors to be autopatrolled, Patrollers can focus on the edits that will be lower-quality/more dubious, on average, and thus bring the wiki's standards up. I don't know about anybody else, but right now, I spend far more of my time patrolling than actually playing, which means that I'm not as knowledgeable as I'd like to be either. By cutting back on the patrolling burden, all of us will have more time to get more familiar with the game, or do more in-depth research in the CK, and therefore be able to answer more questions with the correct facts. In the end, I'd rather have reasonably trustworthy edits go unpatrolled than have edits of unknown quality go unpatrolled. I know the days the patrolling burden has been lighter, I've been able to give much better answers than I otherwise would have. Today, for example, if I couldn't find an answer in 5 minutes or so, I just gave up and moved on to the next issue. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 07:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

::I always read any edits in the Recent Changes that seem interesting, patrolled or not. This includes edits made by Patrollers and Admins. Usually, these pages that I check regardless are in my area of expertise. Because I am knowledgeable about those topics, and I check any edits made to them regardless, it really wouldn't affect how factually sound those articles are if the person who made the edit is in the Auto-Patrolled user group. • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 17:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

:::What if we accepted members freely into this group (I say "freely", but there would have to naturally be prerequisites that have to be met) without a size cap, but have the editors in the group go up for a Patroller nomination after a period of say... One or two months? That would help ease the burden of unpatrolled edits. The editors that we have an eye on can have their edits autopatrolled, but they have to keep an eye on the Recent Changes as well since they would have their names up for a nomination. That would keep the group small, since you have to be interested in eventually making larger, more responsible contributions to the site... They get autopatrolled, and in exchange they eventually have to help us patrol. A decision on what to do should they fail the nomination would have to be thought of, but I thought this could be an interesting little suggestion. [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 18:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

:::: I'm simply going to say that I support this idea. There is nothing I can say that has not been said already. Hopefully the community will vote in favour of this. I also agree with the idea that only trusted editors should be eligible to ensure that (like Krusty says) it reduces problems rather than creates more. --[[User:Manic|Manic]] 19:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

{{od}}If we really wanted to keep it small and trustworthy, we could do the same thing that we already do for patrollers, with a week of voting. One of the huge factors for becoming a patroller is the question "Do we trust their edits?" If we do and if they edit recently changed pages, then they tend to become patrollers. These people wouldn't have the exclamation points, nor would they have to monitor recent changes; however, we'd still be trusting them with their own content as much as we trust patrollers. The only difference in the nominations for these people would be the lack of the question "Do they patrol the recent changes?" --[[User:Velyanthe|Velyanthe]] 19:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

:Just to jog people's memory in terms of those who we might want to add to the new group, assuming it goes ahead, here are the top 10 editors in the last 28 days excluding all edits that are autopatrolled. This is strictly based on the editing data and obviously shouldn't be taken as any kind of endorsement, just a list of names to make sure we're not forgetting anyone obvious.
:* [[User:Alphabetface|Alphabetface]] (User Patroller)
:* [[User:CapnZapp|CapnZapp]]
:* [[User:DextroWombat|DextroWombat]]
:* [[User:Elliot|Elliot]] (User Patroller)
:* [[User:Helenaannevalentine|Helenaannevalentine]] (User Patroller)
:* [[User:Kertaw48|Kertaw48]]
:* [[User:Kimi the Elf|Kimi the Elf]] (User Patroller)
:* [[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] (User Patroller)
:* [[User:The Silencer|The Silencer]]
:* [[User:ThuumofReason|ThuumofReason]]
:– [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 04:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
::I would only support myself and Helena (considering Alphabetface will be a patroller) out of that list. I understand Krusty's concerns (despite his digression and comments on "stopping the uprising"), which is why a few members should only be included. My edits are typically en masse, which is annoying for some patrollers, and Helena's edit quality is fine, as well as PLRDLF.
::Also, we should definitely ''avoid'' turning this into a voting process. This should be a decision made by the patrollers, with members being included without any opposition from a patroller. This doesn't ne to be overcomplicated. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 06:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

:::Since Elliot mentioned it, if we were to exclude Alphabetface, PLRDLF would actually have been next on the list, if only by a few edits. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 06:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

::::It seems to me that what is being asked for is to have a group of 'trusted users', those users who have proved to be responsible over a period of time. That is, to separate them from the ordinary members group, and add an extra layer to the heirarchy of the site. This wouldn't stop their edits from being checked, occassionaly a patroller could scan their edits while taking a rest from reverting vandalism. As a watcher of recent changes I look at almost all that appear and wouldn't be afriad of changing anyones work. I don't think I've been here long enough to prove myself though. [[User:The Silencer|The Silencer]] 18:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::That's not the intent, it's merely intended to create less work for patrollers. With PLRDLF, as an example, not many people can patrol the majority of his edits as he's one of the few people here with a grand understanding of Daggerfall. There are a few editors who have none of the necessary permissions to not currently be auto-patrolled, despite their edits requiring no large amount of oversight. There are better ways to spend our time than just patrolling someones edits on sight. --[[User:Alpha Kenny Buddy|AKB]] [[User_talk:Alpha_Kenny_Buddy|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Cont]] [[Special:Emailuser/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Mail]] 18:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::: Please, can we stop this idiocy? --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 00:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::::It's idiocy for being banned from the UESPWiki channel on IRC for not voting. Are you kidding me? ~ [[User:Dwarfmp|Dwarfmp]] 00:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
{{od}} Forgive me if it is obvious and forgive me if this is some outside discussion that I am referring to that I shouldn't know about, but Krusy's latest comment has lost me. What exactly is the "idiocy" being mentioned? I see a stack of paragraphs containing some pretty valid thoughts on the subject. I am just curious so that I can keep following properly how the conversation is progressing. [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 00:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
:While I wouldn't consider this idea "idiocy", I'd just suggest we exercise extreme caution as far as who gets added to this group. Everybody is making a lot more mistakes than usual, especially because of the new content lately. Just my two cents. —[[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] [[User talk:SkoomaManiac|Talk]] ♫ [[:Special:Contributions/SkoomaManiac|Contribs]] 00:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
::So being banned for no reason is ok? No need to say anything about that... Do you think this is proper behaviour for an administrator? ~ [[User:Dwarfmp|Dwarfmp]] 01:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

:::No, that's clearly not okay, but I think we need to hear Krusty's explanation first.

:::As for "idiocy", that was just rude. We know you disagree with the suggestion Krusty, but so far, you're the only one who has expressed outright opposition to the idea. Accept that it has consensus and move on to something else. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 01:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

::::Just for the record, then, I doubt the utility of creating such a group. I don't know if "idiocy" is the right term, I just don't think that creating the group will create significant returns in terms of efficiency, and if we really trust someone to make edits with little or no oversight, he or she should just be made a patroller. If they choose not to patrol the work of others, that would be the prerogative of the individual; everyone contributes differently. [[User:Minor Edits|Minor Edits]][[User_talk:Minor Edits|Threats]]•[[Special:Contributions/Minor Edits|Evidence]] 01:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::PLRDLF and myself currently don't want to be patrollers. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 01:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
::::::Maybe you two should be conscripted, then ;) [[User:Minor Edits|Minor Edits]][[User_talk:Minor Edits|Threats]]•[[Special:Contributions/Minor Edits|Evidence]] 01:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

=== Edit Break 3===
The argument that trusted editors should just be made into Patrollers holds some merit, and that's the reason a group like this hasn't been created before whenever the idea was floated. But as Elliot says, some people don't want to be Patrollers (PLRDLF has turned it down repeatedly in the past) while other people simply don't qualify to be Patrollers. The early days of Alphabetface would be one example, where I trusted her edits completely, but she didn't yet have enough content edits to qualify for full Patroller. There are a number of other people in a similar position. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 02:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

:I see no problem at all with having this group. Patrollers are elected to help patrol the last time I bothered to check. That is what hinders the other editors such as PLRDLF and elliot from having autopatrol. They simply don't want to actually patrol. This group would enable us to give autopatrolling to our trusted editors who want it without expecting them to patrol. [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 02:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

::Just running for Patroller won't work - it hasn't in the past. Remember [[User:Helenaannevalentine|Helenaannevalentine]]'s [[UESPWiki:Patrollers/Nominations/Completed#Helenaannevalentine|nomination]]? Most people agreed that she has good edits, but that she isn't quite up for being a Patroller. This is what we'll inevitably run into; plus, as has already been mentioned, many people just don't want to be Patrollers. • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 03:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

:::{{ec}} Like I said, I doubt that making a "Trusted User" group will be very useful, but if it's useful at all, more power to you. However, while it's not an issue with vets like elliot and PLRDLF, I'm concerned that the group could become used as a way to circumvent the patrolling system for newcomers who are considered promising, which is not a good idea. I suggest that this proposed group have disqualifying requirements like those for patroller nominations, including at least an edit requirement, a time requirement, and a clean record, which would help protect us from capricious users, particularly deceptive trolls, and the incautious use of administrative discretion. Forgive me if that's already been suggested; I guess I missed it. [[User:Minor Edits|Minor Edits]][[User_talk:Minor Edits|Threats]]•[[Special:Contributions/Minor Edits|Evidence]] 04:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

::::I think those suggestions were sort of implied in some comments, but they definitely weren't spelled out. You're right that we want to take steps to make sure it's not some kind of free-for-all or anything close to it. I would tend to think the requirements should be fairly similar to those for full Patroller, but perhaps smaller edit counts or allowing edit counts in talk space to count towards the total. We could probably lighten the activity requirement a little as well or make it an either/or thing, like "At least 200 edits anywhere on the wiki and recently active '''or''' 500 edits anywhere on the wiki and periodically active within the last year." (That's shortened slightly, but you get the idea.) The latter would be good for users like PLRDLF and Aliana, who are often sporadic in their edits and have few (if any) edits during off periods. But maybe that's overcomplicating it. We could do something simpler, like nominated/approved by at least x (2? 3?) Patrollers/Admins. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 05:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::I agree with RH. As been as this group will be limited in members, it should only need to be approved by a few and the qualification that you mentioned seem fair. It is just taking out that important and defining phrase that makes people need to patrol. --[[User:Manic|Manic]] 06:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

::::::I think that a general consensus has been reached. What happens now? Do we need an official vote?—[[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] [[User talk:SkoomaManiac|Talk]] ♫ [[:Special:Contributions/SkoomaManiac|Contribs]] 01:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

{{od}} It seems a general consensus has been reached about creating the group (in favor), but not about the requirements or method of choosing who may be added to the group. That should be determined before anything takes place, I believe. [[User:Alphabetface|ABCface]][[User_talk:Alphabetface|◥]] 02:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

:I think that 200 edits and one month or 500 edits and one year (count all edits) are reasonable requirements. I also think that having a vote of two or three Patrollers/Admins is sufficient. • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 03:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

::By "all edits", do you mean ALL edits, or content edits? I think that it should be restricted to content edits (i.e. Gamespaces, File, Lore, etc), similar to the Patrollers page. It is the content edits that matter if we are giving out auto-patrol rights. I wouldn't vote on giving the rights to someone if have of them were user edits. [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 04:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

:::I was thinking more along the lines of including talk page edits (because a lot of the users I'd put in this group edit talk pages extensively) but you're right, User edits probably shouldn't count. • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 04:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

::::Honestly, I would put it at 1,000 content edits and 1 year of editing. The point of the group is to autopatrol people who make a lot of edits and are completely trusted. You ''cannot'' satisfy such a standard in 250 or even 500 edits. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 04:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::Why 1,000 edits and a year? This group is simply for autopatrol privileges as I understand it. We give patrollers autopatrol and then some if they have at least 250 edits and a month. I would say that at the ''very highest'', we set the requirements to the same as the Patrollers. [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 04:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::The issue with that is that we'd have more strict requirements for Trusted Users than Patrollers, which really restricts the Trusted Users group a bit too tightly for my tastes. I think 500 edits is better. I'm also open to having a straight-up nomination process, which seems to be what you're leaning towards, although odds are only Patrollers would nominate (which is OK). Also, one year of editing seems a bit much. If we had that standard for Patrollers, then people like Minor Edits, Kiz, Eric Snowmane, Velyanthe, Alphabetface, and some guy named Jak Atackka :P wouldn't be Patrollers, and those who were would be continuously swamped by our combined 13,978 edits, or about 50 edits per day (!)
:::::If we're going to go that direction, then I think 500 edits is sufficient, and a flexible time requirement of two months, so that way if we have a very active user that doesn't want to patrol we don't have to wait ten months to autopatrol their edits. A truncated nomination process over the course of a week would take place, with a basic "Yea" or "Nay" being sufficient. Self-nomination is not accepted, but asking one of the Patrollers to nominate you is perfectly fine. • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 05:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

{{od}} My 500 edits suggestion was only for those who are periodically active, like PLRDLF and Aliana. Making it more edits than Patrollers in that case is simply due to the amount of time between edits - we need to know they still remember what they're doing when they've been away for a while! :) For those who are currently active, it seems to me the requirements should be close to those of Patroller, but a little less. Otherwise, the group itself becomes a non-entity...we'd just make people Patrollers and if they didn't want to patrol, there's nothing saying they have to. Also, I agree that talk page edits should count towards membership in the new group. As has been said above, if we make it content-only, we're excluding users, whom we may already know are good editors, just because they hang out a lot on talk pages (as is the case for a few highly active users like [[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]], [[User:JR|JR]], and [[User:Br3admax|Br3admax]]). Talk page edits for users like them are in the 40-50% range. I think by the time a user becomes trusted, even if they're not active on content pages often, we can at least trust that they'll go to someone or undo if they goof and need help fixing it. If we didn't trust them to do so, then presumably they wouldn't be nominated in the first place, even if they met the prerequisites. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 06:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

: I guess the next step then is creating a nominations page and the group. --[[User:Manic|Manic]] 08:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

:: Yeah, I think that's probably a good step. A more concrete nominations page will also help us refine the discussion about what, exactly, they should be. Unfortunately, while I have a lot of ideas about what that should look like, I'm off to bed now, and I may not be on much (if at all) till later tomorrow night, so someone else feel free to play with it. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 08:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

::: What is the user group to be called? --[[User:Manic|Manic]] 08:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

::::I have created a sandbox [[User:SkoomaManiac/Trusted Users|here]] to mess with this stuff before we actually create the group and nominations page. It's an open sandbox; please contribute. Obviously "Trusted Users" is a tentative title, but I thought I'd take some initiative. —[[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] [[User talk:SkoomaManiac|Talk]] ♫ [[:Special:Contributions/SkoomaManiac|Contribs]] 15:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

{{od}} If this is the case then, I must voice my opposition to this group. If you count people with 200 or more edits, you have 239 eligible users. I think that if we do implement this, we should put a limit on the number of users in the group. I still don't think we should create this anymore, but if we do, then do it right (and hope this group isn't regretted later). [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 16:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

:If we vote on them, that would keep it down. After all, there's plenty of people with the 250+ edits required to be a Patroller, but not all have edits that are good enough. --'''[[User:Velyanthe|Velyanthe]]'''[[User talk:Velyanthe|►Talk]][[Special:EmailUser/Velyanthe|►Email]] 16:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

::Elliot, while I see where you're coming from, really the key is that ''only patrollers may vote''. This way, the people who are most closely entangled with who provides what kind of edits get to reject the ones that are sub-par. I don't see how this could go wrong otherwise. —[[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] [[User talk:SkoomaManiac|Talk]] ♫ [[:Special:Contributions/SkoomaManiac|Contribs]] 16:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

:::Perhaps; there is a temptation to add more users to make it easier on them. But regarding the name, the best name for it should simply be ''autopatrolled''. Using "Trusted User" implies that other users aren't trusted; we should avoid such implications. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 16:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
::::I was going to say the same thing about the name later, but since I'm typing one-handed, I can't put write up all my input at the moment. 'Autopatrolled' is definitely a better name for the group. I'll write up some more of my opinions on this in general later, when I don't have a baby on my lap. [[User:Alphabetface|ABCface]][[User_talk:Alphabetface|◥]] 16:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::I'm also with Elliot and Alphabetface on the name. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 16:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

::{{ec}} We can equalize it with Patrollers, same requirements in terms of edit counts, activity, etc, since it is simply for auto patrolling. Then, we make that an alternative, like what Aryon said to the Player during the Telvanni questline, ''"I can grant you the rank of Master now. That will give you an equal place on the Telvanni Council. But if you aspire to a higher claim, I can also grant you the title of Magister."'' Similar to that. You can simply request for a straight autopatrol, or you can request the extra powers and responsibilities. It wouldn't be a definite split as "go for more responsibilities or stay merely a Trustee", of course. Maybe add in a time requirement. If you want to go from a Trustee to Patroller, you have to stay as a Trustee for a month or so, so that your edits can be verified again. But, it '''definitely''' shouldn't be a higher requirement that patrollers, because we give them autopatrol, skipcatpcha, the tools, etc. which is more of a responsibility.

::And, Elliot: We wouldn't give every single person who has the edit requirements met the role. It would be like with Patrollers where you have to read through their contributions and make sure they are good edits. It definitely wouldn't be, "Well, Fakeusername, you meet the requirements so here are your autopatrol privileges." For this idea to work as it is meant to be, we have to be quite selective, IMO, but at the same time, we can't give a group with less rights more scrutiny than a group with more rights. [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 16:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

{{od}}{{ec}}The name change idea seems legit, and actually a better idea. I'll make the move. —[[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] [[User talk:SkoomaManiac|Talk]] ♫ [[:Special:Contributions/SkoomaManiac|Contribs]] 17:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

=== Edit Break 4 ===
Okay, I've got a lot of my own input on this, but it may not be very organized. Sorry about that. I know a lot of this has already been been mentioned, but I'm just summing up what I've gathered from the entire discussion, and adding my opinions.
*'''The point of this group''' is to help lessen the workload for Recent Changes Patrollers. Due to the backlog of unpatrolled edits, it would be a convenience for RCPs not to have this user group's contributions in the list of unpatrolled edits. Once this group is made, RCPs can focus on all other unpatrolled edits (as normal), which would be a better use of their time than manually patrolling many edits by the users whose contributions don't need much oversight.
*'''This group is ''not'' about''' the users in the group. Yes, technically they will be given a new set of [[UESPWiki:User_Group_Rights|User Rights]], however, the point of the group is not meant to have any effect on their contributions. It is not about a hierarchy, it is not about ''wanting'' to be added the group, and it's not about slacking off because they know their edits aren't being cross-checked (if RCPs trust the contributions of these users, it should be a given that we trust that adding them to the group is not an invitation to lower standards).
*'''The requirements to be included''' in this group should not be overcomplicated, in my opinion. I don't believe it's important to specify a specific number of contributions or time spent on the wiki. While these factors will definitely affect them being added to the group, this should be an ''indirect'' way of affecting it. Given the point of this group, I believe the simplest and most sensible way to add users to this group is for RCPs to nominate and vote, using ''their'' judgement as the ones who regularly patrol the Recent Changes page. For the purpose of this group, they are the ones who should judge whether a user's contributions need much oversight in terms of patrolling their edits, because they are the ones doing the patrolling.
:Only RCPs would be allowed to nominate users for the group, and only RCPs would be allowed to vote. A certain number of RCPs should vote in support for a user to be added (let's say, 5? I'm not picky on that number, just throwing it out there.). However, I also think it's a good idea to add a stipulation that ''users can not be added to the group if there are 3 or more votes in opposition'' (or something to that effect, 3 being another number I'm not too picky on). That way, even if enough RCPs don't feel they need to patrol certain users, the user will not be added if enough RCPs disagree. (The votes in opposition to certain users would hold more value than those in favor, basically.)
*'''Some other details and opinions''' I have... (this section is a lot less organized, jumping from topic to topic, be warned)
**Administrators are obviously included when I mention Recent Changes Patrollers above. UserPatrollers are not (simply because Userspace is very well patrolled, and the backlog of unpatrolled edits to Recent Changes does not affect them in terms of patrolling).
**To address the concern that users in this group won't have their edits cross-checked at all... Many RCPs have pages on their watchlists which they check regularly regardless of who made edits to the page or whether or not the edits have been patrolled. (I'm sure I'm not the only one who has a ridiculous number of pages on my watchlist, either.) Also, this ''is'' a wiki which ''all'' users are allowed to edit, so anything which is absolutely, horribly wrong ''will'' be fixed in time. And, again, we wouldn't add users to the group unless we trust them not to make questionable edits on a regular basis. (Besides, we ''all'' make mistakes from time to time— again, this being a wiki, those mistakes ''will'' be fixed.)
**Any user who is added to this group would be removed from the group if/when RCPs agree it's for the best. This would only happen if they begin to make questionable contributions, or otherwise change their editing habits on the site. (Of course, if/when they become RCPs themselves, they would no longer need to be in this group, so they would be removed in that case as well.)
**The nomination/voting for each user should remain on the page for one week, so that <s>those who aren't as addicted to UESP</s> all RCPs have a chance to comment or vote before the nomination is decided/archived.
**Many of the users who may be added to this group are users who are on the path toward becoming RCPs in the future anyway, but don't qualify at the moment— they don't have enough edits in the right areas, they haven't been around long enough, or whatever other reason. I'm hesitant to add some of these users to the group because I believe any user which will be nominated for RCP in the near future should have their edits scrutinized ''more'' closely prior to nomination, but this would be a hard thing to regulate, so it's probably not even worth mentioning... but I mentioned it anyway. :P
**Of course there are those who don't wish to be RCPs, yet their contributions already need hardly any oversight, and these people are perfect examples of who should be added to the group. Again, this has already said, but... I don't know, I'm probably just rambling now. :)

So, I don't know how many people will actually read ''all'' of that, sorry for the overly long post, but I tried to cover most of the points mentioned in the discussion, and... yeah, I'm done for now. :) [[User:Alphabetface|ABCface]][[User_talk:Alphabetface|◥]] 04:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
:I generally agree with you, and am glad to see you got the baby down. Please check out the Sandbox we've been contributing on today, and I'm going to go ahead and scrap the userbox, considering your point that it shouldn't be an aspiration or "rank". Thinking that a badge of honor is a little too... Flashy... Anyhow, seriously, [[User:SkoomaManiac/Autopatrolled Users|check it out]]. —[[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] [[User talk:SkoomaManiac|Talk]] ♫ [[:Special:Contributions/SkoomaManiac|Contribs]] 04:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
::Looked over your test page, and it all appears to be in order. However, I don't really like the description, specifically the phrase "extreme trustworthiness". I would personally use this as a description for the group:
::"'''Autopatrolled Users''' are a group of users whose edits are [[UESPWiki:Patrollers/Patrolling Guidelines|automatically patrolled]]. Editors in this group are editors whose high-quality edits have been noticed by the community, especially the [[UESPWiki:Administrator|Administrator]]s and [[UESPWiki:Patroller|Patroller]]s. They are selected by our current Administrators and Patrollers, and they have not yet qualified or do not wish to be Patrollers."
::I don't know, something to that effect. Basically, I don't like using the term "Trusted User" because it bears a heavy weight as a title, yet the group itself is not nearly that significant. • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 05:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
::: I took the liberty of adding Jak's suggestion to the sandbox, and made a couple other changes as well. I removed the 'elite' note because of the whole 'not a hierarchy' thing, and the note about asking questions because the mentors page is a more appropriate place for those who wish to be available for questions from other users (encouraging others to ask them questions doesn't seem appropriate, since some users may not want to be available for questions-- just like not wanting to be a patroller). As for the qualifications, I'm not opposed to the specific number of edits and time on the wiki being in there (though I don't think it's necessary, personally), ''but'' I do think the number of votes in support should be higher than two. [[User:Alphabetface|ABCface]][[User_talk:Alphabetface|◥]] 06:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

{{od}} I went ahead and removed the disqualifications, since they seem frivolous. These "trigger" requirements often remove qualified users (such as myself). I'm sure that the voting admins and patrollers would take any warnings and blocks into consideration when determining a user's eligibility. Plus, 6 months is a long time for an "observation" period. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 06:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
:The "Trusted Users" and "elite" crap was left over from it being "Trusted Users" as opposed to "Autopatrolled Users". It just never got taken out.
:Makes sense, Elliot.
:ABC, I think (I can't say for sure; I wasn't the one who put it up) that two was the MINIMUM number that could approve for a promotion. If I'm not mistaken there is a certain amount of time that the user has to be voted on. If not, I'll add it now at a week. —[[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] [[User talk:SkoomaManiac|Talk]] ♫ [[:Special:Contributions/SkoomaManiac|Contribs]] 12:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
::The point of having that edit count is to adequately gauge the ability of the user... I do like the requirement, as with less than 200 or so I feel like I can't tell whether or not the quality of the edits will persist or if the person has made enough recent quality edits, especially if past edits have been of a lower quality. I agree with the current 200/500 edit requirement in the sandbox. I also agree with the one-week voting period, and I would like to keep a minimum amount of time on the wiki.
::Skooma, the sandbox does say minimum of two, yep. --'''[[User:Velyanthe|Velyanthe]]'''[[User talk:Velyanthe|►Talk]][[Special:EmailUser/Velyanthe|►Email]] 15:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

:::All right, are there any further suggestions or major complaints? I think it's ready if there's nothing else... —[[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] [[User talk:SkoomaManiac|Talk]] ♫ [[:Special:Contributions/SkoomaManiac|Contribs]] 17:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
::::Because of the comment about not yet qualifying for patroller status it should be clarified whether being part of this group is a prerequisite to becoming a patroller, I am undecided on this issue and therefore cannot think of the appropriate wording. [[User:The Silencer|The Silencer has spoken]] 18:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::-Yeah, I understand the point of the edit count, but if a Patroller feels strongly enough that a user should be added to the group to make a nomination (or vote in support), the user has most likely met the criteria already anyway. Maybe instead of using the term "qualifications" or "requirements" we should use "guidelines" so it's not quite as strict. As mentioned somewhere above in this long discussion, some users who have been proposed/mentioned in this discussion have many edits on non-Userspace Talk pages which don't normally count as "content-related" edits. So making it a 'guideline' rather than a 'requirement' would allow for users such as these to be eligible.
:::::-Also, I think the minimum vote in favor should be three rather than two, but if I'm the only one who doesn't think two is enough of a minimum, I'll leave that be.
:::::-And, last, I don't believe this group should be a prerequisite for patrollership. [[User:Alphabetface|ABCface]][[User_talk:Alphabetface|◥]] 21:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
{{od}}I'm in agreement with three votes in favor, and that would make it equal to the current opposition vote, since it says "if more than two oppose..." (unless that's been changed). So three minimum for agreement, three votes for opposition. I think we'll have plenty of voters, though. I think that a Suggested Qualifications section should work fine, with an Immediate Disqualifications that's looser than the one Patrollers have. There should be a note in there about warnings/bans--I would say two weeks for a warning and a month for a ban. I would feel uncomfortable with some people on the basis of that if they applied a week after getting unbanned or right after a warning, and that extra time would be long enough for them to prove themselves again. Recent resignation of autopatrol rights (for whatever reason) should be the same as Patrollers, though I don't see that happening any time soon so I don't know whether or not it's even worth mentioning. --'''[[User:Velyanthe|Velyanthe]]'''[[User talk:Velyanthe|►Talk]][[Special:EmailUser/Velyanthe|►Email]] 22:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
:I changed "Guidelines" to "Suggested Guidelines" and "minimum of two supports for consensus" to "three". And in the interest of this group being "not an honor or hierarchical" it should ''not'' be a prerequisite for patroller, ESPECIALLY since users can't nominate themselves. Other than that I can say that I agree wholeheartedly with everyone's comments. —[[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] [[User talk:SkoomaManiac|Talk]] ♫ [[:Special:Contributions/SkoomaManiac|Contribs]] 22:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

::The block/warn disqualification if frivolous at best; however, in light of recent adjustments, I will support this new group. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 01:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

:::The group now exists. Which still leaves the question of who should be the first guinea pigs. However, all admins should be able to add/remove group members, so getting that done won't get held up by the Bureaucrat-only bottleneck. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 03:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

::::Robin Hood, can you get us an up-to-date list of the top 20 contributors over the past month? That would be helpful in figuring out our guinea pigs. I think Elliot is a prime candidate. • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 03:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

:::::The following list is the top 20 contributors, excluding file uploads and, for Userspace Patrollers, any edits that were already autopatrolled anyway. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 05:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
{{Showhide|List|
:::::* Acaveman
:::::* Coronus
:::::* DayDreamer
:::::* DextroWombat
:::::* Elliot (Userspace Patroller)
:::::* Evil4Zerggin
:::::* GrogGrogGrog
:::::* Helenaannevalentine (Userspace Patroller)
:::::* JR
:::::* J'ZhirrthePriest
:::::* Kertaw48
:::::* Kimi the Elf (Userspace Patroller)
:::::* Manic (Userspace Patroller)
:::::* MrL
:::::* Nikofeelan
:::::* PLRDLF
:::::* SkoomaManiac (Userspace Patroller)
:::::* The Silencer (Userspace Patroller)
:::::* ThuumofReason
:::::* Zappatized}}
::::::Thank you for the list Robin Hood. I went ahead and [[UESPWiki:Autopatrolled Users#Nominations|nominated]] [[User:Elliot|Elliot]], [[User:PLRDLF|PLRDLF]], [[User:Manic|Manic]], and [[User:Aliana|Aliana]] to start off. Don't forget to vote! • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 05:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

=== Edit Break 5 ===
{{od}}Once members of the group are we aloud to vote for future members? --[[User:Manic|Manic]] 18:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
:Probably not, since we aren't the ones patrolling. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 18:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
::The point of the group is to remove the task of manually patrolling the group members' edits, for the sake of Patrollers. Only Patrollers and Administrators are allowed to vote for that reason. [[User:Alphabetface|ABCface]][[User_talk:Alphabetface|◥]] 18:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
:::However, all users are allowed to comment on any nominations. [[User:Alphabetface|ABCface]][[User_talk:Alphabetface|◥]] 18:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

::::Fair enough, just checking so not to make an ass of myself. --[[User:Manic|Manic]] 18:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

== Massive numbers of accounts being created ==

I think someone is running some sort of bot to create a very large number of accounts. Anyone who hasn't noticed this on the [[Special:RecentChanges|Recent Changes]] can look [[Special:Log/newusers|here]] and see. You can tell it's a bot because it seems to be selecting a random first and last name and then sometimes adding a number at the end. I don't know how to check what IP is creating them (I don't think I have the permission) but if it's the same IP I think they ought to be blocked for spamming account creation. • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 00:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

:If I may put forward a suggestion to counter this kind of spam, if it is proven to be a bot, I believe the site should be set so that account verification through an email is required, and you can have 2 accounts per email. I say two, because we have users with legitimate alternate accounts (NepheleBot, HotNBothered, RoBoT). This is the only site that I have contributed to that hasn't required a valid email address. This is something I assume Nephele can do, and its a one-time validation per user. That way, if someone where to spam the site usernames, they would have to go through the inconvenience of creating new email accounts as well, and I doubt the average account spammer would care to go through all that trouble. [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 01:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

::Without installing an extension, we can't place any email validation limits on account creation. Also, I don't think that's a good idea unless we can fix our problems with AOL and some other ISPs that block all email sent from UESP -- unless we're absolutely sure we can send email to all valid email addresses, any email validation requirement will prevent legitimate users from being able to create accounts.
::As for IP addresses, when I looked last week most of the accounts being created were using different IP addresses -- spambots typically have control of significant numbers of IP addresses, because they know that individual IP addresses are trivial to block. I blocked one IP address range that had been used to create multiple spambot accounts, but even figuring out patterns of IP addresses is pretty time-consuming, because it means running checkuser on a lot of different user names. Plus any time an entire range of IPs is blocked there is an increased risk of blocking legitimate users. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 04:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

:::(I completely missed Nephele's previous comment before replying.) I don't think much can be done regarding this, and even if we could do something, I don't think we should. They don't pop into editing or vandalizing, so we would be limiting account creation based on perceived patterns rather than facts. I had Nephele [[UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard/Archives/ConfirmAccount|implement]] the $wgAccountCreationThrottle setting, which limited account creation based on IPs. I think that is enough, for now. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 04:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

::::I completely understand your logic, and it does make sense, but I believe something should be done, at least for a short term that would limit account creation, assuming this is all one guy. It is ridiculous to do nothing because

::::'''A.)''' We have the RC flooded with 5+ new accounts every few minutes, and

::::'''B.)''' There could be a legitimate user who wants to use their name, and it seems wasteful to have them all sitting idle because we have a hypothetical spammer who we have to accept as running wild with account creations.

::::I am backing out of this conversation to sleep, its 2AM, and I have had a long day. I just wanted to throw in my thoughts on the issue real fast. [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 06:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::In the last few minutes there have been more accounts made that follow the pattern such as KonradConradMetcalf and LizzieBusch4. Maybe when creating an account you should have to answer some basic question or something. [[User:RIM|RIM]] 19:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
::::::This question idea has been suggested before, but it could turn real users away if they don't know the answer or can't be bothered to figure it out. --[[User:Kiz|kiz]] {{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|Kiz| '''[[Special:EmailUser/Kiz|email]]''' | '''[[User_Talk:Kiz|talk]]''''''[[Special:EmailUser/Kiz|email]]'''}} 19:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::::It doesn't have to be general knowledge or Elder Scrolls question, I just mean something that a bot could not answer. Just a suggestion. Also new accounts like this are being made now.

:::::::: Recently when I edited a page, I had to enter a captcha(sp?). I hadn't seen this before. It might have be because I was linking to wikipedia.
:::::::: Why not require this captcha when creating an account. If this continues the account name that I might want will be taken...
::::::::: Is there some cleanup of just created and unused accounts for a certain time? -- MartinS [[Special:Contributions/94.255.233.233|94.255.233.233]] 19:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
{{od}} A lot of the names they use are nonsensical anyway, reduce the chances of users wanting them. A captcha is another idea, this has been shot down to. I'm not saying just TES-related, not everyone will have been schooled in the same way. Theres no way of creating a question everyone in the world (which is our audience really) will know the answer to, its just so daft. --[[User:Kiz|kiz]] {{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|Kiz| '''[[Special:EmailUser/Kiz|email]]''' | '''[[User_Talk:Kiz|talk]]''''''[[Special:EmailUser/Kiz|email]]'''}} 19:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
:<s>Wait, you mean we '''don't''' use captcha for account creations? –[[User:Eshe|Eshe]][[User talk:Eshe|talk]] 19:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)</s>
:Never mind, I see we do. Well...if that isn't stopping it, then it can't be a bot, right?
:Also, a quick run through checkuser reveals the latest batch are all coming from the same IP range. Not sure if that helps or not, but there it is. –[[User:Eshe|Eshe]][[User talk:Eshe|talk]] 19:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
::Just looking down the recent changes has shown various completely random accounts. One way to monitor this would be to check if any of these accounts contribute in anyway. What are the odds of 50 accounts (lets say) being created with none contributing in anyway. --[[User:Manic|Manic]] 20:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

:::There are seriously too many accounts being created now. This IP needs to be blocked asap. --[[User:Manic|Manic]] 20:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
::::It is ridiculous, I know. We need to risk an IP range block to kill the account creation nonsense, or go with my suggestion of finding a way to require email verification or an extra captcha or question like the others suggested. It may be ridiculous, but why not add (just for a short term) two or three additional captcha/question entries. That way, you would have to seriously want to contribute or seriously want to flood the page with new accounts. Chances are, the person(s) involved will grow impatient with multiple captchas, and they will abandon the the creation. Then, for good measure, we keep it active for upwards of a week-ish to make sure. And, during the creation, if it is possible, we should have a message for the legitimate users saying that the inconvenient list of captchas is to counter an account spammer, which will be removed after X amount of time.
:::EDIT: This is crazy. I pulled up the account creation log, and [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&limit=100&type=newusers at least 100 accounts have been made] following the First name-surname-optional number pattern. Without a block, I am unsure this will stop. [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 20:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
::::Problem is, that it might take a while to set up. We need something for the short term. --[[User:Manic|Manic]] 20:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
{{od}}A short term range block while a way to inhibit this kind of behavior is thought of? [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 20:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
:Unfortunately, not a single admin or blocker is currently online. By time one comes on there could be another 50 accounts. --[[User:Manic|Manic]] 20:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

:Can you all please calm down? They're not doing anything, so it isn't that big of a problem. Blocking them is pointless until someone determines the range (which I can't as I lack Check User), and if any make any edits that break site rules, they can be dealt with. The request for the range block is clear, there is no point in worrying about it further. --[[User:Alpha Kenny Buddy|AKB]] [[User_talk:Alpha_Kenny_Buddy|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Cont]] [[Special:Emailuser/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Mail]] 20:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

::Just to clarify on the above comments, there ''is'' a Captcha on account creation, but either someone's developed a bot that's got some pretty good OCR, or they've designed the bot to display the Captcha for human resolution, then immediately move on to the next one. If either of those are the case, additional questions or Captchas probably won't bother them for long. I don't think the latter would be very hard at all. Also, we don't need to feel special...other wikis are being hit by this same bot as well. As AKB mentioned, the only people who can effectively range block will be the longer-serving Administrators who have CheckUser ({{Pl|Special:ListUsers|group=checkuser|list}}). Blockers and the newer Admins can both block ranges, I believe, but wouldn't know what range to block. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 23:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

:::Unfortunately, captchas can only do so much. I read about this bot that actually crowd-sources captchas. Take the captcha image and publish it on another site (promising free porn or something like that), and real people give it the answer, which it then turns around and uses to solve the captcha on the target site. Not sure if that's what's hitting us right now, but it does exist, and is one way that bots can get past such measures. --[[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] [[User_talk:TheRealLurlock|Talk]] 12:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

::::I've done some more poking around via checkuser and I can pretty confidently confirm that all these accounts are being created from the same IP range. I don't have a problem implementing a range block if that's what everyone agrees should be done. Thing is, I've never done it before and I'm honestly not sure how--from what I remember, Nephele usually does this kind of thing... –[[User:Eshe|Eshe]][[User talk:Eshe|talk]] 17:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

::::: Oooh... That's clever. I'll make a "train solve captchas" site... -- MartinS [[Special:Contributions/94.255.233.233|94.255.233.233]] 18:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::: Hehe, I'd set up a bot just to give a ton of wrong answers on one of those sites. • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 19:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

{{od}}You can take a look at the [[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Range_blocks mediawiki article]] on them. Though, if you feel uncomfortable with it, I'm sure we can wait until Nephele or someone is willing to do it. --[[User:Alpha Kenny Buddy|AKB]] [[User_talk:Alpha_Kenny_Buddy|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Cont]] [[Special:Emailuser/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Mail]] 17:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

: I think that an IP range block is necessary, given the circumstances. If any of those blocked IPs tries to create an account, what do they see? It should have something along the lines of, "''If you believe that you were mistakenly blocked, then email (← hyperlink) us.''" That way people who are caught in that IP range aren't out of luck. • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 19:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

::Thanks for the link, AKB. Unfortunately, it's a bit over my head, and I think it's especially important that I ''not'' screw it up. Thankfully, it's not an urgent situation, so we can wait until someone with a bit more expertise in this kind situation gets around to it. –[[User:Eshe|Eshe]][[User talk:Eshe|talk]] 19:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

:::I just checked the last 9 spammers who were blocked and found 10 different IP ranges (IPs>spammers because a couple spammers had used two IPs). And none of them were using the same IP range that Eshe had identified -- plus that was a fairly broad IP range (a class B network, i.e., 65536 different IPs) so I'd prefer to be sure that such a large block is needed. Blocked IPs aren't given an email address or any other way to contact the site -- and in the case of IP ranges, I'm not entirely sure whether they're even able to edit a user talk page to appeal the block.
:::The bottom line is that I'm no longer seeing any IP ranges that need to be blocked / can usefully blocked.
:::We may need to upgrade our captcha at some point, but I haven't looked into what all would be necessary to install one of the newer captchas (including what mediawiki version they require). --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 03:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

::::Just to clarify, I was checking the accounts that were following a real first name / real last name pattern, not spam accounts. Actually, I'm not sure if any of the ones I checked had actually made any edits at all. Everything I looked at was coming from 173.208.something.something. [[User:Eshe|eshe]][[User talk:Eshe|talk]] 20:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

{{od}}I've added a titleblacklist block on names with the format Name19##. It's a name format that has been used to create 8 spam accounts in the last few days -- only one recent account with that format has not been using for spamming, and I'm willing to bet that account is also a spambot account. It means that any users who want to create a unique name by adding the year to the end of their name (e.g., Nephele1968) won't be able to do so. But they can still add a two-digit year (e.g., Nephele68), which should be more than enough to create a unique name on UESP. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 01:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

== "Very nice site" vandals ==

May we start blocking these IPs at the first offense? I'm also unclear why some IPs which have received a warning and continued to vandalize, such as [http://uesp.net/wiki/Special:Contributions/91.121.142.140 this guy], have not been blocked yet. [[User:Minor Edits|Minor Edits]][[User_talk:Minor Edits|Threats]]•[[Special:Contributions/Minor Edits|Evidence]] 16:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
:A lot of those warnings are mine because I can't block. They should be blocked because they delete other content and add nonsense. [[User:The Silencer|The Silencer has spoken]] 16:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
::I only asked because there are some, like [http://uesp.net/wiki/Special:Contributions/193.86.149.157 this one], who have already vandalized more than once and haven't even been warned yet. It seems like only a matter of time before each IP is used to vandalize again. Most of the recent vandals to [[Lore:Gods M]] haven't received warnings yet, but I think it would be absurd at this point to give them the benefit of the doubt, so we might as well just skip to the blocking. [[User:Minor Edits|Minor Edits]][[User_talk:Minor Edits|Threats]]•[[Special:Contributions/Minor Edits|Evidence]] 16:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
:::Oops, this is probably somewhat my fault. I was under the impression we were dealing with a bot here, so I didn't warn them. Instead I was planning to ask if they could get blocked, but then subsequently forgot. I didn't block them myself because then an admin would have to extent the block, and it didn't seem that urgent. Thanks for following up though, Minor Edits. [[User:Wolok gro-Barok|Wolok gro-Barok]] 17:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
::::I think they are bots. Even if they are not, they have "bot-like" qualities and probably should just be blocked. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 17:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
{{od}}Since blocking them all myself would be pointless, I'll just list a few that I haven't already mentioned for the convenience of any admin who may wish to take action:

[http://uesp.net/wiki/Special:Contributions/93.82.197.98 93.82.197.98] 
[http://uesp.net/wiki/Special:Contributions/200.241.156.143 200.241.156.143] 
[http://uesp.net/wiki/Special:Contributions/213.160.143.150 213.160.143.150] 
[http://uesp.net/wiki/Special:Contributions/212.87.24.211 212.87.24.211] 
[http://uesp.net/wiki/Special:Contributions/218.127.28.112 218.127.28.112] 

[[User:Minor Edits|Minor Edits]][[User_talk:Minor Edits|Threats]]•[[Special:Contributions/Minor Edits|Evidence]] 18:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

:Alrighty, I think I've got all of them now. Thanks for making the list, Minor Edits! [[User:Eshe|eshe]][[User talk:Eshe|talk]] 18:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

::As a side note, Krusty suggested I hit them for 1 month, so that's what I did. [[User:Eshe|eshe]][[User talk:Eshe|talk]] 19:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

== Beginning of the Month/Archive Semi-protection ==

[[Skyrim talk: Glitches/Archive 4|This]] needs semi protection. More likely to come. —[[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] [[User talk:SkoomaManiac|Talk]] ♫ [[:Special:Contributions/SkoomaManiac|Contribs]] 16:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
:And [[Skyrim_talk:Easter_Eggs/Archive_7|here]]. —[[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] [[User talk:SkoomaManiac|Talk]] ♫ [[:Special:Contributions/SkoomaManiac|Contribs]] 16:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
::[[Skyrim talk:Skyrim/Archive 7|Here]]. —[[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] [[User talk:SkoomaManiac|Talk]] ♫ [[:Special:Contributions/SkoomaManiac|Contribs]] 17:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
:::Here's [[Skyrim_talk:Creatures/Archive_1|another]] one. [[User:Alphabetface|ABCface]][[User_talk:Alphabetface|◥]] 21:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
::::Done! [[User:Eshe|eshe]][[User talk:Eshe|talk]] 22:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

== We need more people to Patrol old edits! ==

Just look at the [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&days=30&limit=5000&hidepatrolled=1 backlog] of unpatrolled edits we have. This is a long list (Robin Hood last calculated it to be about 1000 edits long) but we need to patrol them!

Just so people don't think this is such a daunting task, I will remind them of these simple tips to cut down the list:
*Edits in which people edit their own post can be patrolled.
*A lot of the edits are people just adding {{tl|Unsigned}}s.
*If you are unsure about a content edit (a non-talk page edit), then check the page history (or even just hit Newer Edit) and see if it was undone. If it was undone (for good reason), then patrol it.
*If you are unsure and it wasn't undone, then either add a {{tl|vn}} tag or leave it unpatrolled and hope someone else can come along and answer it.
I do have one question. Can we just patrol any edits to talk pages that are now in an archive? I know it's standard procedure to answer a question before patrolling it, but it's also standard procedure not to edit archives. [[Skyrim talk:Followers]] is a good example. • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 07:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

:Yes, I would say you should patrol archived questions. In theory, an unanswered question probably shouldn't be archived if it's still on the Recent Changes list, but in practice, especially on a high-volume page, if a question remains unanswered even for a couple of weeks, chances are, it never will be, so some people choose to archive it if it's not "Good question" worthy.

:As for the backlog, 1000 (995 right now, to be exact) is actually a ''lot'' less than it was just a month ago. For the most part, I can handle patrolling the 40ish edits per day that make it through to the back end of Recent Changes, but help is certainly appreciated. A second Patroller who mostly patrols the back end of RC would be ideal. But if the regular Patrollers can take two minutes to glance over the the ones at the ''very'' bottom of the list, that would be a big step in ensuring that we have as much factual, good quality information on pages as we can.

:Oh and on a side note, since Jak mentioned it, I have a process that automatically downloads the RC and Patrol Logs into a database a few times a day. It's literally point-and-double-click for me to get up-to-date stats on our Recent Changes list. Is this incredibly geeky? You're damned right it is! :) But hey, before I went on disability, it used to be my job, so I like to keep at least my basic skills up. Point is, generating stats based on RC or the Patrol Log is stupendously easy for me, so don't hesitate to ask if there's some statistic you want to know (how many people in the last few months would qualify for Autopatrolled status comes to mind, for instance <g>). – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 09:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

::I have 4 free hours and absolutely nothing to do - let's have a patrolling party!! :D [[User:Kitkat1749|Kitkat]] •[[User talk:Kitkat1749|Talk]]•[[Special:Contributions/Kitkat1749|Contrib]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Kitkat1749|E-mail]] 10:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

:::I have a small amount of free time this week (no school), so I suppose I could go ahead and help out.--[[User:Kalis Agea|Kalis Agea]][[User talk:Kalis Agea|Yes?]] [[Special:Contributions/Kalis Agea|Contrib]] [[Special:EmailUser/Kalis Agea|E-mail]] 18:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

== Mass Proposed Deletion ==

I'm going through and cleaning up [[Special:UnusedCategories]], and a lot of empty ''faction'' categories still exist. All 364 are listed below.
{{Showhide|List of categories|2=
Skyrim-Factions-put on doors to keep NPCs from opening

Skyrim-Factions-friends to both sides in MQ101

Skyrim-Factions-for the NPCs who can use the load door

Skyrim-Factions-faction for party guards

Skyrim-Factions-faction for guards in front

Skyrim-Factions-faction for NPCs who should stay out of palace

Skyrim-Factions-dunValtheimKeepBanditFaction

Skyrim-Factions-dunUstengravDraugrFaction

Skyrim-Factions-dunRavenscarFaction

Skyrim-Factions-dunMistwatchFjolaFaction

Skyrim-Factions-dunMistwatchFactionAlly

Skyrim-Factions-dunMistwatchFaction

Skyrim-Factions-dunMarkarthWizard SpiderFaction

Skyrim-Factions-dunMarkarthWizard SecureAreaFaction

Skyrim-Factions-dunLostKnifeCatFaction

Skyrim-Factions-dunHarmugstahlFactionWarlockAttackedbySpiders

Skyrim-Factions-dunHarmugstahlFactionSpiderNormal

Skyrim-Factions-dunHarmugstahlFactionSpiderDocile

Skyrim-Factions-dunForelhostSoldierUnfriendly

Skyrim-Factions-dunForelhostSoldierNeutral

Skyrim-Factions-dunForelhostGrifterUnfriendly

Skyrim-Factions-dunForelhostGrifterNeutral

Skyrim-Factions-dunFolgunthurThrallFaction

Skyrim-Factions-dunFolgunthurMikrulFaction

Skyrim-Factions-dunFaldarsToothDogAttackFaction

Skyrim-Factions-anyone in this won't fight with mq101 alduin

Skyrim-Factions-Wolf Faction

Skyrim-Factions-WinterholdJailFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Winterhold

Skyrim-Factions-WindhelmJarlOwnershipFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WindhelmHostlerFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WindhelmAretinoResidenceFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WindhelmApothecaryFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Whiterun Guard Neutral Faction

Skyrim-Factions-WhiterunJarlOwnershipFaction

Skyrim-Factions-White River Prisoner Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Werewolf Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Warmaidens

Skyrim-Factions-WIThugFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WIThiefFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WITavernPatronFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WIPlayerEnemySpecialCombatFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WIPlayerEnemyFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WEUnaggressiveAdventurerFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WEThalmorFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WEThalmorDialogueFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WESpecialCombatFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WERoad02NobleFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WERoad02BodyguardFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WERJ10EnemyFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WEPlayerFriend

Skyrim-Factions-WEJSMerchantHorseFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WEJS25EnemiesFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WEJS21HunterandDogFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WEEnemiesFactionB

Skyrim-Factions-WEEnemiesFactionA

Skyrim-Factions-WEDL10SprigganFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WEDL10LumberjackFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WEDL09HunterFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WEDL09GiantFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WEDL08Faction

Skyrim-Factions-WEDL06ThugFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WEDL06LutreshFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WEDL05Faction

Skyrim-Factions-WEDA07JorgenFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WEDA07DaetraFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WEAggressiveAdventurerFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WEAdventurerHorseRiderFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WE20WarlockFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WE20BanditFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WE19BanditFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WE16HunterFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WE16DeerFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WE15FrostAtronachFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WE15FlameAtronachFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WE14SkeeverFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WE14DogFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WE11SabreCatFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WE11MammothFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WE06PredatorFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WE06BanditFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WE05OrcFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WE03EnemiesFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Vampire Thrall

Skyrim-Factions-Vampire PC Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Used to control DialogueOrcHunters conversations

Skyrim-Factions-TownIrontreeMillFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Thieves Guild

Skyrim-Factions-Thieves' Guild

Skyrim-Factions-The Pale

Skyrim-Factions-Thalmor - Fooled by PC disguise

Skyrim-Factions-Tailor

Skyrim-Factions-TGTQ04 Niranye Attacks Faction

Skyrim-Factions-TG09 Nightingale Enemy Faction

Skyrim-Factions-TG08BMercerHatesPlayerFaction

Skyrim-Factions-TG07 Vald Hates Player

Skyrim-Factions-TG02 Aringoth Player Enemy Faction

Skyrim-Factions-T03HatePlayerFaction

Skyrim-Factions-T01EnmonFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Sybille Stentor

Skyrim-Factions-Storm Atronach Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Steward has already been blackmailed.

Skyrim-Factions-Spriggan Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Soljund's Sinkhole Guards

Skyrim-Factions-SolitudeBluePalaceServants

Skyrim-Factions-Sleeping Giant Services

Skyrim-Factions-Slaughterfish Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Skooma Dealer

Skyrim-Factions-Sinding

Skyrim-Factions-SilverHandFactionPacified

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesThievesGuildNiranye

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesThievesGuildMallus

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesThievesGuildGulumEi

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesThievesGuildEnthir

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesThievesGuildEndon

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesThievesGuildCaravanZaynabi

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesThievesGuildCaravanMajhad

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesThievesGuildCaravanAtahba

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseWindhelmSpells

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseWindhelmMiscVendor

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseWindhelmInnkeeper

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseWindhelmBlacksmith

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseWindhelmApothecary

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseWhiterunSpells

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseWhiterunMiscVendor

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseWhiterunInnkeeper

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseWhiterunBlacksmith

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseWhiterunApothecary

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseSolitudeSpells

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseSolitudeMiscVendor

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseSolitudeInnkeeper

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseSolitudeBlacksmith

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseSolitudeApothecary

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseRiftenSpells

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseRiftenMiscVendor

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseRiftenInnkeeper

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseRiftenBlacksmith

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseRiftenApothecary

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseMarkarthSpells

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseMarkarthMiscVendor

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseMarkarthInnkeeper

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseMarkarthBlacksmith

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseMarkarthApothecary

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesHonningbrewMeaderyPost

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesDawnstarWindpeakInn

Skyrim-Factions-Rorikstead Manor Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Robber's Gorge Bandit Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Riverwood Trader Services

Skyrim-Factions-Restoration Ritual Ghost Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Rank = which mission was last successful

Skyrim-Factions-Rank = which mission was last failed

Skyrim-Factions-Rank = which mission is the player's active mission

Skyrim-Factions-Rank = which mission is in "slot" 2

Skyrim-Factions-Rank = which mission is in "slot" 1

Skyrim-Factions-Rank 1 = Being Absorbed, 2 = Done

Skyrim-Factions-Radiant Raiments

Skyrim-Factions-Put in this faction to get WI follower comments

Skyrim-Factions-Put dragon here when player absorbs power

Skyrim-Factions-Prey Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Player set prisoner free (used to conditionalize packages, etc.)

Skyrim-Factions-Player is being escorted by a friend

Skyrim-Factions-Player has accepted mission hooks from this field co

Skyrim-Factions-Player assaulted this NPC

Skyrim-Factions-Player Horse Faction

Skyrim-Factions-PlayerWerewolfFaction

Skyrim-Factions-PlayerMarriedFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Penitus Oculatus Faction

Skyrim-Factions-POIVolcanicHunterFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Owners of the Common House

Skyrim-Factions-Orthorn's Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Only shows up if Player is Stormcloak

Skyrim-Factions-Only shows up if Player is Imperial

Skyrim-Factions-Once the player gives the cow to the giant they are both permamently added to this faction

Skyrim-Factions-Nilheim Faction

Skyrim-Factions-NPCs Immune to Mehrunes Razor

Skyrim-Factions-NPCs Captured by Bandits

Skyrim-Factions-Moorside Inn Services

Skyrim-Factions-MarriageRivalAttackFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MarriageCourtingFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MarriageAskedFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MarkarthThalmorFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MarkarthStewardOwnershipFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MarkarthJarlOwnershipFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MarkarthHousecarlOwnershipFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Makes them more suspicious in dialogue

Skyrim-Factions-Makes them enemies of the player

Skyrim-Factions-Makes enemy of WEPrisonerFreedCombatPrisonerFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Makes enemy of WEPrisonerFreedCombatCaptorFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Make dungeon creatures not attack me

Skyrim-Factions-MS08AlikrBaseFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MS06CultistFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MS03ChaletOwnershipFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MS03ChaletGuardEnemyFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MS02GrisvarEnemyFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MS02ForswornFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MS02CidhnaMineEnemyFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MS02CidhnaMineCombatFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MS01WeylinKillMargretFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MS01WeylinBeserk

Skyrim-Factions-MS01TreasuryHouseEnemy

Skyrim-Factions-MS01PlayerEnemyFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MS01ConspiracyCombatFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQGreybeardTrainingFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQBladesSparringFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQ306TemporaryFriendsFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQ304AlduinFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQ301SoldierDialogueFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQ301CombatFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQ206PastFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQ206AncientAlduinFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQ206AlduinFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQ202EnemyofPlayerFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQ201ThalmorEnemyFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQ201FriendDistractionDoneFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQ103TemporaryFriendsFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQ103SonsOfSkyrimSoldierFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQ103ImperialSoldierFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQ102ChatterFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQ101StormcloakFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQ101LokirEnemyFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQ101ImperialFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MG05CreatureFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MG03 Caller Faction

Skyrim-Factions-MG02BossNonCombatFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Largashbur Orcs

Skyrim-Factions-Kyne's Peace

Skyrim-Factions-Kolskeggr Mine Guards

Skyrim-Factions-Karthwasten Guard

Skyrim-Factions-KarthwastenPlayerEnemyFaction

Skyrim-Factions-JobStewardFaction

Skyrim-Factions-JobPriestFaction

Skyrim-Factions-JobHousecarlFaction

Skyrim-Factions-JobHostlerFaction

Skyrim-Factions-JobCarriageFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Ice Wraith Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Hunters of Hircine

Skyrim-Factions-Hunter Prey Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Horker Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Horgeir's House Occupants

Skyrim-Factions-Honningbrew Meadery

Skyrim-Factions-Hjaalmarch

Skyrim-Factions-Great Council Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Gray Pine Goods

Skyrim-Factions-Giant Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Frost Atronach Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Forsworn Dog Faction

Skyrim-Factions-ForceFullBodyStagger

Skyrim-Factions-For intimidate brawling

Skyrim-Factions-For dailogue when Thalmor have prisoner with them

Skyrim-Factions-Fletcher

Skyrim-Factions-Flame Atronach Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Fisherman Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Fence

Skyrim-Factions-Fellstar Farm Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Fellglow Prisoner Faction

Skyrim-Factions-FavorAllowIntimidateFaction

Skyrim-Factions-FavorAllowBribeFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Falmer Servant

Skyrim-Factions-Falmer

Skyrim-Factions-FalkreathJarlOwnershipFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Falkreath

Skyrim-Factions-Exiled Government

Skyrim-Factions-Eorlund Gray-Mane

Skyrim-Factions-Enemies

Skyrim-Factions-East Empire Company

Skyrim-Factions-DunAnsilvundBanditFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Dummy Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Dremora Faction

Skyrim-Factions-DragonsreachBasementGuards

Skyrim-Factions-DismissedFollowerFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Dialogue Faction for Wndhelm Guards

Skyrim-Factions-Dialogue Faction for Haafingar Hold Guards

Skyrim-Factions-Dialogue Faction for Falkreath Hold Guards

Skyrim-Factions-Dialogue Faction for Dawnstar Guards

Skyrim-Factions-Death won't trigger WIKill04

Skyrim-Factions-DawnstarJarlOwnershipFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DawnstarHousecarlOwnershipFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Dark Brotherhood Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Daedra

Skyrim-Factions-DB RecurringTarget 9 CrimeFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DB Attack Player Faction

Skyrim-Factions-DB Attack Gianna Faction

Skyrim-Factions-DBCiceroDawnstarFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DB09 Door Lock Faction

Skyrim-Factions-DA16 Player Hate Faction

Skyrim-Factions-DA16 Orc Dream Faction

Skyrim-Factions-DA16OrcAmbushFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DA16ErandurFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DA11GlooredhelAllyFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DA11CannibalAttackFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DA11AttackPlayerFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DA10PlayerEnemyFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DA09TemporaryDragonFriendFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DA08SelfPacifyFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DA07RazorOwnerFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DA07PlayerEnemyFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DA06YamarzCrimeFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DA06YamarzCombatFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DA06GiantFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DA03VampireFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DA02GuardsPlayerEnemy

Skyrim-Factions-DA02ElisifAfraidOfPlayer

Skyrim-Factions-DA02CultistsAreEnemies

Skyrim-Factions-DA02CulistsPlayerEnemy

Skyrim-Factions-DA02ConduitPlayerAlly

Skyrim-Factions-DA01PlayerEnemyFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DA01NelacarEnemyFaction

Skyrim-Factions-CurrentHireling

Skyrim-Factions-CurrentFollowerFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Crowd Spectator

Skyrim-Factions-Crew of the Red Wave

Skyrim-Factions-Condition on Spectator Idle Anims

Skyrim-Factions-CompanionsTrainingSpecialCombatHateFaction

Skyrim-Factions-CompanionsTrainingSpecialCombatFaction

Skyrim-Factions-CompanionsSingleCombatFaction

Skyrim-Factions-College of Winterhold Arch-Mage Faction

Skyrim-Factions-College of Winterhold-Evoker

Skyrim-Factions-College of Winterhold-Apprentice

Skyrim-Factions-Chaurus Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Can show up at battles in this hold

Skyrim-Factions-CWSurrenderTemporaryAllies

Skyrim-Factions-CWSoldierPlayerEnemyFaction

Skyrim-Factions-CWSoldierDefenderFaction

Skyrim-Factions-CWSoldierAttackerFaction

Skyrim-Factions-CWSoldierArcherFaction

Skyrim-Factions-CWRewardFactionWinterhold

Skyrim-Factions-CWRewardFactionWhiterun

Skyrim-Factions-CWRewardFactionRift

Skyrim-Factions-CWRewardFactionReach

Skyrim-Factions-CWRewardFactionPale

Skyrim-Factions-CWRewardFactionHjaalmarch

Skyrim-Factions-CWRewardFactionFalkreath

Skyrim-Factions-CWPlayerAlly

Skyrim-Factions-CWMission08GiantFaction

Skyrim-Factions-CWMission08EnemyToGiant

Skyrim-Factions-CWMission04PrisonerFreedFaction

Skyrim-Factions-CWMission03BedFaction

Skyrim-Factions-CWJobFortPatrolExteriorFaction

Skyrim-Factions-CWJobFortJailorFaction

Skyrim-Factions-CWJobFortGatekeeperFaction

Skyrim-Factions-CWJobFortCommanderFaction

Skyrim-Factions-CWFinaleTemporaryAllies

Skyrim-Factions-CWDisaffectedSoldierFaction

Skyrim-Factions-CWDialogueSoldierWaitingToDefendFaction

Skyrim-Factions-CWDialogueSoldierWaitingToAttackFaction

Skyrim-Factions-CWCivilianFaction

Skyrim-Factions-C06PlayerWolfSpecialCombatFaction

Skyrim-Factions-C06KodlakAndWolfFaction

Skyrim-Factions-C00JorrvaskrFightingFaction

Skyrim-Factions-C00GiantHuntFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Bounty Hunter

Skyrim-Factions-Bounty Collector

Skyrim-Factions-Blue Palace Guard for DA02

Skyrim-Factions-BladesRecruitsFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Bits and Pieces

Skyrim-Factions-BardNoRequestFaction

Skyrim-Factions-BardAudienceMarker

Skyrim-Factions-Bannered Mare Services

Skyrim-Factions-ArenaSelfLoathingFaction

Skyrim-Factions-ArenaPacifyFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Allowed Faction for Execution Guard Package

Skyrim-Factions-Agents of the Black Marsh

Skyrim-Factions-After Hadvar/Ralof get to know you, they are in this faction - used to conditionalize dialogue

Skyrim-Factions-1 = Imperial, 2 = Stormcloak supporter
}}

Now, some of these are just alternative descriptions of currently used faction categories, but some are used temporarily for individual quests. I am not too sure these should be kept as categories, though; rather, they should be described on the faction page. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 04:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

:So, after thinking about, I want to go ahead and propose all empty faction pages for deletion. I really do not believe they serve a purpose by "being empty"; it doesn't really add to the fact that there is no one in that faction. So any of them found on [[Special:UnusedCategories]] are ''officially'' proposed for deletion. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 05:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
::Being 10 days old now, these can be deleted. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 01:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

::Done. --[[User:Alpha Kenny Buddy|AKB]] [[User_talk:Alpha_Kenny_Buddy|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Cont]] [[Special:Emailuser/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Mail]] 02:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
:::Thanks! Not to be picky, but my second comment prodded ALL of the faction pages, which includes Tes3Mod and Morrowind. However, I still want opinions regarding those. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 02:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

::::And Oblivion, right? Well, they would be useful, if we could determine who is ever a member of the group. However, I see no way of going through the game scripting to determine who joins what faction. As such, I don't see a problem with them being deleted. However, I think we should err on the side of caution with Tes3mod factions, as all of those factions are a part of Tamriel Rebuilt, which is still a work in progress. We may have a need for them yet. The others however, should be deleted. If we were going to figure out a way to add all relevant NPCs to their factions, surely we would of done this already when the bots were running. Most of them also appear to only exist for the PC, so there intended purpose (categorizing what NPC is in what faction), can never be fulfilled as the faction only exists for the PC. --[[User:Alpha Kenny Buddy|AKB]] [[User_talk:Alpha_Kenny_Buddy|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Cont]] [[Special:Emailuser/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Mail]] 02:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

== Clean Image vs Cleanup ==

I'm aware of the fact lately everyone's using clean image. I've always used cleanup for images instead. So my silly question, is it wrong to use cleanup for images instead of clean image? I'll use clean image in the future, but I saw a person using cleanup, and I don't know whether I HAVE to correct that or not ~ [[User:Dwarfmp|Dwarfmp]] 05:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

:Clean Image has the benefit of automatically categorizing the image according to what needs to be done to it, which is helpful for people who may want to only take new pictures, only do cropping, etc. So I'd say yes, you probably should correct it. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 07:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

== Very nice site nonsense bot ==

[[Special:Contributions/89.73.170.132|89.73.170.132]] —[[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] [[User talk:SkoomaManiac|Talk]] ♫ [[:Special:Contributions/SkoomaManiac|Contribs]] 01:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
:Done. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 01:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

== Request for Adminship: RobinHood70 ==

:''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.''

{{userlinks|RobinHood70}} has been an obvious administrator candidate for a couple of years, at least. However, until recently he has turned down suggestions that he be nominated for the position. He is now willing to become an admin, so I think UESP should take advantage of the opportunity to add such a qualified editor to the team.

The biggest question is perhaps, why now? Thanks to our group of temporary-turned-permanent admins, plus the welcome return of several inactive admins over the last few months, UESP has more active and semi-active admins than ever before. So we don't have an urgent need to add more administrators. However, it never hurts to have an extra person available to help out, plus I think it's better to start an RfA discussion when the site is relatively under control rather than waiting until after a crisis has erupted. At this point it's been long enough since RobinHood70's return to the site to be sure that he's re-acquainted himself with everything that's been going on at UESP and, perhaps more importantly, that the current community has had a chance to get to know him.

As for RobinHood70's qualifications.... He's been on the site longer than almost any other active editor (even a few hours longer than me!), and has been a patroller for four years (since April 2008). He is very knowledgeable about wiki mechanics — including a thorough understanding of templates, plus having enough wiki know-how to run one of the very few UESP [[User:HotnBOThered|bots]]. He's clearly familiar with the site's policies; his participation in countless current discussions demonstrates his interest in maintaining and improving those policies. He has had Blocker rights since months after the group was first created (August 2010), and has always shown good judgement in using those rights. In fact, he has consistently been one of the most accessible editors with blocking rights, so making him an administrator should provide the community with a reliably-available admin in case of any urgent vandalism or other requests. He's been very active helping other editors and answering questions — to the point where I wouldn't be surprised if many new editors on the site think that he already is an administrator.

In short, he's an obvious candidate.

===Questions===
'''Q1''': ''Why were you previously not interested in being an administrator, and why have you now changed your mind?''
:There were several reasons I was opposed to becoming an administrator, but the two most prominent ones were that I don't like being the final arbiter in most situations—I prefer discussion and consensus, probably to the point of driving people nuts—and, as Elliot has already mentioned, I had concerns about my ability to do the job effectively given the frequent cognitive difficulties caused by the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.

:The reason I've changed my mind in terms of being the one to make the final decision has been twofold. First, with the current admin team being so large, ''any'' decision—even something as trivial as a page deletion—is really a collaborative effort, so nobody makes the final decision on anything. Second, I've been one of only two admins on [http://wiki.white-wolf.com/worldofdarkness/index.php another small wiki] for almost a year now, and realized that...it's really not that scary to be the one who has final say on something. :)

:As far as the CFS goes, it's something I've been dealing with since shortly before I started editing at UESP. Yes, I make some really dumb mistakes at times or misunderstand what I'm reading, but so do we all...I just do it a little more often than others. In the end, though, I haven't done anything that would earn me a spot on the [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Village stocks|Village Stocks]] page (if we had one), and if I don't catch my mistakes, I know that there's a whole wiki full of editors who will point out what I've done wrong so that the appropriate action can be taken.

'''Q2''': ''What do you hope to accomplish as an administrator? What have you accomplished already? Have you made any notable mistakes, and if so, what did you learn from them?''
:Being the template editor that I am, one of the things I'd like to do in the near future is to review our various template pages for their protection level. Some years ago, we had an attack on our most commonly used templates and it wreaked havoc on the wiki. Subsequent to that, most widely used templates were semi-protected, and a couple even have full protection, but I'd like to review that list and make sure that we haven't missed anything important.

:In addition to that, I've noticed a couple of times that our [[:Category:Marked for Deletion|pages marked for deletion]] have been a bit backlogged. It's been noticeably better recently thanks to the efforts of {{Pl|Special:Log|one admin in particular|3=limit=500&type=delete}} (who has done 344 out of the last 500 deletions), but it's definitely something I intend to help out with.

:In terms of accomplishments, I tend to think my biggest accomplishment is in Template space, where, over the course of about half a year, I systematically went through all of our templates and did a lot of simplifying, adding new features, harmonizing, etc. Templates remain my biggest single interest in terms of wiki work, though I'll admit, the bot is starting to become better developed as well, and therefore more interesting.

:As for notable mistakes, the most notable one was actually on the wiki I mentioned above instead of this one. (And as I've said before, while it may not be a wiki guideline, I personally believe that an admin's behaviour on other wikis should reflect on those where they hold a position of responsibility.) I recently accidentally blocked a legitimate user because I wasn't paying close enough attention to their edit. When another user pointed it out, I promptly unblocked the user and apologized, though the unblocked user has not, as yet, returned. That was a definite reminder to me that even when I'm convinced something is yet another spambot edit, that I need to stop and be certain before doing anything drastic.

:Of course, I've also made mistakes on this wiki, such as spectacularly screwing up the various Ingredients pages due to a template error the other day, but I see that kind of error as somewhat less problematic. People generally know when something's an accident that'll be fixed shortly...accidental blocks don't tend to be dismissed quite so easily. (And thanks again to Elliot for spotting the template problem before I did...one tiny little space, or lack thereof, is all it takes sometimes!)

'''Q3''': ''What do you see as the UESP's main challenges in the near future? Are there any changes that you think need to be implemented?''
:My answer to this isn't anything original, though all of the recent admin nominees have had slightly different takes on it. I feel that our biggest challenge is getting accurate information onto the Skyrim pages. I think several recent discussions have started to shape how that will come about, and other than encouraging those types of discussions to continue, I don't see any major changes that need to be implemented. (Well...except for needing new templates of course. I always think we need new templates. <grin>)

'''Q4''': ''What other wiki-related activities do you perform that people might not know about?''
:Honestly, others have largely stolen my intended answers to this question! Probably the one thing left that some people might not be aware of is that I like to take up the "rear guard" when it comes to patrolling—doing my best to ensure that as few things as possible hit the four-week patrolling limit without being patrolled—and I intend to continue that as an admin.

'''Q5''': ''What action will you take if you see another administrator perform an action that you completely disagree with? When you strongly oppose something, how do you plan to express it?''
:It really depends on the nature of the action. If it's clearly just an accident and it needs immediate correction (e.g., deleting the Main Page), I would undo it without further comment unless I can come up with something as hilarious as {{Pl|UESPWiki:Mentor Program|diff=prev&oldid=932706|this}}. But that's obviously not the main focus of the question.

:In the event of a dispute, I've always felt that it's preferable for an admin team to be as professional as possible, and I think part of that is knowing when to try to resolve the dispute behind the scenes and when to solicit community feedback. If the disagreement affected only a small portion of the wiki or one or two users, I would therefore probably try to talk to them via e-mail or IRC rather than making it a public issue. If, on the other hand, the issue affects a very large portion of the wiki or its user-base, or if private discussions don't result in a compromise or understanding, I believe that public discussion is the way to go. In the end, this wiki isn't about what any one user thinks or feels is the right thing to do, it's about what works best for all of us as a whole.

:As for how I express my opposition to something, again, I think it comes back to being professional. That means trying to be courteous and non-judgmental as much as possible, taking a breath and choosing my words carefully, even when I'm convinced the other person is wrong. While I won't hold it up as a model of ideal behaviour, I think the recent discussions about information on quest vs. place pages is a good example of ''why'' I feel this is the way to discuss opposing views. A lot of people use the wiki in ways that I don't, and had never even considered prior to that discussion. By talking it out rather than digging in my heels (much), I realized that there were issues I wasn't thinking of that needed to be addressed in order to ensure that we were serving as much of the community as possible.

===Votes===
Cast votes with '''Support''', '''Oppose''', or '''Neutral'''. '''Comment'''s are also welcome.
*'''Support''': As nominator. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 05:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''': He hasn't yet answered the questions, but I don't need to hear his answers. RH70 is a fabulous editor. He is very friendly, he knows and edits every namespace on the site flawlessly, and is never impatient with any stupid, serious or other questions that I, or anyone else, have for him. I would argue that out of every editor, regular, patroller, admin, or otherwise, RH70 is the most deserving of the position. [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 05:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''': I don't know whether I am allowed to vote or not, but either way, RobinHood70 certainly has helped me with countless things across the period of time that I have been a member on the UESPWiki and he is more than deserving of this position. Plus he does have professional integrity and the ingenuity along with the edits, etc, to more than qualify for this position. I would highly be disappointed if somehow he didn't manage to obtain the position of Administrator, but I doubt that would ever occur because nearly every member on this wiki knows how muhc work and dedication he has put into this site :) [[User:Helenaannevalentine|Helenaannevalentine]] 05:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
:*'''Comment''': I am 99% certain that every editor can cast a vote in an RfA. [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 05:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
::*'''Comment''': Well in that case, I'll change my comment to a vote right now, but if I cannot, then it's not such a biggie as I've gotten my message across as to how RobinHood70 deserves this. Thanks for confirming Eric! [[User:Helenaannevalentine|Helenaannevalentine]] 05:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
:::You ''most certainly'' can vote. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 06:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''': The first thought that came to my mind when I saw this was ''finally''. I know that Rob's CFS has been a major factor in his activity on the site, so I am glad to see that he has decided to change his mind or has deemed himself healthy enough for it. When it comes to templates, there are really only two people that ''I'' can turn to for questions regarding templates: one is [[User:Nephele|Nephele]], and the other is [[User:RobinHood70|RobinHood70]]. Being one of the most knowledgeable users on the site in regards to templates and especially metatemplate is something that should not be ignored. Now, not only does he run a bot–which has helped me wade through template data–he edits more than most users. For awhile now, I have considered it a detriment to the site by ''not'' having Rob as an administrator. I could go on, but I don't see there being any problems with this nomination. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 06:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''': Wait - you're not an admin already? The fact that I didn't know that is probably a good sign. --[[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] [[User_talk:TheRealLurlock|Talk]] 11:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''': Well, it's about time! RH, everybody knows you're incredibly knowledgeable and helpful, and on top of that you're also one of the nicest, most patient, most reasonable and level-headed people I know. This nomination is a long, long time coming, and I was so happy to wake up this morning and see that I'll finally be able to vote "support" for your RfA :). [[User:Eshe|eshe]][[User talk:Eshe|talk]] 13:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
*<strike>'''Support''': Wait, you mean he isn't an admin already? WHY NOT? [[User:ThuumofReason|ThuumofReason]] 14:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)</strike>
**Change vote to '''Oppose''': Several good points have been brought up, and while I'm not entirely aware of the circumstances discussed above, after seeing evidence of the opinion flip-flopping from the links above, I agree that it's probably not a good idea to give RH the power to ban people, among other things. He's a good editor, but so was rpeh, and I don't believe rpeh should have been de-admined for off-site actions in the first place.[[User:ThuumofReason|ThuumofReason]] 17:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''': Not much I can say that hasn't been said, either by voters or RH70 himself. He's an excellent contributor and completely deserves this position. '''[[User:Velyanthe|Vely]]'''[[User talk:Velyanthe|►Talk]][[Special:EmailUser/Velyanthe|►Email]] 17:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
*<s>'''Support''': RobinHood has my complete support, per all of the above; his suitability for administratorship can't be disputed. --[[User:Legoless|Legoless]] 18:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)</s> Removing my vote for the time being. I'd prefer to stay neutral until I know more. --[[User:Legoless|Legoless]] 18:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''': I could write an incredibly lengthy wall of text listing all my reasons, but I won't. Let's just say ''it's about time!'' --[[User:Alphabetface|ABCface]][[User_talk:Alphabetface|◥]] 20:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''': An unofficial admin for a long time, it's time that he finally claimed his rightful title! • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 21:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''': This seems to be an RfA for RobinHood, and I'll sign off on that. But my vote is contingent upon me being entirely unaware of anything written above, as I'm too busy. If I notice later that Robin has written something I intensely disagree with here, such as a call for a religious war or any use of the word "indubitably", then I will change my vote. [[User:Minor Edits|Minor Edits]][[User_talk:Minor Edits|Threats]]•[[Special:Contributions/Minor Edits|Evidence]] 02:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''': I've been in detox for my recent [[Lore:Skooma|skooma]][http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Mentor_Program&diff=prev&oldid=932706] binge, so my apologies for coming to the party late. I want to put my ''full'' support behind this nomination. RobinHood has always been one of the most helpful, nicest, mildest editors on the sight, and I can only see promotion as helping the wiki. When I was a young lad back in 2011, I was legitimately surprised to find that RH wasn't an admin. Even though we have plenty right now, Robin has been around forever and I can't see that changing in the near future. You're awesome, Robin. Keep up the good work — as a patroller, and as an admin!! —[[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] [[User talk:SkoomaManiac|Talk]] ♫ [[:Special:Contributions/SkoomaManiac|Contribs]] 19:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''': When Nephele posted this nomination two days ago, I literally revisited all the different emotions I’ve been through since joining the UESP three years ago, and it resulted in an immediate wikibreak on my part - I needed to get my head on straight so I could approach this nomination in a decent manner. The day was ruined anyway, so I decided to write a lengthy, nasty oppose-vote from hell, just to get my concerns scribbled down somehow. It took me less than 5 minutes to find 13 reasons to oppose the nomination, but I realized that all my reasons looked like personal attacks, and that wasn’t exactly constructive, nor was it fair. I then decided to just abandon the wiki, leave it behind, and live happily ever after – but then I realized that it would mean three years of hard wiki-work would go down the drain. The e-mails from concerned users kept popping in, and I finally realized that I had to place a vote, even if I didn’t really want to – but as administrator, it is the only responsible thing to do so here goes.

: For the past few months, I’ve changed my behavior somewhat – I know an awful lot of you is under the impression that I’m going nuts, suffer from personal issues or whatever, but it all comes down to frustration with what this site has become since the release of Skyrim back in November. Over and over, I have shouted the word “idiocy” as loud as I could, but to no avail, and have seen my opinions being ignored 99% of the time. One way or the other, these idiocy shouts can be traced back to the nominee, so I’ll try and figure out how a person can mean so well – and do so bad. It’s going to be a long post, because it’s incredibly complex to explain – but if you care about this wiki, please read.

: Of course, we can’t skip the Rpeh/KrustyIDaveh incident, so let’s just start there and be done with it. After nearly a full years wiki-break, RH70 rejoined the wiki on December 22nd to help out with the huge amount of Skyrim edits, which was fine. We had an incredible community back then, and an awful lot of fun, mostly due to how ridiculous and chaotic everything was. The fun lasted 40 days, then Snowmane posted his infamous [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive_23#rpeh.27s_attacks_on_TESWiki.2C_request_for_resignation_of_admin_privilages.|de-admin request]] for me and rpeh, a rushed and unneeded action that both me and rpeh tried to stop. Unfortunately, somebody smelled blood; notice RH70’s uncertain oppose to the de-admin request then jump to [[User_talk:Daveh#Community_Discussion_About_rpeh|his post on Daveh’s talk page]], where he shows his true colors. He didn’t seem satisfied with the way the votes were going, so he brought in Daveh who had no choice but to de-admin both me and rpeh in an attempt to shut people up. Can’t blame him for that. The rest is history, Daveh decided to de-admin rpeh permanently, while I managed to get through the scandal with the tools intact. What is really important to note is that I started it, by calling the Wikia people morons in an edit summary, reverted Snowmane’s first attempt at drama, and even called Snowmane a moron when I had to go through the usual [[User_talk:Krusty/Arc_2012a#Inappropriate_Edit_Summary|concerns]] on my talk page – rpeh simply followed up on an action initially performed by me – but he was butchered, and I was spared. Wonder why? Look no further – or please look closely: who is missing from [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive_23#Restoring_krusty.27s_adminship|this post about my admin-ship]], despite having started it all – take a wild guess. He was busy agreeing with Daveh in the aftermath just above – where RH70 more or less explains all of this a whole lot better than I can. That is true bloodthirst wrapped in polite words, but it is right there on the page, so make your own decision. Let me finish off this section with a RH70 quote that leads to the next section: “Clearly, there are people in this discussion who would see rpeh back as an Administrator. But just as clearly, there are a good number of people who wouldn't.” Let’s take a quick look on these people, shall we? Ironically, they can all be found complaining on my talk page, in the very same [[User_talk:Krusty/Arc_2012a#Inappropriate_Edit_Summary|concerned thread]] I linked to above. What’s even more ironic is that the exact same people were the first ones to support this nomination. Just scroll up and see for yourself.

: Let’s look at this group of people. Where did they come from? Answer is simple – with the exception of helenaannevalentine, they are all the first ones to respond when they believe power is being misused, just like RobinHood70: they all spend an awful lot of time making ‘maintenance edits’ and none of them could make a content edit to save their life. When they see injustice, however, they will jump out of their PC-friendly IRC-chatroom and attack right away. Please click each and every link in the section above, then look at their contributions to the site. A clique like that is to be expected on any wiki, but RobinHood70 encourages them (maybe even leads them?) in the everlasting wiki battle between people with authority and people with no understanding of the word whatsoever. These people will often throw guidelines and policies all over a heated debate, just to prove their point – but can more often be seen breaking the same policies by ignoring consensus (or simply ignoring the fact that the community may have something to say) and will never even stop to think twice about the possible consequences of their actions; in short, cliques like that should never be encouraged, they should be controlled. That’s what administrators are for, but when rpeh understandably left the wiki, the clique and RH70 suddenly found themselves ahead of everybody else – and the downfall of UESP was unavoidable.

: What did RH70 do next? Well, he took it upon himself to make sure that each and every possible unpatrolled edit on the wiki would be patrolled. Once again, he never even thought about the consequences and started recruiting good editors whenever they popped up, and without knowing them at all. This lead to a series of more or less uninspired patroller nominations, including some kind of inappropriate “The UESP needs YOU”-job add, which I (thankfully) can’t find anymore. RobinHood70 knows better than anybody that a patroller nomination will scare 50% of all users away, but he went ahead anyway – strangely obsessed with unpatrolled edits, and unaware of the rising concerns from editors all over the wiki, he started using up good editors, in the process causing them to disappear. Where is Alfwyn? Where is Thuraya Salaris? Where is everybody? Answer is simple and quite natural – they jumped the sinking ship while they could. Who can blame them? Alfwyn seriously tried to discuss how to handle things, and went a long way to prove his point - and he was probably one of the best editors I’ve seen on the site. What did he get? He got yelled at, he was belittled, and nobody cared when he started uploading Skyrim dungeon maps in an attempt to organize things. When he disappeared without a trace, RH70 finally woke up and asked where he was gone – but damage done, Alfwyn gone. That’s very poor considering how much of an interest he took in the, at the time, incredibly unimportant amount of unpatrolled edits. This section was aimed at the many patrollers out there – be very aware that it is thankless to make an effort on the Wiki. That being said, the situation reflects my point - before Skyrim, we handed out cookies to encourage users to keep up the good work – now, we’re reduced to judging people’s efforts from stat tables and whether or not they agree with the clique and RH70.

: Still obsessed with unpatrolled edits, RobinHood70 then decided to send an invitation to all inactive administrators, so they could ‘re-join’ now that everything was great on the Wiki. Problem is, the Wiki was shit. When Nephele decided to prove a point by digging up a dinosaur of a guideline and belittle my efforts on the [[Skyrim:Forbidden Legend|Forbidden Legend]] page, I was getting tired. So very tired. Please read through [[UESPWiki:Community_Portal#Skyrim_Quest.2FPlace_Organization|this discussion]]. Please note that RH70 couldn’t be bothered to participate until he realized Neph was getting into trouble. Just read it. RH70 reveals he knows nothing about the specific quest, nor can he be bothered with doing research on the matter. Witness the amount of wasted words and how I finally get angry and ask him to at least play through the quest ONCE to validate the ton of opinions. Also, take note that RH70 admits that he hasn’t even played the game at all, which is suspicious considering the amount of edits he’s patrolled, and his strong opinions on the quest page. Finally, witness how the unneeded discussion ends with me leaving quest pages behind, to little effect, then witness how the entire thing gets ridiculous and the absence of RH70 when Neph tries to [[UESPWiki:Community_Portal#Wrapping_Up|sum things up]]. I rest my case – I think you get my point; discussion for the sake of discussion and we ended up with the exact same policy as before. I doubt RH70 even read Neph’s walkthrough though, despite all his nodding and agreeing when it was finally posted and turned out to be even longer than the Forbidden Legend page, but that’s beside the point. Time was wasted and most of the newly invited ex-administrators went back to sleep. Can’t blame them for that.

: At this point, idiocy popped up everywhere. The whole [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard#Request_for_a_New_User_Group|auto-patrolled user discussion]] was launched, and while it was well-intended, it was nothing but a side effect of the RH70 ‘unpatrolled edits’ craze. Again, nobody even thought about the consequences. If you’re interested, read my post, then read RobinHood’s response underneath. It all ended up with three really good editors having to go through a voting session they never really accepted or deserved (I’d compare it to making a CP post called “What do you think about [User]?”) with the usual controversy and even more bull to follow. Can’t be bothered with a link, but it basically ended up with anger from Aliana and Manic – I just hope that PLRDLF missed it completely.

: I could keep going, but it is time to stop. RH70, I seriously believe that you meant no harm with any of this and did what you thought was the right thing to do. I think you’re an excellent editor and patroller and you have done a ton of good stuff for the site – but you as an administrator is a really really bad idea. Maintaining this site (and the quality of the content) takes an awful lot of knowledge, not only about Elder Scrolls and wiki markup, but about how to deal with people, how to think twice when suggesting or discussing something, and always take into consideration how your opinions may affect the wiki and all the editors, not only at the current time, but also two years into the future. Sorry about using this nomination to sum up what I think went wrong with the wiki, but you played a huge part in the demise and it should be taken into consideration – I love this wiki to death, warts and all, and I’ll openly admit that I have made my share of mistakes in the past few months, due to my frustration over the problems explained above. I really want to see the wiki flourish again, but I don’t see that happen with you as administrator. Sorry. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 17:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

:*'''Comment''': There's obviously a lot to respond to here, but I'll try to keep this as short as possible (which I know I'm not good at).

::First off, I believe guidelines and rules are there for a reason, and that for too long, there has been an unwritten policy of "we ignore them when Admins are involved". That's not fair to anyone, and in the end, even if sometimes the rules get in the way or need to be changed, not enforcing them only with certain people only serves to create division in the community. I'm a rules-oriented person and as an Admin, if I become one, I would try to be a model of following our policies and guidelines. I believe that's appropriate for every Administrator. That informed my various replies that Krusty paints as being "bloodlust". It was nothing of the kind - I simply wanted the rules to be followed by ''everyone''.

::In that vein, my post to Daveh's wall did indeed show my true colours: I saw gross violations of Wikipedia's guideline on [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins|involved administrators]] and I asked the person whose job it is to deal with these issues to make a ruling on the concern. After the de-adminship, in point of fact, I wrote to Daveh directly expressing that I thought Krusty should be re-adminned; Daveh can confirm that if it's really necessary. It went privately because I was really tired when I wrote to him and didn't trust that I was writing well enough for public consumption; I had intended to post publicly the next day, but by the time I started formulating a reply to add to the thread, Krusty had already been re-adminned, so it was a moot point. In the end, the simple fact is that we all make mistakes or poor judgement at times, and a single disagreement about the best way to handle something is usually not cause for de-adminning.

::Contrary to Krusty's assertion, [[Wikipedia:WP:TINC|there is no <s>cabal</s> clique]]. While there are occasional off-wiki communications between users, I can tell you that Krusty and I have exchanged more e-mails and chatted more in IRC since my return than Nephele and I have in our entire UESP existence. As for Elliot, helena, and Eric Snowmane, we're all late-night editors (our time) by and large, as Krusty himself knows since Elliot, ES, and I are often all on the IRC with him when he wakes up. (I don't recall ever seeing helena there, but I do often see her editing while I'm patrolling.) By the same token, the nomination was posted fairly late at night, so it's only natural that those three were the first to respond.

::Amusingly, however, while not in a clique, I do consider myself to have a niche, just like almost every editor does. I'm a WikiGnome. I will probably always be a WikiGnome. That's exacerbated by the CFS, which makes it hard to concentrate for long periods, but even if they found a cure tomorrow, I suspect that would still be my style. I do my best to get the little stuff out of the way, like patrolling, like re-writing templates that often need it, like moving pages or proposing them for deletion, etc.—I do all that because I enjoy doing the little things, and it allows those who enjoy working on bigger projects to do so without having to worry about the little things that take up so much time. As an Administrator, should I gain those rights, that won't change. I will still most likely take care of things like page deletions and page protection rather than focussing on things like content creation, like Krusty does, or adding masses of technical information via a bot like Nephele does.

::As far as my obsession with getting new Patrollers active, that goes to the difference in approach that Krusty and I have towards the wiki. I don't believe either of us is wrong, and in fact I feel both styles are very necessary to have a functioning wiki. Krusty, at least in my observation, focuses on creating content. That's excellent because obviously we ''need'' content in order to be valuable as a wiki. I focus on ensuring that the content others are adding is correct, well-formatted, and fits into the theme of the page, hence my attempts to ensure that virtually every last edit gets patrolled. I believe that both of us, in our own way, are raising the quality of the wiki overall, and that encouraging editors to focus only on one way of doing things would be detrimental. That's what I was trying to express in the auto-patrolled users discussion. I believe that patrolling everything helps us avoid having incorrect or badly formatted information on our wiki. To this day, I still find information in the tail end of the Patrol Log that is clearly incorrect...and has been sitting there for four weeks with nobody questioning the change. That's why I patrol as much as I do, and why I often don't have as much time as I'd like to play the game itself.

::On a side note, a few informational issues: I've had the game and been playing it since Christmas. I believe my statements in regards to play time where that I hadn't had time ''recently'' to play it because of the patrolling backlog. When I did develop the time, I played through the relevant quests, though nothing in my concerns changed as a result. I'm also confused as to why Krusty thinks Alfwyn got yelled at or belittled. I always thought our working relationship was quite good, and in fact thanked Alfwyn several times for coming up with better ways to deal with some things than I had.

::Finally, in the above discussion, Krusty variously assigns motives to practically everything I've done in recent times. Rather than prolong the drama, let me just say that his perceived motives and my real ones are very very different. I try at all times to be open and honest about what I'm doing, but if at any time anyone has concerns about anything I've said or done, I encourage them to ask, either on-wiki or off. Krusty and I have done this many times over the last couple of months in light of his obvious discontent with my style, and I thought he understood that my motives were nothing like what he believes them to be. Obviously, I wasn't communicating as clearly as I thought I was, or he simply wasn't believing me. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 21:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''': Something strikes me wrong, someone who has claimed for so long to not wanting to be an admin being offered it and just accepting. I don't think the line of 'I was surprised to find he wasn't an Admin' really adds much either.
**During [[UESPWiki:Community_Portal#Skyrim_Quest.2FPlace_Organization|this discussion]] in which he appears to agree with Nephele about the''content'' of quest pages, Krusty makes a point about how wording can make a different to the ''content'' of the Quest Pages in questions, but RH70 ends talking about ''quality'' somehow... topic change? In his next comment, RH states to know nothing of, and not participate in, the FA procedure (possibly to ignore Krustys point about them) . But one comment down the line he then decides to bring FAs back up to prove his own point, to which he claimed he was not a participant. I'm not sure having your opinion on something jump from one side of the fence to the other is a valued attribute for prospective administrators.
**During [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive_23#rpeh.27s_attacks_on_TESWiki.2C_request_for_resignation_of_admin_privilages.|this discussion]], I also read the RH seems to hold personal grudges (which would be fine if he didn't hold the personal grudge and then act upon it) by conveniently looking up (i'm sure anyone interested could of done so) rpehs history elsewhere.
**As well as this, I don't feel the need for another Administrator at the moment. I feel like this RfA has made things very uncomfortable around the wiki this past few days, I could see this RfA being successful driving the community into two more obvious halves than previously when rpeh got summarily de-adminned. The amount of people that have disappeared since this RfA has shot up has got to be more than average, I think this can be no coincidence and do not wish to see this unique community split more for the sake of one more Admin at a time when we have plenty around. I cannot blame this RfA soley I think its been coming on for a while, but I think this was the final nail in the coffin for a few editors.
*I can’t think of much else to say, but I just don’t like the mood and community around here at the moment. And I honestly believe its driven a few of my fellow editors away. --[[User:Kiz|kiz]] {{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|Kiz| '''[[Special:EmailUser/Kiz|email]]''' | '''[[User_Talk:Kiz|talk]]''''''[[Special:EmailUser/Kiz|email]]'''}} 17:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
:*'''Comment''': Can you clarify what I said in terms of "quality"? The only thing I see that's similar is where I talk about raising or lowering standards, which was a direct response to Krusty's comments about "we will lower our standards" and things looking "bad and messy". I won't say it was my finest moment in any event, but I think there's been a lot of frustration between various people on the wiki, of ''all'' roles, which Krusty himself says above. Ideally, I'd like to see us find a way through that that we can all be happy with. As far as personal grudges go, I realize it may have appeared that way, but it really wasn't. As I said above, the only "grudge" I have is when people are blatantly violating our policies and guidelines and Administrators don't say or do anything about it—that's what you were seeing expressed there.Going back to your first comment about why I'm running, I tried to explain that in question one. While I've never coveted an Admin position, and I explained the main reasons I haven't wanted it in the past, I have occasionally made offers to be essentially the WikiGnome of an Admin I described above, one who takes care of the menial tasks to allow others to take on whatever they enjoy doing. I saw that various things like our deletion categories were getting backlogged, so I made the offer to Nephele a couple of weeks ago that if help was wanted, I felt both willing and ready. I gather she was busy, so I didn't even get a reply to my e-mail until the day of the nomination, but I wasn't in any particular hurry. Also, another reason I neglected to mention originally, but is a significant contributing factor, is the simple fact that we now pretty much have our patrolling under control, so I have more time for things like bot work and potentially administrative duties. With Eshe's departure, though, that may no longer be the case...she was a significant patroller. We'll see. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 22:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
::*'''Comment''': It was indeed where you spoke about standards, but what first pointed out the is this comment from Ratwar: " We're not talking to each other. We're talking past each other. Robin Hood". Which shows its not only me thinking that you side-tracked off topic a bit. I'd also like to comment on your 'There is no clique(/cabal)' link, I think there is. And has been for atleast a few months, and I think it traces back too... [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive_23#rpeh.27s_attacks_on_TESWiki.2C_request_for_resignation_of_admin_privilages|This discussion]], (it was also noticeable when [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:IRC&diff=prev&oldid=877350 ChatSpike died] because only one half bothered joining the Xertion channel). One would like to think there is no clique, but I can see that there is. I think a few users (from both sides) will be able to see what I mean. Looking at the opinions on those two links for different people will also show there are about 3 grounds: One Side, the Other Side and 'The Group in the Middle'. I'm not saying its just you, but I think that there are many of use (knowingly or not) that are a part of one side or the other. And, I have to say - it also seems to be split between edit *type* (maintenance/content basically), interpret that as you will but I think its unhealthy, and I think this rfa would split the community more. --[[User:Kiz|kiz]] {{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|Kiz| '''[[Special:EmailUser/Kiz|email]]''' | '''[[User_Talk:Kiz|talk]]''''''[[Special:EmailUser/Kiz|email]]'''}} 19:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
:::*'''Comment''': I think it's a bit late to worry about splitting the community, although I am still surprised by how quickly we divided ourselves. I log on one morning, see Robin Hood's RfA, and think "Well it's about time!" and cast my vote. I log on the next morning and see that the entire community has separated on the issue. Really? Is this such a critical issue that we need to fight amongst ourselves, only harming the wiki in the process? If we keep burning these bridges, we'll only destroy the wiki in the process.As for his edits, I don't see why focusing on maintenance edits is such a bad thing. I personally float around and do whatever is needed, so I tend to bump into Robin Hood a lot, and every now and then I help him. All I can say is, he does his job well and he helps satisfy a niche group of tasks that in all honesty only Elliot shares. Maintenance edits might seem like cheating (for lack of a better word), but they are very important to keeping this wiki running smoothly. • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 22:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

::*'''Comment''': I recall thinking that Ratwar had misunderstood what I was trying to say, and he obviously thought the same, so honestly, I'm inclined to put that issue down to misunderstandings on both sides and leave it at that. The bigger issue, as you've said, is that there are obviously groups of people who think in different ways. (I don't think "cliques" applies, but let's not get hung up on terminology.) My question to you, or to anyone else who has any ideas on it, is: how do we resolve our differences? In the larger sense, we need to be talking to ''each other'' more, rather than complaining about so-and-so to those we know are likely to agree with us. As to my specific RfA, if I withdraw, it will rightfully be seen as being bullied into withdrawal by those who've opposed it; if I let it run, it will rightfully be seen as divisive or exclusionary of those who opposed it. What's the solution? – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 22:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''': There's absolutely nothing to justify this. Krusty has already covered the main points, Kiz has added some detail, but there's another important point. There has always been a tradition that admins should have some Major Work behind them before being nominated. While some have had to be prompted (one of the "Support" voters for instance), there's simply nothing on RH70's CV that qualifies. His main input has been to spend hours splitting hairs and pushing his own idiosyncratic POV on policy debates while doing nothing but fixing typos, over-complicating templates, and sucking up to people he thinks will benefit his wiki career. This entire nomination is nothing but a façade to add another voice to one "side" when votes are called. It has no merit whatsoever. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 18:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
:*'''Comment''': One would argue that tons of maintenance, minor work, and fostering of a friendly atmosphere (from my POV), all of which are little things, culminate into Major Work. I don't see what the issue is with forming policies and focusing on keeping the wiki a well-oiled machine. "Sucking up" sounds like more of a personal attack than anything else; I could just as easily argue that right now you're being a belligerent nuisance who only came back to get some sort of petty revenge, just for the sake of harming the wiki and satisfying a grudge. • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 22:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

*'''General Comment''': I realized afterwards that I forgot to address a few points in all of the above. I think the main ones were covered, but if anyone would like me to address something I missed, please feel free to ask again. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 00:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
:*'''Comment''': IMO someone who inspires such negative emotions from others users should not be approved. But RobinHood70 has the right to wait for Daveh to make the final call, leaving the nomination open is not ignoring those who opposed it. There does appear to be a divide between users along the lines of maintanence/content edits which needs sorting in a separate article. I really can't make up my mind about whether RobinHood should be an admin. which is why I am so late to the party. [[User:The Silencer|The Silencer has spoken]][[User talk:The Silencer|Talk]] 22:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''': per krusty and rpeh I agree that nothing good can come of this. something is rotten in the state of Winterhold. [[User:Haysie|Haysie]] 21:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

:* '''Comment''': This user created an account in July 2011 and never used it afterwards except to [[Special:Contributions/Haysie|create their user page]]. It seems rather odd that their only contribution is to participate in a vote. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 22:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
::I agree with you on that one. That last vote is dubious at best. [[User:ThuumofReason|ThuumofReason]] 22:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
:::Do [[UESP:Assume Good Faith|these]] [[UESP:You Are Valuable|two]] apply here at all? I mean, Daveh might not be keen on strongly considering a vote from someone with nearly no contributions, but it's possible that Haysie's been watching the wiki or stumbled across this page and decided to look into the situation. '''[[User:Velyanthe|Vely]]'''[[User talk:Velyanthe|►Talk]][[Special:EmailUser/Velyanthe|►Email]] 23:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
::::See "[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Expressing_opinions|Expressing opinions]]" in Wikipedia's RfA guidelines. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 00:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::This is exactly the sort of thing that disqualifies RobinHood from being an admin. He's quite happy to accept "Support" votes from people with few contributions, but heaven forfend anyone should oppose him. Disgraceful. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 05:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::*'''comment''': He did '''not''' complain about getting oppose votes, he merely commented that a random user with only 2 userpage edits was voting. There is nothing wrong about that, nor does that disqualify him from being an administrator. [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 05:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::{{ec}} Rpeh, it's highly convenient that someone who claims to know you makes their third edit by opposing an RfA which you happened to oppose. Your continued use of such unacceptable and disgusting tactics is what disqualif'''ied''' you from being an administrator. ''That'' is disgraceful. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 05:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::::There's nothing that disqualifies Haysie from voting. Nothing. What disqualifies RobinHood is his total misuse of a Wikipedia policy - as I said in my !vote, he has a habit of pushing an "idiosyncratic POV". In this case, he ignores the bits of the policy to which he links that say "the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate" and "Before commenting or responding to comments in an RfA, especially 'oppose' comments ... consider whether ... RfA is an appropriate forum for what you have to say". In other words, he's misusing policy yet again to push his POV. Total disgrace. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 16:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

== Easter Eggs page protection? ==

I just noticed that several unapproved edits were recently made to the Skyrim Easter Eggs page...by IP users. Uh...isn't the page supposed to be semi-protected? How can an unregistered user edit it? [[User:ThuumofReason|ThuumofReason]] 12:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

:It's edit protection expired a week ago. I'm not entirely sure it should be re-protected either, as it hasn't seen any major spike of editing since the protection expired. If it becomes a target of a large number of incorrect edits, I'll re-protect it. --[[User:Alpha Kenny Buddy|AKB]] [[User_talk:Alpha_Kenny_Buddy|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Cont]] [[Special:Emailuser/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Mail]] 17:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
::Sounds good. Like you said, activity on the talk page has slowed to a trickle, so maybe we're finally done with that nightmare, eh? [[User:ThuumofReason|ThuumofReason]] 17:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard

2012-04-20T05:15:16Z

Rpeh: /* Votes */ reply

[[Category:Message Boards|{{PAGENAME}}]] __NEWSECTIONLINK__
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. For certain specific requests, see instead:
* [[UESPWiki:Purge Requests|Purge Requests]]
* [[UESPWiki:New Page Requests|New Page Requests]]
{{Archive Table|title=Major Discussions
|UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Vandalism|Vandalism|Mostly spam, actually.
|!|History|
|History#Page Archives|Page Archives|
|History#Past Administrative Requests|Past Administrative Requests|
}}

== SEVERE caching issues on ths mobile site ==

Title says it all. On a whim, I checked the CP on my iPhone, and it's '''way''' out of date. I'm talking December out of date. Hard refreshing did not fix it, so it's definitely server-side. When I log in, it takes me away from (and keeps me off of) the mobile site, so I can't purge it. Can someone please take a look at this? • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 01:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

== Discontinuing creation limits ==

I belatedly realized that page creation limits [[UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard/Archives/More Skyrim-Related Policy Changes|originally proposed]] to be discontinued on February 29th were still in place. I've now gone ahead and lifted the limits. I'd expect that we'll probably start to get the usual assortment of unnecessarily-created pages that need to be proposed for deletion. If the problems seem unusually numerous, we can of course discuss whether other measures are needed. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 00:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
: Why not make it another 6-month deal? Page creation is one of the few things we have under control - and we're alive because of that. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 04:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
::I'd rather see what happens over the next week or so first. Having to put some pages up for deletion is no more work than having to respond to new page requests, and it has the additional bonus that more editors can help out with tasks such as creating redirects. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 04:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
:::I just asked this on RH's page, but since he didn't know of anywhere on the site, maybe one of you might. Is there somewhere on the site which shows a list of the most recently created articles? It's not really important, I'm mostly just curious about it. [[User:Alphabetface|ABCface]][[User_talk:Alphabetface|◥]] 19:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
::::Have you tried [[Special:Newpages]]? Is that what you're looking for? [[User:Eshe|eshe]][[User talk:Eshe|talk]] 19:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)`
:::::Yes, thank you! And thanks to ES, too :) [[User:Alphabetface|ABCface]][[User_talk:Alphabetface|◥]] 19:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::D'oh! Thanks, Eshe. I thought there should be one somewhere, but I went looking for it under Logs and didn't think to check Special Pages like I should have. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 19:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I just went ahead and re-instituted the page creation limits in the main namespace. The only pages created in the main namespace since March 17th have been spam pages that needed to be speedy-deleted. Furthermore, I don't think we want to allow even most typical editors to create main namespace pages, since such pages have historically always been pages that actually belonged in a game namespace but were created by an editor who wasn't familiar with our namespace system. So I think it's best overall if we limit main namespace page creation to admins/patrollers/etc. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 01:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

== Request for a New User Group ==

During the patroller nomination for [[UESPWiki:Patrollers/Nominations/Completed#Helenaannevalentine|Helenaannevalentine]] I noticed that while she's a fine editor, one that doesn't need to have her edits checked by a patroller, she doesn't actually patrol much as was denied due to this. Due to the backlog with unpatrolled edits, several editors have been put forward for patroller rights on the grounds that we wouldn't have to patrol their edits if they were made a patroller. I think it would be easier to simply create a new user group which puts its members on autopatrol, saving everyone else the hassle. The only requirement for joining the group is that an administrator believes their edits don't require any oversight, and that it would be a waste of time having to manually patrol their edits. Likewise, it can be taken away if an administrator doesn't believe their edits don't require a second look.

While I don't understand the technicalities of creating a group, I'm sure this can be done. While I don't think this group will have a particularly large number of members as a few of those who would of been part of this group went on to be patrollers, I still think it would do the site some good. --[[User:Alpha Kenny Buddy|AKB]] [[User_talk:Alpha_Kenny_Buddy|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Cont]] [[Special:Emailuser/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Mail]] 19:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

:I second this. Also put [[User:Alphabetface|Alphabetface]] and [[User:Elliot|Elliot]] into this group. • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 20:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

::I'm in favour of the idea, and I can handle the technical side of things easily enough. If we're collecting names, I'd also suggest [[User:PLRDLF|PLRDLF]].
::However, I'd like to suggest that perhaps patrollers should be the ones responsible for deciding who belongs in the group, rather than administrators -- since patrollers are the ones affected if someone is added to the group (it doesn't even have any affect on the editor who is added to the group). Perhaps any patroller can nominate someone to join the group; as long as another patroller seconds the nomination, it can take effect immediately (and any admin would be able to do the promotion). (Where "patroller" implicitly includes administrators, since admins all have patroller rights). --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 22:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

:::I guess that's not that much more difficult, while allowing more people into the pool to help make decisions here. If we are collecting names, let me add [[User:Manic|Manic]] and [[User:Helenaannevalentine|Helenaanevalentine]] to my list of candidates to start this group off. --[[User:Alpha Kenny Buddy|AKB]] [[User_talk:Alpha_Kenny_Buddy|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Cont]] [[Special:Emailuser/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Mail]] 23:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

::::Good idea. It may be premature, but [[User:The Silencer|The Silencer]] is also on my list of up-and-coming users that could go into this user group. • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 00:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::We should definitely keep the number of users on this low. As of now, the only users that would truly make sense are myself, [[User:Manic|Manic]], and [[User:PLRDLF|PLRDLF]]. The other ones I would hesitate with; however, since I am not a patroller, it won't matter much. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 01:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

::::::Since we're putting forth names, I agree with most of the above suggestions, and would like to add [[User:Kimi the Elf|Kimi the Elf]] and [[User:Aliana|Aliana]] to the list. (Note: Aliana tends to be active in spurts, but she's been around the wiki for years and I completely trust her edits at this point.) Also, I think at this point, Alphabetface should just plain run for Patroller and skip the new group altogether.

::::::As a side note to this discussion, our level of unpatrolled edits has slowly been creeping down, though all it would take to start going the other direction very fast would be for one of the top five Patrollers to stop doing so. As of right now, we're sitting at a little under 1500 unpatrolled edits over the last 28 days. Looking at all the editors mentioned to this point, they have 1418 total edits between them in that same 28 days, 104 of which remain unpatrolled at this point. It goes without saying that not having to patrol those edits would make a ''huge'' difference. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 06:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::::I seriously think we should limit it to 5 or 6. And RH, until Kimi can provide reasonable edit summaries, I really do not think she belongs in this group. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 02:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

{{od}} I don’t think we should go down this path whatsoever. Basically, everybody makes factual mistakes in SR-namespace these days and, to be perfectly honest, not even administrators should be auto-patrolled. After playing Skyrim since November (every day), I feel knowledgeable about 10-15% of the game, and I definitely take comfort knowing that another editor looks/reads through my edits. So, what am I saying here? Well, I believe that handing out too many of these high-fashion auto-patroller-thingy’s is an open invitation to lower standards, simply because the editors in question will be aware that their edits will no longer be cross-checked by another editor. It is also an invitation to patrollers to easily ignore edits and instead jump straight to the latest addition to the Blood on the Ice talk page. Admitted, when somebody edits a page on my watch-list, I patrol the edit regardless of exclamation marks, editor and status, because that’s what I’m supposed to do. I think that this attempt to make life easy will end up making it harder – and I believe we need to halt this uprising ‘un-patrolled edits panic’ and focus on quality content. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 06:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

:The counter-point to that, though, is that by allowing the more trusted editors to be autopatrolled, Patrollers can focus on the edits that will be lower-quality/more dubious, on average, and thus bring the wiki's standards up. I don't know about anybody else, but right now, I spend far more of my time patrolling than actually playing, which means that I'm not as knowledgeable as I'd like to be either. By cutting back on the patrolling burden, all of us will have more time to get more familiar with the game, or do more in-depth research in the CK, and therefore be able to answer more questions with the correct facts. In the end, I'd rather have reasonably trustworthy edits go unpatrolled than have edits of unknown quality go unpatrolled. I know the days the patrolling burden has been lighter, I've been able to give much better answers than I otherwise would have. Today, for example, if I couldn't find an answer in 5 minutes or so, I just gave up and moved on to the next issue. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 07:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

::I always read any edits in the Recent Changes that seem interesting, patrolled or not. This includes edits made by Patrollers and Admins. Usually, these pages that I check regardless are in my area of expertise. Because I am knowledgeable about those topics, and I check any edits made to them regardless, it really wouldn't affect how factually sound those articles are if the person who made the edit is in the Auto-Patrolled user group. • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 17:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

:::What if we accepted members freely into this group (I say "freely", but there would have to naturally be prerequisites that have to be met) without a size cap, but have the editors in the group go up for a Patroller nomination after a period of say... One or two months? That would help ease the burden of unpatrolled edits. The editors that we have an eye on can have their edits autopatrolled, but they have to keep an eye on the Recent Changes as well since they would have their names up for a nomination. That would keep the group small, since you have to be interested in eventually making larger, more responsible contributions to the site... They get autopatrolled, and in exchange they eventually have to help us patrol. A decision on what to do should they fail the nomination would have to be thought of, but I thought this could be an interesting little suggestion. [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 18:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

:::: I'm simply going to say that I support this idea. There is nothing I can say that has not been said already. Hopefully the community will vote in favour of this. I also agree with the idea that only trusted editors should be eligible to ensure that (like Krusty says) it reduces problems rather than creates more. --[[User:Manic|Manic]] 19:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

{{od}}If we really wanted to keep it small and trustworthy, we could do the same thing that we already do for patrollers, with a week of voting. One of the huge factors for becoming a patroller is the question "Do we trust their edits?" If we do and if they edit recently changed pages, then they tend to become patrollers. These people wouldn't have the exclamation points, nor would they have to monitor recent changes; however, we'd still be trusting them with their own content as much as we trust patrollers. The only difference in the nominations for these people would be the lack of the question "Do they patrol the recent changes?" --[[User:Velyanthe|Velyanthe]] 19:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

:Just to jog people's memory in terms of those who we might want to add to the new group, assuming it goes ahead, here are the top 10 editors in the last 28 days excluding all edits that are autopatrolled. This is strictly based on the editing data and obviously shouldn't be taken as any kind of endorsement, just a list of names to make sure we're not forgetting anyone obvious.
:* [[User:Alphabetface|Alphabetface]] (User Patroller)
:* [[User:CapnZapp|CapnZapp]]
:* [[User:DextroWombat|DextroWombat]]
:* [[User:Elliot|Elliot]] (User Patroller)
:* [[User:Helenaannevalentine|Helenaannevalentine]] (User Patroller)
:* [[User:Kertaw48|Kertaw48]]
:* [[User:Kimi the Elf|Kimi the Elf]] (User Patroller)
:* [[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] (User Patroller)
:* [[User:The Silencer|The Silencer]]
:* [[User:ThuumofReason|ThuumofReason]]
:– [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 04:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
::I would only support myself and Helena (considering Alphabetface will be a patroller) out of that list. I understand Krusty's concerns (despite his digression and comments on "stopping the uprising"), which is why a few members should only be included. My edits are typically en masse, which is annoying for some patrollers, and Helena's edit quality is fine, as well as PLRDLF.
::Also, we should definitely ''avoid'' turning this into a voting process. This should be a decision made by the patrollers, with members being included without any opposition from a patroller. This doesn't ne to be overcomplicated. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 06:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

:::Since Elliot mentioned it, if we were to exclude Alphabetface, PLRDLF would actually have been next on the list, if only by a few edits. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 06:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

::::It seems to me that what is being asked for is to have a group of 'trusted users', those users who have proved to be responsible over a period of time. That is, to separate them from the ordinary members group, and add an extra layer to the heirarchy of the site. This wouldn't stop their edits from being checked, occassionaly a patroller could scan their edits while taking a rest from reverting vandalism. As a watcher of recent changes I look at almost all that appear and wouldn't be afriad of changing anyones work. I don't think I've been here long enough to prove myself though. [[User:The Silencer|The Silencer]] 18:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::That's not the intent, it's merely intended to create less work for patrollers. With PLRDLF, as an example, not many people can patrol the majority of his edits as he's one of the few people here with a grand understanding of Daggerfall. There are a few editors who have none of the necessary permissions to not currently be auto-patrolled, despite their edits requiring no large amount of oversight. There are better ways to spend our time than just patrolling someones edits on sight. --[[User:Alpha Kenny Buddy|AKB]] [[User_talk:Alpha_Kenny_Buddy|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Cont]] [[Special:Emailuser/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Mail]] 18:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::: Please, can we stop this idiocy? --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 00:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::::It's idiocy for being banned from the UESPWiki channel on IRC for not voting. Are you kidding me? ~ [[User:Dwarfmp|Dwarfmp]] 00:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
{{od}} Forgive me if it is obvious and forgive me if this is some outside discussion that I am referring to that I shouldn't know about, but Krusy's latest comment has lost me. What exactly is the "idiocy" being mentioned? I see a stack of paragraphs containing some pretty valid thoughts on the subject. I am just curious so that I can keep following properly how the conversation is progressing. [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 00:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
:While I wouldn't consider this idea "idiocy", I'd just suggest we exercise extreme caution as far as who gets added to this group. Everybody is making a lot more mistakes than usual, especially because of the new content lately. Just my two cents. —[[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] [[User talk:SkoomaManiac|Talk]] ♫ [[:Special:Contributions/SkoomaManiac|Contribs]] 00:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
::So being banned for no reason is ok? No need to say anything about that... Do you think this is proper behaviour for an administrator? ~ [[User:Dwarfmp|Dwarfmp]] 01:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

:::No, that's clearly not okay, but I think we need to hear Krusty's explanation first.

:::As for "idiocy", that was just rude. We know you disagree with the suggestion Krusty, but so far, you're the only one who has expressed outright opposition to the idea. Accept that it has consensus and move on to something else. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 01:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

::::Just for the record, then, I doubt the utility of creating such a group. I don't know if "idiocy" is the right term, I just don't think that creating the group will create significant returns in terms of efficiency, and if we really trust someone to make edits with little or no oversight, he or she should just be made a patroller. If they choose not to patrol the work of others, that would be the prerogative of the individual; everyone contributes differently. [[User:Minor Edits|Minor Edits]][[User_talk:Minor Edits|Threats]]•[[Special:Contributions/Minor Edits|Evidence]] 01:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::PLRDLF and myself currently don't want to be patrollers. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 01:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
::::::Maybe you two should be conscripted, then ;) [[User:Minor Edits|Minor Edits]][[User_talk:Minor Edits|Threats]]•[[Special:Contributions/Minor Edits|Evidence]] 01:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

=== Edit Break 3===
The argument that trusted editors should just be made into Patrollers holds some merit, and that's the reason a group like this hasn't been created before whenever the idea was floated. But as Elliot says, some people don't want to be Patrollers (PLRDLF has turned it down repeatedly in the past) while other people simply don't qualify to be Patrollers. The early days of Alphabetface would be one example, where I trusted her edits completely, but she didn't yet have enough content edits to qualify for full Patroller. There are a number of other people in a similar position. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 02:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

:I see no problem at all with having this group. Patrollers are elected to help patrol the last time I bothered to check. That is what hinders the other editors such as PLRDLF and elliot from having autopatrol. They simply don't want to actually patrol. This group would enable us to give autopatrolling to our trusted editors who want it without expecting them to patrol. [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 02:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

::Just running for Patroller won't work - it hasn't in the past. Remember [[User:Helenaannevalentine|Helenaannevalentine]]'s [[UESPWiki:Patrollers/Nominations/Completed#Helenaannevalentine|nomination]]? Most people agreed that she has good edits, but that she isn't quite up for being a Patroller. This is what we'll inevitably run into; plus, as has already been mentioned, many people just don't want to be Patrollers. • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 03:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

:::{{ec}} Like I said, I doubt that making a "Trusted User" group will be very useful, but if it's useful at all, more power to you. However, while it's not an issue with vets like elliot and PLRDLF, I'm concerned that the group could become used as a way to circumvent the patrolling system for newcomers who are considered promising, which is not a good idea. I suggest that this proposed group have disqualifying requirements like those for patroller nominations, including at least an edit requirement, a time requirement, and a clean record, which would help protect us from capricious users, particularly deceptive trolls, and the incautious use of administrative discretion. Forgive me if that's already been suggested; I guess I missed it. [[User:Minor Edits|Minor Edits]][[User_talk:Minor Edits|Threats]]•[[Special:Contributions/Minor Edits|Evidence]] 04:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

::::I think those suggestions were sort of implied in some comments, but they definitely weren't spelled out. You're right that we want to take steps to make sure it's not some kind of free-for-all or anything close to it. I would tend to think the requirements should be fairly similar to those for full Patroller, but perhaps smaller edit counts or allowing edit counts in talk space to count towards the total. We could probably lighten the activity requirement a little as well or make it an either/or thing, like "At least 200 edits anywhere on the wiki and recently active '''or''' 500 edits anywhere on the wiki and periodically active within the last year." (That's shortened slightly, but you get the idea.) The latter would be good for users like PLRDLF and Aliana, who are often sporadic in their edits and have few (if any) edits during off periods. But maybe that's overcomplicating it. We could do something simpler, like nominated/approved by at least x (2? 3?) Patrollers/Admins. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 05:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::I agree with RH. As been as this group will be limited in members, it should only need to be approved by a few and the qualification that you mentioned seem fair. It is just taking out that important and defining phrase that makes people need to patrol. --[[User:Manic|Manic]] 06:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

::::::I think that a general consensus has been reached. What happens now? Do we need an official vote?—[[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] [[User talk:SkoomaManiac|Talk]] ♫ [[:Special:Contributions/SkoomaManiac|Contribs]] 01:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

{{od}} It seems a general consensus has been reached about creating the group (in favor), but not about the requirements or method of choosing who may be added to the group. That should be determined before anything takes place, I believe. [[User:Alphabetface|ABCface]][[User_talk:Alphabetface|◥]] 02:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

:I think that 200 edits and one month or 500 edits and one year (count all edits) are reasonable requirements. I also think that having a vote of two or three Patrollers/Admins is sufficient. • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 03:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

::By "all edits", do you mean ALL edits, or content edits? I think that it should be restricted to content edits (i.e. Gamespaces, File, Lore, etc), similar to the Patrollers page. It is the content edits that matter if we are giving out auto-patrol rights. I wouldn't vote on giving the rights to someone if have of them were user edits. [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 04:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

:::I was thinking more along the lines of including talk page edits (because a lot of the users I'd put in this group edit talk pages extensively) but you're right, User edits probably shouldn't count. • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 04:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

::::Honestly, I would put it at 1,000 content edits and 1 year of editing. The point of the group is to autopatrol people who make a lot of edits and are completely trusted. You ''cannot'' satisfy such a standard in 250 or even 500 edits. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 04:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::Why 1,000 edits and a year? This group is simply for autopatrol privileges as I understand it. We give patrollers autopatrol and then some if they have at least 250 edits and a month. I would say that at the ''very highest'', we set the requirements to the same as the Patrollers. [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 04:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::The issue with that is that we'd have more strict requirements for Trusted Users than Patrollers, which really restricts the Trusted Users group a bit too tightly for my tastes. I think 500 edits is better. I'm also open to having a straight-up nomination process, which seems to be what you're leaning towards, although odds are only Patrollers would nominate (which is OK). Also, one year of editing seems a bit much. If we had that standard for Patrollers, then people like Minor Edits, Kiz, Eric Snowmane, Velyanthe, Alphabetface, and some guy named Jak Atackka :P wouldn't be Patrollers, and those who were would be continuously swamped by our combined 13,978 edits, or about 50 edits per day (!)
:::::If we're going to go that direction, then I think 500 edits is sufficient, and a flexible time requirement of two months, so that way if we have a very active user that doesn't want to patrol we don't have to wait ten months to autopatrol their edits. A truncated nomination process over the course of a week would take place, with a basic "Yea" or "Nay" being sufficient. Self-nomination is not accepted, but asking one of the Patrollers to nominate you is perfectly fine. • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 05:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

{{od}} My 500 edits suggestion was only for those who are periodically active, like PLRDLF and Aliana. Making it more edits than Patrollers in that case is simply due to the amount of time between edits - we need to know they still remember what they're doing when they've been away for a while! :) For those who are currently active, it seems to me the requirements should be close to those of Patroller, but a little less. Otherwise, the group itself becomes a non-entity...we'd just make people Patrollers and if they didn't want to patrol, there's nothing saying they have to. Also, I agree that talk page edits should count towards membership in the new group. As has been said above, if we make it content-only, we're excluding users, whom we may already know are good editors, just because they hang out a lot on talk pages (as is the case for a few highly active users like [[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]], [[User:JR|JR]], and [[User:Br3admax|Br3admax]]). Talk page edits for users like them are in the 40-50% range. I think by the time a user becomes trusted, even if they're not active on content pages often, we can at least trust that they'll go to someone or undo if they goof and need help fixing it. If we didn't trust them to do so, then presumably they wouldn't be nominated in the first place, even if they met the prerequisites. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 06:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

: I guess the next step then is creating a nominations page and the group. --[[User:Manic|Manic]] 08:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

:: Yeah, I think that's probably a good step. A more concrete nominations page will also help us refine the discussion about what, exactly, they should be. Unfortunately, while I have a lot of ideas about what that should look like, I'm off to bed now, and I may not be on much (if at all) till later tomorrow night, so someone else feel free to play with it. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 08:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

::: What is the user group to be called? --[[User:Manic|Manic]] 08:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

::::I have created a sandbox [[User:SkoomaManiac/Trusted Users|here]] to mess with this stuff before we actually create the group and nominations page. It's an open sandbox; please contribute. Obviously "Trusted Users" is a tentative title, but I thought I'd take some initiative. —[[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] [[User talk:SkoomaManiac|Talk]] ♫ [[:Special:Contributions/SkoomaManiac|Contribs]] 15:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

{{od}} If this is the case then, I must voice my opposition to this group. If you count people with 200 or more edits, you have 239 eligible users. I think that if we do implement this, we should put a limit on the number of users in the group. I still don't think we should create this anymore, but if we do, then do it right (and hope this group isn't regretted later). [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 16:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

:If we vote on them, that would keep it down. After all, there's plenty of people with the 250+ edits required to be a Patroller, but not all have edits that are good enough. --'''[[User:Velyanthe|Velyanthe]]'''[[User talk:Velyanthe|►Talk]][[Special:EmailUser/Velyanthe|►Email]] 16:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

::Elliot, while I see where you're coming from, really the key is that ''only patrollers may vote''. This way, the people who are most closely entangled with who provides what kind of edits get to reject the ones that are sub-par. I don't see how this could go wrong otherwise. —[[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] [[User talk:SkoomaManiac|Talk]] ♫ [[:Special:Contributions/SkoomaManiac|Contribs]] 16:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

:::Perhaps; there is a temptation to add more users to make it easier on them. But regarding the name, the best name for it should simply be ''autopatrolled''. Using "Trusted User" implies that other users aren't trusted; we should avoid such implications. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 16:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
::::I was going to say the same thing about the name later, but since I'm typing one-handed, I can't put write up all my input at the moment. 'Autopatrolled' is definitely a better name for the group. I'll write up some more of my opinions on this in general later, when I don't have a baby on my lap. [[User:Alphabetface|ABCface]][[User_talk:Alphabetface|◥]] 16:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::I'm also with Elliot and Alphabetface on the name. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 16:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

::{{ec}} We can equalize it with Patrollers, same requirements in terms of edit counts, activity, etc, since it is simply for auto patrolling. Then, we make that an alternative, like what Aryon said to the Player during the Telvanni questline, ''"I can grant you the rank of Master now. That will give you an equal place on the Telvanni Council. But if you aspire to a higher claim, I can also grant you the title of Magister."'' Similar to that. You can simply request for a straight autopatrol, or you can request the extra powers and responsibilities. It wouldn't be a definite split as "go for more responsibilities or stay merely a Trustee", of course. Maybe add in a time requirement. If you want to go from a Trustee to Patroller, you have to stay as a Trustee for a month or so, so that your edits can be verified again. But, it '''definitely''' shouldn't be a higher requirement that patrollers, because we give them autopatrol, skipcatpcha, the tools, etc. which is more of a responsibility.

::And, Elliot: We wouldn't give every single person who has the edit requirements met the role. It would be like with Patrollers where you have to read through their contributions and make sure they are good edits. It definitely wouldn't be, "Well, Fakeusername, you meet the requirements so here are your autopatrol privileges." For this idea to work as it is meant to be, we have to be quite selective, IMO, but at the same time, we can't give a group with less rights more scrutiny than a group with more rights. [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 16:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

{{od}}{{ec}}The name change idea seems legit, and actually a better idea. I'll make the move. —[[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] [[User talk:SkoomaManiac|Talk]] ♫ [[:Special:Contributions/SkoomaManiac|Contribs]] 17:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

=== Edit Break 4 ===
Okay, I've got a lot of my own input on this, but it may not be very organized. Sorry about that. I know a lot of this has already been been mentioned, but I'm just summing up what I've gathered from the entire discussion, and adding my opinions.
*'''The point of this group''' is to help lessen the workload for Recent Changes Patrollers. Due to the backlog of unpatrolled edits, it would be a convenience for RCPs not to have this user group's contributions in the list of unpatrolled edits. Once this group is made, RCPs can focus on all other unpatrolled edits (as normal), which would be a better use of their time than manually patrolling many edits by the users whose contributions don't need much oversight.
*'''This group is ''not'' about''' the users in the group. Yes, technically they will be given a new set of [[UESPWiki:User_Group_Rights|User Rights]], however, the point of the group is not meant to have any effect on their contributions. It is not about a hierarchy, it is not about ''wanting'' to be added the group, and it's not about slacking off because they know their edits aren't being cross-checked (if RCPs trust the contributions of these users, it should be a given that we trust that adding them to the group is not an invitation to lower standards).
*'''The requirements to be included''' in this group should not be overcomplicated, in my opinion. I don't believe it's important to specify a specific number of contributions or time spent on the wiki. While these factors will definitely affect them being added to the group, this should be an ''indirect'' way of affecting it. Given the point of this group, I believe the simplest and most sensible way to add users to this group is for RCPs to nominate and vote, using ''their'' judgement as the ones who regularly patrol the Recent Changes page. For the purpose of this group, they are the ones who should judge whether a user's contributions need much oversight in terms of patrolling their edits, because they are the ones doing the patrolling.
:Only RCPs would be allowed to nominate users for the group, and only RCPs would be allowed to vote. A certain number of RCPs should vote in support for a user to be added (let's say, 5? I'm not picky on that number, just throwing it out there.). However, I also think it's a good idea to add a stipulation that ''users can not be added to the group if there are 3 or more votes in opposition'' (or something to that effect, 3 being another number I'm not too picky on). That way, even if enough RCPs don't feel they need to patrol certain users, the user will not be added if enough RCPs disagree. (The votes in opposition to certain users would hold more value than those in favor, basically.)
*'''Some other details and opinions''' I have... (this section is a lot less organized, jumping from topic to topic, be warned)
**Administrators are obviously included when I mention Recent Changes Patrollers above. UserPatrollers are not (simply because Userspace is very well patrolled, and the backlog of unpatrolled edits to Recent Changes does not affect them in terms of patrolling).
**To address the concern that users in this group won't have their edits cross-checked at all... Many RCPs have pages on their watchlists which they check regularly regardless of who made edits to the page or whether or not the edits have been patrolled. (I'm sure I'm not the only one who has a ridiculous number of pages on my watchlist, either.) Also, this ''is'' a wiki which ''all'' users are allowed to edit, so anything which is absolutely, horribly wrong ''will'' be fixed in time. And, again, we wouldn't add users to the group unless we trust them not to make questionable edits on a regular basis. (Besides, we ''all'' make mistakes from time to time— again, this being a wiki, those mistakes ''will'' be fixed.)
**Any user who is added to this group would be removed from the group if/when RCPs agree it's for the best. This would only happen if they begin to make questionable contributions, or otherwise change their editing habits on the site. (Of course, if/when they become RCPs themselves, they would no longer need to be in this group, so they would be removed in that case as well.)
**The nomination/voting for each user should remain on the page for one week, so that <s>those who aren't as addicted to UESP</s> all RCPs have a chance to comment or vote before the nomination is decided/archived.
**Many of the users who may be added to this group are users who are on the path toward becoming RCPs in the future anyway, but don't qualify at the moment— they don't have enough edits in the right areas, they haven't been around long enough, or whatever other reason. I'm hesitant to add some of these users to the group because I believe any user which will be nominated for RCP in the near future should have their edits scrutinized ''more'' closely prior to nomination, but this would be a hard thing to regulate, so it's probably not even worth mentioning... but I mentioned it anyway. :P
**Of course there are those who don't wish to be RCPs, yet their contributions already need hardly any oversight, and these people are perfect examples of who should be added to the group. Again, this has already said, but... I don't know, I'm probably just rambling now. :)

So, I don't know how many people will actually read ''all'' of that, sorry for the overly long post, but I tried to cover most of the points mentioned in the discussion, and... yeah, I'm done for now. :) [[User:Alphabetface|ABCface]][[User_talk:Alphabetface|◥]] 04:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
:I generally agree with you, and am glad to see you got the baby down. Please check out the Sandbox we've been contributing on today, and I'm going to go ahead and scrap the userbox, considering your point that it shouldn't be an aspiration or "rank". Thinking that a badge of honor is a little too... Flashy... Anyhow, seriously, [[User:SkoomaManiac/Autopatrolled Users|check it out]]. —[[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] [[User talk:SkoomaManiac|Talk]] ♫ [[:Special:Contributions/SkoomaManiac|Contribs]] 04:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
::Looked over your test page, and it all appears to be in order. However, I don't really like the description, specifically the phrase "extreme trustworthiness". I would personally use this as a description for the group:
::"'''Autopatrolled Users''' are a group of users whose edits are [[UESPWiki:Patrollers/Patrolling Guidelines|automatically patrolled]]. Editors in this group are editors whose high-quality edits have been noticed by the community, especially the [[UESPWiki:Administrator|Administrator]]s and [[UESPWiki:Patroller|Patroller]]s. They are selected by our current Administrators and Patrollers, and they have not yet qualified or do not wish to be Patrollers."
::I don't know, something to that effect. Basically, I don't like using the term "Trusted User" because it bears a heavy weight as a title, yet the group itself is not nearly that significant. • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 05:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
::: I took the liberty of adding Jak's suggestion to the sandbox, and made a couple other changes as well. I removed the 'elite' note because of the whole 'not a hierarchy' thing, and the note about asking questions because the mentors page is a more appropriate place for those who wish to be available for questions from other users (encouraging others to ask them questions doesn't seem appropriate, since some users may not want to be available for questions-- just like not wanting to be a patroller). As for the qualifications, I'm not opposed to the specific number of edits and time on the wiki being in there (though I don't think it's necessary, personally), ''but'' I do think the number of votes in support should be higher than two. [[User:Alphabetface|ABCface]][[User_talk:Alphabetface|◥]] 06:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

{{od}} I went ahead and removed the disqualifications, since they seem frivolous. These "trigger" requirements often remove qualified users (such as myself). I'm sure that the voting admins and patrollers would take any warnings and blocks into consideration when determining a user's eligibility. Plus, 6 months is a long time for an "observation" period. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 06:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
:The "Trusted Users" and "elite" crap was left over from it being "Trusted Users" as opposed to "Autopatrolled Users". It just never got taken out.
:Makes sense, Elliot.
:ABC, I think (I can't say for sure; I wasn't the one who put it up) that two was the MINIMUM number that could approve for a promotion. If I'm not mistaken there is a certain amount of time that the user has to be voted on. If not, I'll add it now at a week. —[[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] [[User talk:SkoomaManiac|Talk]] ♫ [[:Special:Contributions/SkoomaManiac|Contribs]] 12:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
::The point of having that edit count is to adequately gauge the ability of the user... I do like the requirement, as with less than 200 or so I feel like I can't tell whether or not the quality of the edits will persist or if the person has made enough recent quality edits, especially if past edits have been of a lower quality. I agree with the current 200/500 edit requirement in the sandbox. I also agree with the one-week voting period, and I would like to keep a minimum amount of time on the wiki.
::Skooma, the sandbox does say minimum of two, yep. --'''[[User:Velyanthe|Velyanthe]]'''[[User talk:Velyanthe|►Talk]][[Special:EmailUser/Velyanthe|►Email]] 15:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

:::All right, are there any further suggestions or major complaints? I think it's ready if there's nothing else... —[[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] [[User talk:SkoomaManiac|Talk]] ♫ [[:Special:Contributions/SkoomaManiac|Contribs]] 17:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
::::Because of the comment about not yet qualifying for patroller status it should be clarified whether being part of this group is a prerequisite to becoming a patroller, I am undecided on this issue and therefore cannot think of the appropriate wording. [[User:The Silencer|The Silencer has spoken]] 18:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::-Yeah, I understand the point of the edit count, but if a Patroller feels strongly enough that a user should be added to the group to make a nomination (or vote in support), the user has most likely met the criteria already anyway. Maybe instead of using the term "qualifications" or "requirements" we should use "guidelines" so it's not quite as strict. As mentioned somewhere above in this long discussion, some users who have been proposed/mentioned in this discussion have many edits on non-Userspace Talk pages which don't normally count as "content-related" edits. So making it a 'guideline' rather than a 'requirement' would allow for users such as these to be eligible.
:::::-Also, I think the minimum vote in favor should be three rather than two, but if I'm the only one who doesn't think two is enough of a minimum, I'll leave that be.
:::::-And, last, I don't believe this group should be a prerequisite for patrollership. [[User:Alphabetface|ABCface]][[User_talk:Alphabetface|◥]] 21:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
{{od}}I'm in agreement with three votes in favor, and that would make it equal to the current opposition vote, since it says "if more than two oppose..." (unless that's been changed). So three minimum for agreement, three votes for opposition. I think we'll have plenty of voters, though. I think that a Suggested Qualifications section should work fine, with an Immediate Disqualifications that's looser than the one Patrollers have. There should be a note in there about warnings/bans--I would say two weeks for a warning and a month for a ban. I would feel uncomfortable with some people on the basis of that if they applied a week after getting unbanned or right after a warning, and that extra time would be long enough for them to prove themselves again. Recent resignation of autopatrol rights (for whatever reason) should be the same as Patrollers, though I don't see that happening any time soon so I don't know whether or not it's even worth mentioning. --'''[[User:Velyanthe|Velyanthe]]'''[[User talk:Velyanthe|►Talk]][[Special:EmailUser/Velyanthe|►Email]] 22:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
:I changed "Guidelines" to "Suggested Guidelines" and "minimum of two supports for consensus" to "three". And in the interest of this group being "not an honor or hierarchical" it should ''not'' be a prerequisite for patroller, ESPECIALLY since users can't nominate themselves. Other than that I can say that I agree wholeheartedly with everyone's comments. —[[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] [[User talk:SkoomaManiac|Talk]] ♫ [[:Special:Contributions/SkoomaManiac|Contribs]] 22:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

::The block/warn disqualification if frivolous at best; however, in light of recent adjustments, I will support this new group. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 01:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

:::The group now exists. Which still leaves the question of who should be the first guinea pigs. However, all admins should be able to add/remove group members, so getting that done won't get held up by the Bureaucrat-only bottleneck. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 03:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

::::Robin Hood, can you get us an up-to-date list of the top 20 contributors over the past month? That would be helpful in figuring out our guinea pigs. I think Elliot is a prime candidate. • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 03:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

:::::The following list is the top 20 contributors, excluding file uploads and, for Userspace Patrollers, any edits that were already autopatrolled anyway. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 05:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
{{Showhide|List|
:::::* Acaveman
:::::* Coronus
:::::* DayDreamer
:::::* DextroWombat
:::::* Elliot (Userspace Patroller)
:::::* Evil4Zerggin
:::::* GrogGrogGrog
:::::* Helenaannevalentine (Userspace Patroller)
:::::* JR
:::::* J'ZhirrthePriest
:::::* Kertaw48
:::::* Kimi the Elf (Userspace Patroller)
:::::* Manic (Userspace Patroller)
:::::* MrL
:::::* Nikofeelan
:::::* PLRDLF
:::::* SkoomaManiac (Userspace Patroller)
:::::* The Silencer (Userspace Patroller)
:::::* ThuumofReason
:::::* Zappatized}}
::::::Thank you for the list Robin Hood. I went ahead and [[UESPWiki:Autopatrolled Users#Nominations|nominated]] [[User:Elliot|Elliot]], [[User:PLRDLF|PLRDLF]], [[User:Manic|Manic]], and [[User:Aliana|Aliana]] to start off. Don't forget to vote! • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 05:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

=== Edit Break 5 ===
{{od}}Once members of the group are we aloud to vote for future members? --[[User:Manic|Manic]] 18:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
:Probably not, since we aren't the ones patrolling. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 18:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
::The point of the group is to remove the task of manually patrolling the group members' edits, for the sake of Patrollers. Only Patrollers and Administrators are allowed to vote for that reason. [[User:Alphabetface|ABCface]][[User_talk:Alphabetface|◥]] 18:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
:::However, all users are allowed to comment on any nominations. [[User:Alphabetface|ABCface]][[User_talk:Alphabetface|◥]] 18:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

::::Fair enough, just checking so not to make an ass of myself. --[[User:Manic|Manic]] 18:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

== Massive numbers of accounts being created ==

I think someone is running some sort of bot to create a very large number of accounts. Anyone who hasn't noticed this on the [[Special:RecentChanges|Recent Changes]] can look [[Special:Log/newusers|here]] and see. You can tell it's a bot because it seems to be selecting a random first and last name and then sometimes adding a number at the end. I don't know how to check what IP is creating them (I don't think I have the permission) but if it's the same IP I think they ought to be blocked for spamming account creation. • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 00:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

:If I may put forward a suggestion to counter this kind of spam, if it is proven to be a bot, I believe the site should be set so that account verification through an email is required, and you can have 2 accounts per email. I say two, because we have users with legitimate alternate accounts (NepheleBot, HotNBothered, RoBoT). This is the only site that I have contributed to that hasn't required a valid email address. This is something I assume Nephele can do, and its a one-time validation per user. That way, if someone where to spam the site usernames, they would have to go through the inconvenience of creating new email accounts as well, and I doubt the average account spammer would care to go through all that trouble. [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 01:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

::Without installing an extension, we can't place any email validation limits on account creation. Also, I don't think that's a good idea unless we can fix our problems with AOL and some other ISPs that block all email sent from UESP -- unless we're absolutely sure we can send email to all valid email addresses, any email validation requirement will prevent legitimate users from being able to create accounts.
::As for IP addresses, when I looked last week most of the accounts being created were using different IP addresses -- spambots typically have control of significant numbers of IP addresses, because they know that individual IP addresses are trivial to block. I blocked one IP address range that had been used to create multiple spambot accounts, but even figuring out patterns of IP addresses is pretty time-consuming, because it means running checkuser on a lot of different user names. Plus any time an entire range of IPs is blocked there is an increased risk of blocking legitimate users. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 04:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

:::(I completely missed Nephele's previous comment before replying.) I don't think much can be done regarding this, and even if we could do something, I don't think we should. They don't pop into editing or vandalizing, so we would be limiting account creation based on perceived patterns rather than facts. I had Nephele [[UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard/Archives/ConfirmAccount|implement]] the $wgAccountCreationThrottle setting, which limited account creation based on IPs. I think that is enough, for now. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 04:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

::::I completely understand your logic, and it does make sense, but I believe something should be done, at least for a short term that would limit account creation, assuming this is all one guy. It is ridiculous to do nothing because

::::'''A.)''' We have the RC flooded with 5+ new accounts every few minutes, and

::::'''B.)''' There could be a legitimate user who wants to use their name, and it seems wasteful to have them all sitting idle because we have a hypothetical spammer who we have to accept as running wild with account creations.

::::I am backing out of this conversation to sleep, its 2AM, and I have had a long day. I just wanted to throw in my thoughts on the issue real fast. [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 06:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::In the last few minutes there have been more accounts made that follow the pattern such as KonradConradMetcalf and LizzieBusch4. Maybe when creating an account you should have to answer some basic question or something. [[User:RIM|RIM]] 19:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
::::::This question idea has been suggested before, but it could turn real users away if they don't know the answer or can't be bothered to figure it out. --[[User:Kiz|kiz]] {{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|Kiz| '''[[Special:EmailUser/Kiz|email]]''' | '''[[User_Talk:Kiz|talk]]''''''[[Special:EmailUser/Kiz|email]]'''}} 19:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::::It doesn't have to be general knowledge or Elder Scrolls question, I just mean something that a bot could not answer. Just a suggestion. Also new accounts like this are being made now.

:::::::: Recently when I edited a page, I had to enter a captcha(sp?). I hadn't seen this before. It might have be because I was linking to wikipedia.
:::::::: Why not require this captcha when creating an account. If this continues the account name that I might want will be taken...
::::::::: Is there some cleanup of just created and unused accounts for a certain time? -- MartinS [[Special:Contributions/94.255.233.233|94.255.233.233]] 19:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
{{od}} A lot of the names they use are nonsensical anyway, reduce the chances of users wanting them. A captcha is another idea, this has been shot down to. I'm not saying just TES-related, not everyone will have been schooled in the same way. Theres no way of creating a question everyone in the world (which is our audience really) will know the answer to, its just so daft. --[[User:Kiz|kiz]] {{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|Kiz| '''[[Special:EmailUser/Kiz|email]]''' | '''[[User_Talk:Kiz|talk]]''''''[[Special:EmailUser/Kiz|email]]'''}} 19:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
:<s>Wait, you mean we '''don't''' use captcha for account creations? –[[User:Eshe|Eshe]][[User talk:Eshe|talk]] 19:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)</s>
:Never mind, I see we do. Well...if that isn't stopping it, then it can't be a bot, right?
:Also, a quick run through checkuser reveals the latest batch are all coming from the same IP range. Not sure if that helps or not, but there it is. –[[User:Eshe|Eshe]][[User talk:Eshe|talk]] 19:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
::Just looking down the recent changes has shown various completely random accounts. One way to monitor this would be to check if any of these accounts contribute in anyway. What are the odds of 50 accounts (lets say) being created with none contributing in anyway. --[[User:Manic|Manic]] 20:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

:::There are seriously too many accounts being created now. This IP needs to be blocked asap. --[[User:Manic|Manic]] 20:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
::::It is ridiculous, I know. We need to risk an IP range block to kill the account creation nonsense, or go with my suggestion of finding a way to require email verification or an extra captcha or question like the others suggested. It may be ridiculous, but why not add (just for a short term) two or three additional captcha/question entries. That way, you would have to seriously want to contribute or seriously want to flood the page with new accounts. Chances are, the person(s) involved will grow impatient with multiple captchas, and they will abandon the the creation. Then, for good measure, we keep it active for upwards of a week-ish to make sure. And, during the creation, if it is possible, we should have a message for the legitimate users saying that the inconvenient list of captchas is to counter an account spammer, which will be removed after X amount of time.
:::EDIT: This is crazy. I pulled up the account creation log, and [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&limit=100&type=newusers at least 100 accounts have been made] following the First name-surname-optional number pattern. Without a block, I am unsure this will stop. [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 20:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
::::Problem is, that it might take a while to set up. We need something for the short term. --[[User:Manic|Manic]] 20:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
{{od}}A short term range block while a way to inhibit this kind of behavior is thought of? [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 20:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
:Unfortunately, not a single admin or blocker is currently online. By time one comes on there could be another 50 accounts. --[[User:Manic|Manic]] 20:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

:Can you all please calm down? They're not doing anything, so it isn't that big of a problem. Blocking them is pointless until someone determines the range (which I can't as I lack Check User), and if any make any edits that break site rules, they can be dealt with. The request for the range block is clear, there is no point in worrying about it further. --[[User:Alpha Kenny Buddy|AKB]] [[User_talk:Alpha_Kenny_Buddy|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Cont]] [[Special:Emailuser/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Mail]] 20:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

::Just to clarify on the above comments, there ''is'' a Captcha on account creation, but either someone's developed a bot that's got some pretty good OCR, or they've designed the bot to display the Captcha for human resolution, then immediately move on to the next one. If either of those are the case, additional questions or Captchas probably won't bother them for long. I don't think the latter would be very hard at all. Also, we don't need to feel special...other wikis are being hit by this same bot as well. As AKB mentioned, the only people who can effectively range block will be the longer-serving Administrators who have CheckUser ({{Pl|Special:ListUsers|group=checkuser|list}}). Blockers and the newer Admins can both block ranges, I believe, but wouldn't know what range to block. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 23:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

:::Unfortunately, captchas can only do so much. I read about this bot that actually crowd-sources captchas. Take the captcha image and publish it on another site (promising free porn or something like that), and real people give it the answer, which it then turns around and uses to solve the captcha on the target site. Not sure if that's what's hitting us right now, but it does exist, and is one way that bots can get past such measures. --[[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] [[User_talk:TheRealLurlock|Talk]] 12:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

::::I've done some more poking around via checkuser and I can pretty confidently confirm that all these accounts are being created from the same IP range. I don't have a problem implementing a range block if that's what everyone agrees should be done. Thing is, I've never done it before and I'm honestly not sure how--from what I remember, Nephele usually does this kind of thing... –[[User:Eshe|Eshe]][[User talk:Eshe|talk]] 17:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

::::: Oooh... That's clever. I'll make a "train solve captchas" site... -- MartinS [[Special:Contributions/94.255.233.233|94.255.233.233]] 18:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::: Hehe, I'd set up a bot just to give a ton of wrong answers on one of those sites. • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 19:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

{{od}}You can take a look at the [[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Range_blocks mediawiki article]] on them. Though, if you feel uncomfortable with it, I'm sure we can wait until Nephele or someone is willing to do it. --[[User:Alpha Kenny Buddy|AKB]] [[User_talk:Alpha_Kenny_Buddy|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Cont]] [[Special:Emailuser/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Mail]] 17:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

: I think that an IP range block is necessary, given the circumstances. If any of those blocked IPs tries to create an account, what do they see? It should have something along the lines of, "''If you believe that you were mistakenly blocked, then email (← hyperlink) us.''" That way people who are caught in that IP range aren't out of luck. • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 19:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

::Thanks for the link, AKB. Unfortunately, it's a bit over my head, and I think it's especially important that I ''not'' screw it up. Thankfully, it's not an urgent situation, so we can wait until someone with a bit more expertise in this kind situation gets around to it. –[[User:Eshe|Eshe]][[User talk:Eshe|talk]] 19:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

:::I just checked the last 9 spammers who were blocked and found 10 different IP ranges (IPs>spammers because a couple spammers had used two IPs). And none of them were using the same IP range that Eshe had identified -- plus that was a fairly broad IP range (a class B network, i.e., 65536 different IPs) so I'd prefer to be sure that such a large block is needed. Blocked IPs aren't given an email address or any other way to contact the site -- and in the case of IP ranges, I'm not entirely sure whether they're even able to edit a user talk page to appeal the block.
:::The bottom line is that I'm no longer seeing any IP ranges that need to be blocked / can usefully blocked.
:::We may need to upgrade our captcha at some point, but I haven't looked into what all would be necessary to install one of the newer captchas (including what mediawiki version they require). --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 03:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

::::Just to clarify, I was checking the accounts that were following a real first name / real last name pattern, not spam accounts. Actually, I'm not sure if any of the ones I checked had actually made any edits at all. Everything I looked at was coming from 173.208.something.something. [[User:Eshe|eshe]][[User talk:Eshe|talk]] 20:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

{{od}}I've added a titleblacklist block on names with the format Name19##. It's a name format that has been used to create 8 spam accounts in the last few days -- only one recent account with that format has not been using for spamming, and I'm willing to bet that account is also a spambot account. It means that any users who want to create a unique name by adding the year to the end of their name (e.g., Nephele1968) won't be able to do so. But they can still add a two-digit year (e.g., Nephele68), which should be more than enough to create a unique name on UESP. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 01:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

== "Very nice site" vandals ==

May we start blocking these IPs at the first offense? I'm also unclear why some IPs which have received a warning and continued to vandalize, such as [http://uesp.net/wiki/Special:Contributions/91.121.142.140 this guy], have not been blocked yet. [[User:Minor Edits|Minor Edits]][[User_talk:Minor Edits|Threats]]•[[Special:Contributions/Minor Edits|Evidence]] 16:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
:A lot of those warnings are mine because I can't block. They should be blocked because they delete other content and add nonsense. [[User:The Silencer|The Silencer has spoken]] 16:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
::I only asked because there are some, like [http://uesp.net/wiki/Special:Contributions/193.86.149.157 this one], who have already vandalized more than once and haven't even been warned yet. It seems like only a matter of time before each IP is used to vandalize again. Most of the recent vandals to [[Lore:Gods M]] haven't received warnings yet, but I think it would be absurd at this point to give them the benefit of the doubt, so we might as well just skip to the blocking. [[User:Minor Edits|Minor Edits]][[User_talk:Minor Edits|Threats]]•[[Special:Contributions/Minor Edits|Evidence]] 16:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
:::Oops, this is probably somewhat my fault. I was under the impression we were dealing with a bot here, so I didn't warn them. Instead I was planning to ask if they could get blocked, but then subsequently forgot. I didn't block them myself because then an admin would have to extent the block, and it didn't seem that urgent. Thanks for following up though, Minor Edits. [[User:Wolok gro-Barok|Wolok gro-Barok]] 17:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
::::I think they are bots. Even if they are not, they have "bot-like" qualities and probably should just be blocked. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 17:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
{{od}}Since blocking them all myself would be pointless, I'll just list a few that I haven't already mentioned for the convenience of any admin who may wish to take action:

[http://uesp.net/wiki/Special:Contributions/93.82.197.98 93.82.197.98] 
[http://uesp.net/wiki/Special:Contributions/200.241.156.143 200.241.156.143] 
[http://uesp.net/wiki/Special:Contributions/213.160.143.150 213.160.143.150] 
[http://uesp.net/wiki/Special:Contributions/212.87.24.211 212.87.24.211] 
[http://uesp.net/wiki/Special:Contributions/218.127.28.112 218.127.28.112] 

[[User:Minor Edits|Minor Edits]][[User_talk:Minor Edits|Threats]]•[[Special:Contributions/Minor Edits|Evidence]] 18:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

:Alrighty, I think I've got all of them now. Thanks for making the list, Minor Edits! [[User:Eshe|eshe]][[User talk:Eshe|talk]] 18:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

::As a side note, Krusty suggested I hit them for 1 month, so that's what I did. [[User:Eshe|eshe]][[User talk:Eshe|talk]] 19:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

== Beginning of the Month/Archive Semi-protection ==

[[Skyrim talk: Glitches/Archive 4|This]] needs semi protection. More likely to come. —[[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] [[User talk:SkoomaManiac|Talk]] ♫ [[:Special:Contributions/SkoomaManiac|Contribs]] 16:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
:And [[Skyrim_talk:Easter_Eggs/Archive_7|here]]. —[[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] [[User talk:SkoomaManiac|Talk]] ♫ [[:Special:Contributions/SkoomaManiac|Contribs]] 16:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
::[[Skyrim talk:Skyrim/Archive 7|Here]]. —[[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] [[User talk:SkoomaManiac|Talk]] ♫ [[:Special:Contributions/SkoomaManiac|Contribs]] 17:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
:::Here's [[Skyrim_talk:Creatures/Archive_1|another]] one. [[User:Alphabetface|ABCface]][[User_talk:Alphabetface|◥]] 21:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
::::Done! [[User:Eshe|eshe]][[User talk:Eshe|talk]] 22:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

== We need more people to Patrol old edits! ==

Just look at the [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&days=30&limit=5000&hidepatrolled=1 backlog] of unpatrolled edits we have. This is a long list (Robin Hood last calculated it to be about 1000 edits long) but we need to patrol them!

Just so people don't think this is such a daunting task, I will remind them of these simple tips to cut down the list:
*Edits in which people edit their own post can be patrolled.
*A lot of the edits are people just adding {{tl|Unsigned}}s.
*If you are unsure about a content edit (a non-talk page edit), then check the page history (or even just hit Newer Edit) and see if it was undone. If it was undone (for good reason), then patrol it.
*If you are unsure and it wasn't undone, then either add a {{tl|vn}} tag or leave it unpatrolled and hope someone else can come along and answer it.
I do have one question. Can we just patrol any edits to talk pages that are now in an archive? I know it's standard procedure to answer a question before patrolling it, but it's also standard procedure not to edit archives. [[Skyrim talk:Followers]] is a good example. • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 07:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

:Yes, I would say you should patrol archived questions. In theory, an unanswered question probably shouldn't be archived if it's still on the Recent Changes list, but in practice, especially on a high-volume page, if a question remains unanswered even for a couple of weeks, chances are, it never will be, so some people choose to archive it if it's not "Good question" worthy.

:As for the backlog, 1000 (995 right now, to be exact) is actually a ''lot'' less than it was just a month ago. For the most part, I can handle patrolling the 40ish edits per day that make it through to the back end of Recent Changes, but help is certainly appreciated. A second Patroller who mostly patrols the back end of RC would be ideal. But if the regular Patrollers can take two minutes to glance over the the ones at the ''very'' bottom of the list, that would be a big step in ensuring that we have as much factual, good quality information on pages as we can.

:Oh and on a side note, since Jak mentioned it, I have a process that automatically downloads the RC and Patrol Logs into a database a few times a day. It's literally point-and-double-click for me to get up-to-date stats on our Recent Changes list. Is this incredibly geeky? You're damned right it is! :) But hey, before I went on disability, it used to be my job, so I like to keep at least my basic skills up. Point is, generating stats based on RC or the Patrol Log is stupendously easy for me, so don't hesitate to ask if there's some statistic you want to know (how many people in the last few months would qualify for Autopatrolled status comes to mind, for instance <g>). – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 09:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

::I have 4 free hours and absolutely nothing to do - let's have a patrolling party!! :D [[User:Kitkat1749|Kitkat]] •[[User talk:Kitkat1749|Talk]]•[[Special:Contributions/Kitkat1749|Contrib]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Kitkat1749|E-mail]] 10:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

:::I have a small amount of free time this week (no school), so I suppose I could go ahead and help out.--[[User:Kalis Agea|Kalis Agea]][[User talk:Kalis Agea|Yes?]] [[Special:Contributions/Kalis Agea|Contrib]] [[Special:EmailUser/Kalis Agea|E-mail]] 18:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

== Mass Proposed Deletion ==

I'm going through and cleaning up [[Special:UnusedCategories]], and a lot of empty ''faction'' categories still exist. All 364 are listed below.
{{Showhide|List of categories|2=
Skyrim-Factions-put on doors to keep NPCs from opening

Skyrim-Factions-friends to both sides in MQ101

Skyrim-Factions-for the NPCs who can use the load door

Skyrim-Factions-faction for party guards

Skyrim-Factions-faction for guards in front

Skyrim-Factions-faction for NPCs who should stay out of palace

Skyrim-Factions-dunValtheimKeepBanditFaction

Skyrim-Factions-dunUstengravDraugrFaction

Skyrim-Factions-dunRavenscarFaction

Skyrim-Factions-dunMistwatchFjolaFaction

Skyrim-Factions-dunMistwatchFactionAlly

Skyrim-Factions-dunMistwatchFaction

Skyrim-Factions-dunMarkarthWizard SpiderFaction

Skyrim-Factions-dunMarkarthWizard SecureAreaFaction

Skyrim-Factions-dunLostKnifeCatFaction

Skyrim-Factions-dunHarmugstahlFactionWarlockAttackedbySpiders

Skyrim-Factions-dunHarmugstahlFactionSpiderNormal

Skyrim-Factions-dunHarmugstahlFactionSpiderDocile

Skyrim-Factions-dunForelhostSoldierUnfriendly

Skyrim-Factions-dunForelhostSoldierNeutral

Skyrim-Factions-dunForelhostGrifterUnfriendly

Skyrim-Factions-dunForelhostGrifterNeutral

Skyrim-Factions-dunFolgunthurThrallFaction

Skyrim-Factions-dunFolgunthurMikrulFaction

Skyrim-Factions-dunFaldarsToothDogAttackFaction

Skyrim-Factions-anyone in this won't fight with mq101 alduin

Skyrim-Factions-Wolf Faction

Skyrim-Factions-WinterholdJailFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Winterhold

Skyrim-Factions-WindhelmJarlOwnershipFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WindhelmHostlerFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WindhelmAretinoResidenceFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WindhelmApothecaryFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Whiterun Guard Neutral Faction

Skyrim-Factions-WhiterunJarlOwnershipFaction

Skyrim-Factions-White River Prisoner Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Werewolf Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Warmaidens

Skyrim-Factions-WIThugFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WIThiefFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WITavernPatronFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WIPlayerEnemySpecialCombatFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WIPlayerEnemyFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WEUnaggressiveAdventurerFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WEThalmorFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WEThalmorDialogueFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WESpecialCombatFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WERoad02NobleFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WERoad02BodyguardFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WERJ10EnemyFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WEPlayerFriend

Skyrim-Factions-WEJSMerchantHorseFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WEJS25EnemiesFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WEJS21HunterandDogFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WEEnemiesFactionB

Skyrim-Factions-WEEnemiesFactionA

Skyrim-Factions-WEDL10SprigganFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WEDL10LumberjackFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WEDL09HunterFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WEDL09GiantFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WEDL08Faction

Skyrim-Factions-WEDL06ThugFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WEDL06LutreshFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WEDL05Faction

Skyrim-Factions-WEDA07JorgenFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WEDA07DaetraFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WEAggressiveAdventurerFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WEAdventurerHorseRiderFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WE20WarlockFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WE20BanditFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WE19BanditFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WE16HunterFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WE16DeerFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WE15FrostAtronachFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WE15FlameAtronachFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WE14SkeeverFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WE14DogFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WE11SabreCatFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WE11MammothFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WE06PredatorFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WE06BanditFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WE05OrcFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WE03EnemiesFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Vampire Thrall

Skyrim-Factions-Vampire PC Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Used to control DialogueOrcHunters conversations

Skyrim-Factions-TownIrontreeMillFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Thieves Guild

Skyrim-Factions-Thieves' Guild

Skyrim-Factions-The Pale

Skyrim-Factions-Thalmor - Fooled by PC disguise

Skyrim-Factions-Tailor

Skyrim-Factions-TGTQ04 Niranye Attacks Faction

Skyrim-Factions-TG09 Nightingale Enemy Faction

Skyrim-Factions-TG08BMercerHatesPlayerFaction

Skyrim-Factions-TG07 Vald Hates Player

Skyrim-Factions-TG02 Aringoth Player Enemy Faction

Skyrim-Factions-T03HatePlayerFaction

Skyrim-Factions-T01EnmonFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Sybille Stentor

Skyrim-Factions-Storm Atronach Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Steward has already been blackmailed.

Skyrim-Factions-Spriggan Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Soljund's Sinkhole Guards

Skyrim-Factions-SolitudeBluePalaceServants

Skyrim-Factions-Sleeping Giant Services

Skyrim-Factions-Slaughterfish Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Skooma Dealer

Skyrim-Factions-Sinding

Skyrim-Factions-SilverHandFactionPacified

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesThievesGuildNiranye

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesThievesGuildMallus

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesThievesGuildGulumEi

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesThievesGuildEnthir

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesThievesGuildEndon

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesThievesGuildCaravanZaynabi

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesThievesGuildCaravanMajhad

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesThievesGuildCaravanAtahba

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseWindhelmSpells

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseWindhelmMiscVendor

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseWindhelmInnkeeper

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseWindhelmBlacksmith

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseWindhelmApothecary

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseWhiterunSpells

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseWhiterunMiscVendor

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseWhiterunInnkeeper

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseWhiterunBlacksmith

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseWhiterunApothecary

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseSolitudeSpells

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseSolitudeMiscVendor

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseSolitudeInnkeeper

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseSolitudeBlacksmith

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseSolitudeApothecary

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseRiftenSpells

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseRiftenMiscVendor

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseRiftenInnkeeper

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseRiftenBlacksmith

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseRiftenApothecary

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseMarkarthSpells

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseMarkarthMiscVendor

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseMarkarthInnkeeper

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseMarkarthBlacksmith

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseMarkarthApothecary

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesHonningbrewMeaderyPost

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesDawnstarWindpeakInn

Skyrim-Factions-Rorikstead Manor Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Robber's Gorge Bandit Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Riverwood Trader Services

Skyrim-Factions-Restoration Ritual Ghost Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Rank = which mission was last successful

Skyrim-Factions-Rank = which mission was last failed

Skyrim-Factions-Rank = which mission is the player's active mission

Skyrim-Factions-Rank = which mission is in "slot" 2

Skyrim-Factions-Rank = which mission is in "slot" 1

Skyrim-Factions-Rank 1 = Being Absorbed, 2 = Done

Skyrim-Factions-Radiant Raiments

Skyrim-Factions-Put in this faction to get WI follower comments

Skyrim-Factions-Put dragon here when player absorbs power

Skyrim-Factions-Prey Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Player set prisoner free (used to conditionalize packages, etc.)

Skyrim-Factions-Player is being escorted by a friend

Skyrim-Factions-Player has accepted mission hooks from this field co

Skyrim-Factions-Player assaulted this NPC

Skyrim-Factions-Player Horse Faction

Skyrim-Factions-PlayerWerewolfFaction

Skyrim-Factions-PlayerMarriedFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Penitus Oculatus Faction

Skyrim-Factions-POIVolcanicHunterFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Owners of the Common House

Skyrim-Factions-Orthorn's Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Only shows up if Player is Stormcloak

Skyrim-Factions-Only shows up if Player is Imperial

Skyrim-Factions-Once the player gives the cow to the giant they are both permamently added to this faction

Skyrim-Factions-Nilheim Faction

Skyrim-Factions-NPCs Immune to Mehrunes Razor

Skyrim-Factions-NPCs Captured by Bandits

Skyrim-Factions-Moorside Inn Services

Skyrim-Factions-MarriageRivalAttackFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MarriageCourtingFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MarriageAskedFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MarkarthThalmorFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MarkarthStewardOwnershipFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MarkarthJarlOwnershipFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MarkarthHousecarlOwnershipFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Makes them more suspicious in dialogue

Skyrim-Factions-Makes them enemies of the player

Skyrim-Factions-Makes enemy of WEPrisonerFreedCombatPrisonerFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Makes enemy of WEPrisonerFreedCombatCaptorFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Make dungeon creatures not attack me

Skyrim-Factions-MS08AlikrBaseFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MS06CultistFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MS03ChaletOwnershipFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MS03ChaletGuardEnemyFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MS02GrisvarEnemyFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MS02ForswornFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MS02CidhnaMineEnemyFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MS02CidhnaMineCombatFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MS01WeylinKillMargretFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MS01WeylinBeserk

Skyrim-Factions-MS01TreasuryHouseEnemy

Skyrim-Factions-MS01PlayerEnemyFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MS01ConspiracyCombatFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQGreybeardTrainingFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQBladesSparringFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQ306TemporaryFriendsFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQ304AlduinFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQ301SoldierDialogueFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQ301CombatFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQ206PastFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQ206AncientAlduinFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQ206AlduinFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQ202EnemyofPlayerFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQ201ThalmorEnemyFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQ201FriendDistractionDoneFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQ103TemporaryFriendsFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQ103SonsOfSkyrimSoldierFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQ103ImperialSoldierFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQ102ChatterFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQ101StormcloakFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQ101LokirEnemyFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQ101ImperialFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MG05CreatureFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MG03 Caller Faction

Skyrim-Factions-MG02BossNonCombatFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Largashbur Orcs

Skyrim-Factions-Kyne's Peace

Skyrim-Factions-Kolskeggr Mine Guards

Skyrim-Factions-Karthwasten Guard

Skyrim-Factions-KarthwastenPlayerEnemyFaction

Skyrim-Factions-JobStewardFaction

Skyrim-Factions-JobPriestFaction

Skyrim-Factions-JobHousecarlFaction

Skyrim-Factions-JobHostlerFaction

Skyrim-Factions-JobCarriageFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Ice Wraith Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Hunters of Hircine

Skyrim-Factions-Hunter Prey Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Horker Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Horgeir's House Occupants

Skyrim-Factions-Honningbrew Meadery

Skyrim-Factions-Hjaalmarch

Skyrim-Factions-Great Council Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Gray Pine Goods

Skyrim-Factions-Giant Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Frost Atronach Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Forsworn Dog Faction

Skyrim-Factions-ForceFullBodyStagger

Skyrim-Factions-For intimidate brawling

Skyrim-Factions-For dailogue when Thalmor have prisoner with them

Skyrim-Factions-Fletcher

Skyrim-Factions-Flame Atronach Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Fisherman Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Fence

Skyrim-Factions-Fellstar Farm Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Fellglow Prisoner Faction

Skyrim-Factions-FavorAllowIntimidateFaction

Skyrim-Factions-FavorAllowBribeFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Falmer Servant

Skyrim-Factions-Falmer

Skyrim-Factions-FalkreathJarlOwnershipFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Falkreath

Skyrim-Factions-Exiled Government

Skyrim-Factions-Eorlund Gray-Mane

Skyrim-Factions-Enemies

Skyrim-Factions-East Empire Company

Skyrim-Factions-DunAnsilvundBanditFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Dummy Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Dremora Faction

Skyrim-Factions-DragonsreachBasementGuards

Skyrim-Factions-DismissedFollowerFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Dialogue Faction for Wndhelm Guards

Skyrim-Factions-Dialogue Faction for Haafingar Hold Guards

Skyrim-Factions-Dialogue Faction for Falkreath Hold Guards

Skyrim-Factions-Dialogue Faction for Dawnstar Guards

Skyrim-Factions-Death won't trigger WIKill04

Skyrim-Factions-DawnstarJarlOwnershipFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DawnstarHousecarlOwnershipFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Dark Brotherhood Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Daedra

Skyrim-Factions-DB RecurringTarget 9 CrimeFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DB Attack Player Faction

Skyrim-Factions-DB Attack Gianna Faction

Skyrim-Factions-DBCiceroDawnstarFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DB09 Door Lock Faction

Skyrim-Factions-DA16 Player Hate Faction

Skyrim-Factions-DA16 Orc Dream Faction

Skyrim-Factions-DA16OrcAmbushFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DA16ErandurFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DA11GlooredhelAllyFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DA11CannibalAttackFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DA11AttackPlayerFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DA10PlayerEnemyFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DA09TemporaryDragonFriendFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DA08SelfPacifyFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DA07RazorOwnerFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DA07PlayerEnemyFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DA06YamarzCrimeFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DA06YamarzCombatFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DA06GiantFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DA03VampireFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DA02GuardsPlayerEnemy

Skyrim-Factions-DA02ElisifAfraidOfPlayer

Skyrim-Factions-DA02CultistsAreEnemies

Skyrim-Factions-DA02CulistsPlayerEnemy

Skyrim-Factions-DA02ConduitPlayerAlly

Skyrim-Factions-DA01PlayerEnemyFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DA01NelacarEnemyFaction

Skyrim-Factions-CurrentHireling

Skyrim-Factions-CurrentFollowerFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Crowd Spectator

Skyrim-Factions-Crew of the Red Wave

Skyrim-Factions-Condition on Spectator Idle Anims

Skyrim-Factions-CompanionsTrainingSpecialCombatHateFaction

Skyrim-Factions-CompanionsTrainingSpecialCombatFaction

Skyrim-Factions-CompanionsSingleCombatFaction

Skyrim-Factions-College of Winterhold Arch-Mage Faction

Skyrim-Factions-College of Winterhold-Evoker

Skyrim-Factions-College of Winterhold-Apprentice

Skyrim-Factions-Chaurus Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Can show up at battles in this hold

Skyrim-Factions-CWSurrenderTemporaryAllies

Skyrim-Factions-CWSoldierPlayerEnemyFaction

Skyrim-Factions-CWSoldierDefenderFaction

Skyrim-Factions-CWSoldierAttackerFaction

Skyrim-Factions-CWSoldierArcherFaction

Skyrim-Factions-CWRewardFactionWinterhold

Skyrim-Factions-CWRewardFactionWhiterun

Skyrim-Factions-CWRewardFactionRift

Skyrim-Factions-CWRewardFactionReach

Skyrim-Factions-CWRewardFactionPale

Skyrim-Factions-CWRewardFactionHjaalmarch

Skyrim-Factions-CWRewardFactionFalkreath

Skyrim-Factions-CWPlayerAlly

Skyrim-Factions-CWMission08GiantFaction

Skyrim-Factions-CWMission08EnemyToGiant

Skyrim-Factions-CWMission04PrisonerFreedFaction

Skyrim-Factions-CWMission03BedFaction

Skyrim-Factions-CWJobFortPatrolExteriorFaction

Skyrim-Factions-CWJobFortJailorFaction

Skyrim-Factions-CWJobFortGatekeeperFaction

Skyrim-Factions-CWJobFortCommanderFaction

Skyrim-Factions-CWFinaleTemporaryAllies

Skyrim-Factions-CWDisaffectedSoldierFaction

Skyrim-Factions-CWDialogueSoldierWaitingToDefendFaction

Skyrim-Factions-CWDialogueSoldierWaitingToAttackFaction

Skyrim-Factions-CWCivilianFaction

Skyrim-Factions-C06PlayerWolfSpecialCombatFaction

Skyrim-Factions-C06KodlakAndWolfFaction

Skyrim-Factions-C00JorrvaskrFightingFaction

Skyrim-Factions-C00GiantHuntFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Bounty Hunter

Skyrim-Factions-Bounty Collector

Skyrim-Factions-Blue Palace Guard for DA02

Skyrim-Factions-BladesRecruitsFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Bits and Pieces

Skyrim-Factions-BardNoRequestFaction

Skyrim-Factions-BardAudienceMarker

Skyrim-Factions-Bannered Mare Services

Skyrim-Factions-ArenaSelfLoathingFaction

Skyrim-Factions-ArenaPacifyFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Allowed Faction for Execution Guard Package

Skyrim-Factions-Agents of the Black Marsh

Skyrim-Factions-After Hadvar/Ralof get to know you, they are in this faction - used to conditionalize dialogue

Skyrim-Factions-1 = Imperial, 2 = Stormcloak supporter
}}

Now, some of these are just alternative descriptions of currently used faction categories, but some are used temporarily for individual quests. I am not too sure these should be kept as categories, though; rather, they should be described on the faction page. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 04:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

:So, after thinking about, I want to go ahead and propose all empty faction pages for deletion. I really do not believe they serve a purpose by "being empty"; it doesn't really add to the fact that there is no one in that faction. So any of them found on [[Special:UnusedCategories]] are ''officially'' proposed for deletion. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 05:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
::Being 10 days old now, these can be deleted. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 01:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

::Done. --[[User:Alpha Kenny Buddy|AKB]] [[User_talk:Alpha_Kenny_Buddy|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Cont]] [[Special:Emailuser/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Mail]] 02:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
:::Thanks! Not to be picky, but my second comment prodded ALL of the faction pages, which includes Tes3Mod and Morrowind. However, I still want opinions regarding those. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 02:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

::::And Oblivion, right? Well, they would be useful, if we could determine who is ever a member of the group. However, I see no way of going through the game scripting to determine who joins what faction. As such, I don't see a problem with them being deleted. However, I think we should err on the side of caution with Tes3mod factions, as all of those factions are a part of Tamriel Rebuilt, which is still a work in progress. We may have a need for them yet. The others however, should be deleted. If we were going to figure out a way to add all relevant NPCs to their factions, surely we would of done this already when the bots were running. Most of them also appear to only exist for the PC, so there intended purpose (categorizing what NPC is in what faction), can never be fulfilled as the faction only exists for the PC. --[[User:Alpha Kenny Buddy|AKB]] [[User_talk:Alpha_Kenny_Buddy|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Cont]] [[Special:Emailuser/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Mail]] 02:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

== Clean Image vs Cleanup ==

I'm aware of the fact lately everyone's using clean image. I've always used cleanup for images instead. So my silly question, is it wrong to use cleanup for images instead of clean image? I'll use clean image in the future, but I saw a person using cleanup, and I don't know whether I HAVE to correct that or not ~ [[User:Dwarfmp|Dwarfmp]] 05:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

:Clean Image has the benefit of automatically categorizing the image according to what needs to be done to it, which is helpful for people who may want to only take new pictures, only do cropping, etc. So I'd say yes, you probably should correct it. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 07:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

== Very nice site nonsense bot ==

[[Special:Contributions/89.73.170.132|89.73.170.132]] —[[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] [[User talk:SkoomaManiac|Talk]] ♫ [[:Special:Contributions/SkoomaManiac|Contribs]] 01:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
:Done. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 01:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

== Request for Adminship: RobinHood70 ==

:''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.''

{{userlinks|RobinHood70}} has been an obvious administrator candidate for a couple of years, at least. However, until recently he has turned down suggestions that he be nominated for the position. He is now willing to become an admin, so I think UESP should take advantage of the opportunity to add such a qualified editor to the team.

The biggest question is perhaps, why now? Thanks to our group of temporary-turned-permanent admins, plus the welcome return of several inactive admins over the last few months, UESP has more active and semi-active admins than ever before. So we don't have an urgent need to add more administrators. However, it never hurts to have an extra person available to help out, plus I think it's better to start an RfA discussion when the site is relatively under control rather than waiting until after a crisis has erupted. At this point it's been long enough since RobinHood70's return to the site to be sure that he's re-acquainted himself with everything that's been going on at UESP and, perhaps more importantly, that the current community has had a chance to get to know him.

As for RobinHood70's qualifications.... He's been on the site longer than almost any other active editor (even a few hours longer than me!), and has been a patroller for four years (since April 2008). He is very knowledgeable about wiki mechanics — including a thorough understanding of templates, plus having enough wiki know-how to run one of the very few UESP [[User:HotnBOThered|bots]]. He's clearly familiar with the site's policies; his participation in countless current discussions demonstrates his interest in maintaining and improving those policies. He has had Blocker rights since months after the group was first created (August 2010), and has always shown good judgement in using those rights. In fact, he has consistently been one of the most accessible editors with blocking rights, so making him an administrator should provide the community with a reliably-available admin in case of any urgent vandalism or other requests. He's been very active helping other editors and answering questions — to the point where I wouldn't be surprised if many new editors on the site think that he already is an administrator.

In short, he's an obvious candidate.

===Questions===
'''Q1''': ''Why were you previously not interested in being an administrator, and why have you now changed your mind?''
:There were several reasons I was opposed to becoming an administrator, but the two most prominent ones were that I don't like being the final arbiter in most situations—I prefer discussion and consensus, probably to the point of driving people nuts—and, as Elliot has already mentioned, I had concerns about my ability to do the job effectively given the frequent cognitive difficulties caused by the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.

:The reason I've changed my mind in terms of being the one to make the final decision has been twofold. First, with the current admin team being so large, ''any'' decision—even something as trivial as a page deletion—is really a collaborative effort, so nobody makes the final decision on anything. Second, I've been one of only two admins on [http://wiki.white-wolf.com/worldofdarkness/index.php another small wiki] for almost a year now, and realized that...it's really not that scary to be the one who has final say on something. :)

:As far as the CFS goes, it's something I've been dealing with since shortly before I started editing at UESP. Yes, I make some really dumb mistakes at times or misunderstand what I'm reading, but so do we all...I just do it a little more often than others. In the end, though, I haven't done anything that would earn me a spot on the [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Village stocks|Village Stocks]] page (if we had one), and if I don't catch my mistakes, I know that there's a whole wiki full of editors who will point out what I've done wrong so that the appropriate action can be taken.

'''Q2''': ''What do you hope to accomplish as an administrator? What have you accomplished already? Have you made any notable mistakes, and if so, what did you learn from them?''
:Being the template editor that I am, one of the things I'd like to do in the near future is to review our various template pages for their protection level. Some years ago, we had an attack on our most commonly used templates and it wreaked havoc on the wiki. Subsequent to that, most widely used templates were semi-protected, and a couple even have full protection, but I'd like to review that list and make sure that we haven't missed anything important.

:In addition to that, I've noticed a couple of times that our [[:Category:Marked for Deletion|pages marked for deletion]] have been a bit backlogged. It's been noticeably better recently thanks to the efforts of {{Pl|Special:Log|one admin in particular|3=limit=500&type=delete}} (who has done 344 out of the last 500 deletions), but it's definitely something I intend to help out with.

:In terms of accomplishments, I tend to think my biggest accomplishment is in Template space, where, over the course of about half a year, I systematically went through all of our templates and did a lot of simplifying, adding new features, harmonizing, etc. Templates remain my biggest single interest in terms of wiki work, though I'll admit, the bot is starting to become better developed as well, and therefore more interesting.

:As for notable mistakes, the most notable one was actually on the wiki I mentioned above instead of this one. (And as I've said before, while it may not be a wiki guideline, I personally believe that an admin's behaviour on other wikis should reflect on those where they hold a position of responsibility.) I recently accidentally blocked a legitimate user because I wasn't paying close enough attention to their edit. When another user pointed it out, I promptly unblocked the user and apologized, though the unblocked user has not, as yet, returned. That was a definite reminder to me that even when I'm convinced something is yet another spambot edit, that I need to stop and be certain before doing anything drastic.

:Of course, I've also made mistakes on this wiki, such as spectacularly screwing up the various Ingredients pages due to a template error the other day, but I see that kind of error as somewhat less problematic. People generally know when something's an accident that'll be fixed shortly...accidental blocks don't tend to be dismissed quite so easily. (And thanks again to Elliot for spotting the template problem before I did...one tiny little space, or lack thereof, is all it takes sometimes!)

'''Q3''': ''What do you see as the UESP's main challenges in the near future? Are there any changes that you think need to be implemented?''
:My answer to this isn't anything original, though all of the recent admin nominees have had slightly different takes on it. I feel that our biggest challenge is getting accurate information onto the Skyrim pages. I think several recent discussions have started to shape how that will come about, and other than encouraging those types of discussions to continue, I don't see any major changes that need to be implemented. (Well...except for needing new templates of course. I always think we need new templates. <grin>)

'''Q4''': ''What other wiki-related activities do you perform that people might not know about?''
:Honestly, others have largely stolen my intended answers to this question! Probably the one thing left that some people might not be aware of is that I like to take up the "rear guard" when it comes to patrolling—doing my best to ensure that as few things as possible hit the four-week patrolling limit without being patrolled—and I intend to continue that as an admin.

'''Q5''': ''What action will you take if you see another administrator perform an action that you completely disagree with? When you strongly oppose something, how do you plan to express it?''
:It really depends on the nature of the action. If it's clearly just an accident and it needs immediate correction (e.g., deleting the Main Page), I would undo it without further comment unless I can come up with something as hilarious as {{Pl|UESPWiki:Mentor Program|diff=prev&oldid=932706|this}}. But that's obviously not the main focus of the question.

:In the event of a dispute, I've always felt that it's preferable for an admin team to be as professional as possible, and I think part of that is knowing when to try to resolve the dispute behind the scenes and when to solicit community feedback. If the disagreement affected only a small portion of the wiki or one or two users, I would therefore probably try to talk to them via e-mail or IRC rather than making it a public issue. If, on the other hand, the issue affects a very large portion of the wiki or its user-base, or if private discussions don't result in a compromise or understanding, I believe that public discussion is the way to go. In the end, this wiki isn't about what any one user thinks or feels is the right thing to do, it's about what works best for all of us as a whole.

:As for how I express my opposition to something, again, I think it comes back to being professional. That means trying to be courteous and non-judgmental as much as possible, taking a breath and choosing my words carefully, even when I'm convinced the other person is wrong. While I won't hold it up as a model of ideal behaviour, I think the recent discussions about information on quest vs. place pages is a good example of ''why'' I feel this is the way to discuss opposing views. A lot of people use the wiki in ways that I don't, and had never even considered prior to that discussion. By talking it out rather than digging in my heels (much), I realized that there were issues I wasn't thinking of that needed to be addressed in order to ensure that we were serving as much of the community as possible.

===Votes===
Cast votes with '''Support''', '''Oppose''', or '''Neutral'''. '''Comment'''s are also welcome.
*'''Support''': As nominator. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 05:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''': He hasn't yet answered the questions, but I don't need to hear his answers. RH70 is a fabulous editor. He is very friendly, he knows and edits every namespace on the site flawlessly, and is never impatient with any stupid, serious or other questions that I, or anyone else, have for him. I would argue that out of every editor, regular, patroller, admin, or otherwise, RH70 is the most deserving of the position. [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 05:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''': I don't know whether I am allowed to vote or not, but either way, RobinHood70 certainly has helped me with countless things across the period of time that I have been a member on the UESPWiki and he is more than deserving of this position. Plus he does have professional integrity and the ingenuity along with the edits, etc, to more than qualify for this position. I would highly be disappointed if somehow he didn't manage to obtain the position of Administrator, but I doubt that would ever occur because nearly every member on this wiki knows how muhc work and dedication he has put into this site :) [[User:Helenaannevalentine|Helenaannevalentine]] 05:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
:*'''Comment''': I am 99% certain that every editor can cast a vote in an RfA. [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 05:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
::*'''Comment''': Well in that case, I'll change my comment to a vote right now, but if I cannot, then it's not such a biggie as I've gotten my message across as to how RobinHood70 deserves this. Thanks for confirming Eric! [[User:Helenaannevalentine|Helenaannevalentine]] 05:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
:::You ''most certainly'' can vote. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 06:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''': The first thought that came to my mind when I saw this was ''finally''. I know that Rob's CFS has been a major factor in his activity on the site, so I am glad to see that he has decided to change his mind or has deemed himself healthy enough for it. When it comes to templates, there are really only two people that ''I'' can turn to for questions regarding templates: one is [[User:Nephele|Nephele]], and the other is [[User:RobinHood70|RobinHood70]]. Being one of the most knowledgeable users on the site in regards to templates and especially metatemplate is something that should not be ignored. Now, not only does he run a bot–which has helped me wade through template data–he edits more than most users. For awhile now, I have considered it a detriment to the site by ''not'' having Rob as an administrator. I could go on, but I don't see there being any problems with this nomination. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 06:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''': Wait - you're not an admin already? The fact that I didn't know that is probably a good sign. --[[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] [[User_talk:TheRealLurlock|Talk]] 11:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''': Well, it's about time! RH, everybody knows you're incredibly knowledgeable and helpful, and on top of that you're also one of the nicest, most patient, most reasonable and level-headed people I know. This nomination is a long, long time coming, and I was so happy to wake up this morning and see that I'll finally be able to vote "support" for your RfA :). [[User:Eshe|eshe]][[User talk:Eshe|talk]] 13:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
*<strike>'''Support''': Wait, you mean he isn't an admin already? WHY NOT? [[User:ThuumofReason|ThuumofReason]] 14:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)</strike>
**Change vote to '''Oppose''': Several good points have been brought up, and while I'm not entirely aware of the circumstances discussed above, after seeing evidence of the opinion flip-flopping from the links above, I agree that it's probably not a good idea to give RH the power to ban people, among other things. He's a good editor, but so was rpeh, and I don't believe rpeh should have been de-admined for off-site actions in the first place.[[User:ThuumofReason|ThuumofReason]] 17:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''': Not much I can say that hasn't been said, either by voters or RH70 himself. He's an excellent contributor and completely deserves this position. '''[[User:Velyanthe|Vely]]'''[[User talk:Velyanthe|►Talk]][[Special:EmailUser/Velyanthe|►Email]] 17:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
*<s>'''Support''': RobinHood has my complete support, per all of the above; his suitability for administratorship can't be disputed. --[[User:Legoless|Legoless]] 18:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)</s> Removing my vote for the time being. I'd prefer to stay neutral until I know more. --[[User:Legoless|Legoless]] 18:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''': I could write an incredibly lengthy wall of text listing all my reasons, but I won't. Let's just say ''it's about time!'' --[[User:Alphabetface|ABCface]][[User_talk:Alphabetface|◥]] 20:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''': An unofficial admin for a long time, it's time that he finally claimed his rightful title! • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 21:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''': This seems to be an RfA for RobinHood, and I'll sign off on that. But my vote is contingent upon me being entirely unaware of anything written above, as I'm too busy. If I notice later that Robin has written something I intensely disagree with here, such as a call for a religious war or any use of the word "indubitably", then I will change my vote. [[User:Minor Edits|Minor Edits]][[User_talk:Minor Edits|Threats]]•[[Special:Contributions/Minor Edits|Evidence]] 02:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''': I've been in detox for my recent [[Lore:Skooma|skooma]][http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Mentor_Program&diff=prev&oldid=932706] binge, so my apologies for coming to the party late. I want to put my ''full'' support behind this nomination. RobinHood has always been one of the most helpful, nicest, mildest editors on the sight, and I can only see promotion as helping the wiki. When I was a young lad back in 2011, I was legitimately surprised to find that RH wasn't an admin. Even though we have plenty right now, Robin has been around forever and I can't see that changing in the near future. You're awesome, Robin. Keep up the good work — as a patroller, and as an admin!! —[[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] [[User talk:SkoomaManiac|Talk]] ♫ [[:Special:Contributions/SkoomaManiac|Contribs]] 19:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''': When Nephele posted this nomination two days ago, I literally revisited all the different emotions I’ve been through since joining the UESP three years ago, and it resulted in an immediate wikibreak on my part - I needed to get my head on straight so I could approach this nomination in a decent manner. The day was ruined anyway, so I decided to write a lengthy, nasty oppose-vote from hell, just to get my concerns scribbled down somehow. It took me less than 5 minutes to find 13 reasons to oppose the nomination, but I realized that all my reasons looked like personal attacks, and that wasn’t exactly constructive, nor was it fair. I then decided to just abandon the wiki, leave it behind, and live happily ever after – but then I realized that it would mean three years of hard wiki-work would go down the drain. The e-mails from concerned users kept popping in, and I finally realized that I had to place a vote, even if I didn’t really want to – but as administrator, it is the only responsible thing to do so here goes.

: For the past few months, I’ve changed my behavior somewhat – I know an awful lot of you is under the impression that I’m going nuts, suffer from personal issues or whatever, but it all comes down to frustration with what this site has become since the release of Skyrim back in November. Over and over, I have shouted the word “idiocy” as loud as I could, but to no avail, and have seen my opinions being ignored 99% of the time. One way or the other, these idiocy shouts can be traced back to the nominee, so I’ll try and figure out how a person can mean so well – and do so bad. It’s going to be a long post, because it’s incredibly complex to explain – but if you care about this wiki, please read.

: Of course, we can’t skip the Rpeh/KrustyIDaveh incident, so let’s just start there and be done with it. After nearly a full years wiki-break, RH70 rejoined the wiki on December 22nd to help out with the huge amount of Skyrim edits, which was fine. We had an incredible community back then, and an awful lot of fun, mostly due to how ridiculous and chaotic everything was. The fun lasted 40 days, then Snowmane posted his infamous [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive_23#rpeh.27s_attacks_on_TESWiki.2C_request_for_resignation_of_admin_privilages.|de-admin request]] for me and rpeh, a rushed and unneeded action that both me and rpeh tried to stop. Unfortunately, somebody smelled blood; notice RH70’s uncertain oppose to the de-admin request then jump to [[User_talk:Daveh#Community_Discussion_About_rpeh|his post on Daveh’s talk page]], where he shows his true colors. He didn’t seem satisfied with the way the votes were going, so he brought in Daveh who had no choice but to de-admin both me and rpeh in an attempt to shut people up. Can’t blame him for that. The rest is history, Daveh decided to de-admin rpeh permanently, while I managed to get through the scandal with the tools intact. What is really important to note is that I started it, by calling the Wikia people morons in an edit summary, reverted Snowmane’s first attempt at drama, and even called Snowmane a moron when I had to go through the usual [[User_talk:Krusty/Arc_2012a#Inappropriate_Edit_Summary|concerns]] on my talk page – rpeh simply followed up on an action initially performed by me – but he was butchered, and I was spared. Wonder why? Look no further – or please look closely: who is missing from [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive_23#Restoring_krusty.27s_adminship|this post about my admin-ship]], despite having started it all – take a wild guess. He was busy agreeing with Daveh in the aftermath just above – where RH70 more or less explains all of this a whole lot better than I can. That is true bloodthirst wrapped in polite words, but it is right there on the page, so make your own decision. Let me finish off this section with a RH70 quote that leads to the next section: “Clearly, there are people in this discussion who would see rpeh back as an Administrator. But just as clearly, there are a good number of people who wouldn't.” Let’s take a quick look on these people, shall we? Ironically, they can all be found complaining on my talk page, in the very same [[User_talk:Krusty/Arc_2012a#Inappropriate_Edit_Summary|concerned thread]] I linked to above. What’s even more ironic is that the exact same people were the first ones to support this nomination. Just scroll up and see for yourself.

: Let’s look at this group of people. Where did they come from? Answer is simple – with the exception of helenaannevalentine, they are all the first ones to respond when they believe power is being misused, just like RobinHood70: they all spend an awful lot of time making ‘maintenance edits’ and none of them could make a content edit to save their life. When they see injustice, however, they will jump out of their PC-friendly IRC-chatroom and attack right away. Please click each and every link in the section above, then look at their contributions to the site. A clique like that is to be expected on any wiki, but RobinHood70 encourages them (maybe even leads them?) in the everlasting wiki battle between people with authority and people with no understanding of the word whatsoever. These people will often throw guidelines and policies all over a heated debate, just to prove their point – but can more often be seen breaking the same policies by ignoring consensus (or simply ignoring the fact that the community may have something to say) and will never even stop to think twice about the possible consequences of their actions; in short, cliques like that should never be encouraged, they should be controlled. That’s what administrators are for, but when rpeh understandably left the wiki, the clique and RH70 suddenly found themselves ahead of everybody else – and the downfall of UESP was unavoidable.

: What did RH70 do next? Well, he took it upon himself to make sure that each and every possible unpatrolled edit on the wiki would be patrolled. Once again, he never even thought about the consequences and started recruiting good editors whenever they popped up, and without knowing them at all. This lead to a series of more or less uninspired patroller nominations, including some kind of inappropriate “The UESP needs YOU”-job add, which I (thankfully) can’t find anymore. RobinHood70 knows better than anybody that a patroller nomination will scare 50% of all users away, but he went ahead anyway – strangely obsessed with unpatrolled edits, and unaware of the rising concerns from editors all over the wiki, he started using up good editors, in the process causing them to disappear. Where is Alfwyn? Where is Thuraya Salaris? Where is everybody? Answer is simple and quite natural – they jumped the sinking ship while they could. Who can blame them? Alfwyn seriously tried to discuss how to handle things, and went a long way to prove his point - and he was probably one of the best editors I’ve seen on the site. What did he get? He got yelled at, he was belittled, and nobody cared when he started uploading Skyrim dungeon maps in an attempt to organize things. When he disappeared without a trace, RH70 finally woke up and asked where he was gone – but damage done, Alfwyn gone. That’s very poor considering how much of an interest he took in the, at the time, incredibly unimportant amount of unpatrolled edits. This section was aimed at the many patrollers out there – be very aware that it is thankless to make an effort on the Wiki. That being said, the situation reflects my point - before Skyrim, we handed out cookies to encourage users to keep up the good work – now, we’re reduced to judging people’s efforts from stat tables and whether or not they agree with the clique and RH70.

: Still obsessed with unpatrolled edits, RobinHood70 then decided to send an invitation to all inactive administrators, so they could ‘re-join’ now that everything was great on the Wiki. Problem is, the Wiki was shit. When Nephele decided to prove a point by digging up a dinosaur of a guideline and belittle my efforts on the [[Skyrim:Forbidden Legend|Forbidden Legend]] page, I was getting tired. So very tired. Please read through [[UESPWiki:Community_Portal#Skyrim_Quest.2FPlace_Organization|this discussion]]. Please note that RH70 couldn’t be bothered to participate until he realized Neph was getting into trouble. Just read it. RH70 reveals he knows nothing about the specific quest, nor can he be bothered with doing research on the matter. Witness the amount of wasted words and how I finally get angry and ask him to at least play through the quest ONCE to validate the ton of opinions. Also, take note that RH70 admits that he hasn’t even played the game at all, which is suspicious considering the amount of edits he’s patrolled, and his strong opinions on the quest page. Finally, witness how the unneeded discussion ends with me leaving quest pages behind, to little effect, then witness how the entire thing gets ridiculous and the absence of RH70 when Neph tries to [[UESPWiki:Community_Portal#Wrapping_Up|sum things up]]. I rest my case – I think you get my point; discussion for the sake of discussion and we ended up with the exact same policy as before. I doubt RH70 even read Neph’s walkthrough though, despite all his nodding and agreeing when it was finally posted and turned out to be even longer than the Forbidden Legend page, but that’s beside the point. Time was wasted and most of the newly invited ex-administrators went back to sleep. Can’t blame them for that.

: At this point, idiocy popped up everywhere. The whole [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard#Request_for_a_New_User_Group|auto-patrolled user discussion]] was launched, and while it was well-intended, it was nothing but a side effect of the RH70 ‘unpatrolled edits’ craze. Again, nobody even thought about the consequences. If you’re interested, read my post, then read RobinHood’s response underneath. It all ended up with three really good editors having to go through a voting session they never really accepted or deserved (I’d compare it to making a CP post called “What do you think about [User]?”) with the usual controversy and even more bull to follow. Can’t be bothered with a link, but it basically ended up with anger from Aliana and Manic – I just hope that PLRDLF missed it completely.

: I could keep going, but it is time to stop. RH70, I seriously believe that you meant no harm with any of this and did what you thought was the right thing to do. I think you’re an excellent editor and patroller and you have done a ton of good stuff for the site – but you as an administrator is a really really bad idea. Maintaining this site (and the quality of the content) takes an awful lot of knowledge, not only about Elder Scrolls and wiki markup, but about how to deal with people, how to think twice when suggesting or discussing something, and always take into consideration how your opinions may affect the wiki and all the editors, not only at the current time, but also two years into the future. Sorry about using this nomination to sum up what I think went wrong with the wiki, but you played a huge part in the demise and it should be taken into consideration – I love this wiki to death, warts and all, and I’ll openly admit that I have made my share of mistakes in the past few months, due to my frustration over the problems explained above. I really want to see the wiki flourish again, but I don’t see that happen with you as administrator. Sorry. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 17:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

:*'''Comment''': There's obviously a lot to respond to here, but I'll try to keep this as short as possible (which I know I'm not good at).

::First off, I believe guidelines and rules are there for a reason, and that for too long, there has been an unwritten policy of "we ignore them when Admins are involved". That's not fair to anyone, and in the end, even if sometimes the rules get in the way or need to be changed, not enforcing them only with certain people only serves to create division in the community. I'm a rules-oriented person and as an Admin, if I become one, I would try to be a model of following our policies and guidelines. I believe that's appropriate for every Administrator. That informed my various replies that Krusty paints as being "bloodlust". It was nothing of the kind - I simply wanted the rules to be followed by ''everyone''.

::In that vein, my post to Daveh's wall did indeed show my true colours: I saw gross violations of Wikipedia's guideline on [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins|involved administrators]] and I asked the person whose job it is to deal with these issues to make a ruling on the concern. After the de-adminship, in point of fact, I wrote to Daveh directly expressing that I thought Krusty should be re-adminned; Daveh can confirm that if it's really necessary. It went privately because I was really tired when I wrote to him and didn't trust that I was writing well enough for public consumption; I had intended to post publicly the next day, but by the time I started formulating a reply to add to the thread, Krusty had already been re-adminned, so it was a moot point. In the end, the simple fact is that we all make mistakes or poor judgement at times, and a single disagreement about the best way to handle something is usually not cause for de-adminning.

::Contrary to Krusty's assertion, [[Wikipedia:WP:TINC|there is no <s>cabal</s> clique]]. While there are occasional off-wiki communications between users, I can tell you that Krusty and I have exchanged more e-mails and chatted more in IRC since my return than Nephele and I have in our entire UESP existence. As for Elliot, helena, and Eric Snowmane, we're all late-night editors (our time) by and large, as Krusty himself knows since Elliot, ES, and I are often all on the IRC with him when he wakes up. (I don't recall ever seeing helena there, but I do often see her editing while I'm patrolling.) By the same token, the nomination was posted fairly late at night, so it's only natural that those three were the first to respond.

::Amusingly, however, while not in a clique, I do consider myself to have a niche, just like almost every editor does. I'm a WikiGnome. I will probably always be a WikiGnome. That's exacerbated by the CFS, which makes it hard to concentrate for long periods, but even if they found a cure tomorrow, I suspect that would still be my style. I do my best to get the little stuff out of the way, like patrolling, like re-writing templates that often need it, like moving pages or proposing them for deletion, etc.—I do all that because I enjoy doing the little things, and it allows those who enjoy working on bigger projects to do so without having to worry about the little things that take up so much time. As an Administrator, should I gain those rights, that won't change. I will still most likely take care of things like page deletions and page protection rather than focussing on things like content creation, like Krusty does, or adding masses of technical information via a bot like Nephele does.

::As far as my obsession with getting new Patrollers active, that goes to the difference in approach that Krusty and I have towards the wiki. I don't believe either of us is wrong, and in fact I feel both styles are very necessary to have a functioning wiki. Krusty, at least in my observation, focuses on creating content. That's excellent because obviously we ''need'' content in order to be valuable as a wiki. I focus on ensuring that the content others are adding is correct, well-formatted, and fits into the theme of the page, hence my attempts to ensure that virtually every last edit gets patrolled. I believe that both of us, in our own way, are raising the quality of the wiki overall, and that encouraging editors to focus only on one way of doing things would be detrimental. That's what I was trying to express in the auto-patrolled users discussion. I believe that patrolling everything helps us avoid having incorrect or badly formatted information on our wiki. To this day, I still find information in the tail end of the Patrol Log that is clearly incorrect...and has been sitting there for four weeks with nobody questioning the change. That's why I patrol as much as I do, and why I often don't have as much time as I'd like to play the game itself.

::On a side note, a few informational issues: I've had the game and been playing it since Christmas. I believe my statements in regards to play time where that I hadn't had time ''recently'' to play it because of the patrolling backlog. When I did develop the time, I played through the relevant quests, though nothing in my concerns changed as a result. I'm also confused as to why Krusty thinks Alfwyn got yelled at or belittled. I always thought our working relationship was quite good, and in fact thanked Alfwyn several times for coming up with better ways to deal with some things than I had.

::Finally, in the above discussion, Krusty variously assigns motives to practically everything I've done in recent times. Rather than prolong the drama, let me just say that his perceived motives and my real ones are very very different. I try at all times to be open and honest about what I'm doing, but if at any time anyone has concerns about anything I've said or done, I encourage them to ask, either on-wiki or off. Krusty and I have done this many times over the last couple of months in light of his obvious discontent with my style, and I thought he understood that my motives were nothing like what he believes them to be. Obviously, I wasn't communicating as clearly as I thought I was, or he simply wasn't believing me. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 21:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''': Something strikes me wrong, someone who has claimed for so long to not wanting to be an admin being offered it and just accepting. I don't think the line of 'I was surprised to find he wasn't an Admin' really adds much either.
**During [[UESPWiki:Community_Portal#Skyrim_Quest.2FPlace_Organization|this discussion]] in which he appears to agree with Nephele about the''content'' of quest pages, Krusty makes a point about how wording can make a different to the ''content'' of the Quest Pages in questions, but RH70 ends talking about ''quality'' somehow... topic change? In his next comment, RH states to know nothing of, and not participate in, the FA procedure (possibly to ignore Krustys point about them) . But one comment down the line he then decides to bring FAs back up to prove his own point, to which he claimed he was not a participant. I'm not sure having your opinion on something jump from one side of the fence to the other is a valued attribute for prospective administrators.
**During [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive_23#rpeh.27s_attacks_on_TESWiki.2C_request_for_resignation_of_admin_privilages.|this discussion]], I also read the RH seems to hold personal grudges (which would be fine if he didn't hold the personal grudge and then act upon it) by conveniently looking up (i'm sure anyone interested could of done so) rpehs history elsewhere.
**As well as this, I don't feel the need for another Administrator at the moment. I feel like this RfA has made things very uncomfortable around the wiki this past few days, I could see this RfA being successful driving the community into two more obvious halves than previously when rpeh got summarily de-adminned. The amount of people that have disappeared since this RfA has shot up has got to be more than average, I think this can be no coincidence and do not wish to see this unique community split more for the sake of one more Admin at a time when we have plenty around. I cannot blame this RfA soley I think its been coming on for a while, but I think this was the final nail in the coffin for a few editors.
*I can’t think of much else to say, but I just don’t like the mood and community around here at the moment. And I honestly believe its driven a few of my fellow editors away. --[[User:Kiz|kiz]] {{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|Kiz| '''[[Special:EmailUser/Kiz|email]]''' | '''[[User_Talk:Kiz|talk]]''''''[[Special:EmailUser/Kiz|email]]'''}} 17:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
:*'''Comment''': Can you clarify what I said in terms of "quality"? The only thing I see that's similar is where I talk about raising or lowering standards, which was a direct response to Krusty's comments about "we will lower our standards" and things looking "bad and messy". I won't say it was my finest moment in any event, but I think there's been a lot of frustration between various people on the wiki, of ''all'' roles, which Krusty himself says above. Ideally, I'd like to see us find a way through that that we can all be happy with. As far as personal grudges go, I realize it may have appeared that way, but it really wasn't. As I said above, the only "grudge" I have is when people are blatantly violating our policies and guidelines and Administrators don't say or do anything about it—that's what you were seeing expressed there.Going back to your first comment about why I'm running, I tried to explain that in question one. While I've never coveted an Admin position, and I explained the main reasons I haven't wanted it in the past, I have occasionally made offers to be essentially the WikiGnome of an Admin I described above, one who takes care of the menial tasks to allow others to take on whatever they enjoy doing. I saw that various things like our deletion categories were getting backlogged, so I made the offer to Nephele a couple of weeks ago that if help was wanted, I felt both willing and ready. I gather she was busy, so I didn't even get a reply to my e-mail until the day of the nomination, but I wasn't in any particular hurry. Also, another reason I neglected to mention originally, but is a significant contributing factor, is the simple fact that we now pretty much have our patrolling under control, so I have more time for things like bot work and potentially administrative duties. With Eshe's departure, though, that may no longer be the case...she was a significant patroller. We'll see. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 22:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
::*'''Comment''': It was indeed where you spoke about standards, but what first pointed out the is this comment from Ratwar: " We're not talking to each other. We're talking past each other. Robin Hood". Which shows its not only me thinking that you side-tracked off topic a bit. I'd also like to comment on your 'There is no clique(/cabal)' link, I think there is. And has been for atleast a few months, and I think it traces back too... [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive_23#rpeh.27s_attacks_on_TESWiki.2C_request_for_resignation_of_admin_privilages|This discussion]], (it was also noticeable when [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:IRC&diff=prev&oldid=877350 ChatSpike died] because only one half bothered joining the Xertion channel). One would like to think there is no clique, but I can see that there is. I think a few users (from both sides) will be able to see what I mean. Looking at the opinions on those two links for different people will also show there are about 3 grounds: One Side, the Other Side and 'The Group in the Middle'. I'm not saying its just you, but I think that there are many of use (knowingly or not) that are a part of one side or the other. And, I have to say - it also seems to be split between edit *type* (maintenance/content basically), interpret that as you will but I think its unhealthy, and I think this rfa would split the community more. --[[User:Kiz|kiz]] {{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|Kiz| '''[[Special:EmailUser/Kiz|email]]''' | '''[[User_Talk:Kiz|talk]]''''''[[Special:EmailUser/Kiz|email]]'''}} 19:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
:::*'''Comment''': I think it's a bit late to worry about splitting the community, although I am still surprised by how quickly we divided ourselves. I log on one morning, see Robin Hood's RfA, and think "Well it's about time!" and cast my vote. I log on the next morning and see that the entire community has separated on the issue. Really? Is this such a critical issue that we need to fight amongst ourselves, only harming the wiki in the process? If we keep burning these bridges, we'll only destroy the wiki in the process.As for his edits, I don't see why focusing on maintenance edits is such a bad thing. I personally float around and do whatever is needed, so I tend to bump into Robin Hood a lot, and every now and then I help him. All I can say is, he does his job well and he helps satisfy a niche group of tasks that in all honesty only Elliot shares. Maintenance edits might seem like cheating (for lack of a better word), but they are very important to keeping this wiki running smoothly. • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 22:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

::*'''Comment''': I recall thinking that Ratwar had misunderstood what I was trying to say, and he obviously thought the same, so honestly, I'm inclined to put that issue down to misunderstandings on both sides and leave it at that. The bigger issue, as you've said, is that there are obviously groups of people who think in different ways. (I don't think "cliques" applies, but let's not get hung up on terminology.) My question to you, or to anyone else who has any ideas on it, is: how do we resolve our differences? In the larger sense, we need to be talking to ''each other'' more, rather than complaining about so-and-so to those we know are likely to agree with us. As to my specific RfA, if I withdraw, it will rightfully be seen as being bullied into withdrawal by those who've opposed it; if I let it run, it will rightfully be seen as divisive or exclusionary of those who opposed it. What's the solution? – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 22:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''': There's absolutely nothing to justify this. Krusty has already covered the main points, Kiz has added some detail, but there's another important point. There has always been a tradition that admins should have some Major Work behind them before being nominated. While some have had to be prompted (one of the "Support" voters for instance), there's simply nothing on RH70's CV that qualifies. His main input has been to spend hours splitting hairs and pushing his own idiosyncratic POV on policy debates while doing nothing but fixing typos, over-complicating templates, and sucking up to people he thinks will benefit his wiki career. This entire nomination is nothing but a façade to add another voice to one "side" when votes are called. It has no merit whatsoever. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 18:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
:*'''Comment''': One would argue that tons of maintenance, minor work, and fostering of a friendly atmosphere (from my POV), all of which are little things, culminate into Major Work. I don't see what the issue is with forming policies and focusing on keeping the wiki a well-oiled machine. "Sucking up" sounds like more of a personal attack than anything else; I could just as easily argue that right now you're being a belligerent nuisance who only came back to get some sort of petty revenge, just for the sake of harming the wiki and satisfying a grudge. • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 22:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

*'''General Comment''': I realized afterwards that I forgot to address a few points in all of the above. I think the main ones were covered, but if anyone would like me to address something I missed, please feel free to ask again. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 00:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
:*'''Comment''': IMO someone who inspires such negative emotions from others users should not be approved. But RobinHood70 has the right to wait for Daveh to make the final call, leaving the nomination open is not ignoring those who opposed it. There does appear to be a divide between users along the lines of maintanence/content edits which needs sorting in a separate article. I really can't make up my mind about whether RobinHood should be an admin. which is why I am so late to the party. [[User:The Silencer|The Silencer has spoken]][[User talk:The Silencer|Talk]] 22:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''': per krusty and rpeh I agree that nothing good can come of this. something is rotten in the state of Winterhold. [[User:Haysie|Haysie]] 21:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

:* '''Comment''': This user created an account in July 2011 and never used it afterwards except to [[Special:Contributions/Haysie|create their user page]]. It seems rather odd that their only contribution is to participate in a vote. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 22:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
::I agree with you on that one. That last vote is dubious at best. [[User:ThuumofReason|ThuumofReason]] 22:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
:::Do [[UESP:Assume Good Faith|these]] [[UESP:You Are Valuable|two]] apply here at all? I mean, Daveh might not be keen on strongly considering a vote from someone with nearly no contributions, but it's possible that Haysie's been watching the wiki or stumbled across this page and decided to look into the situation. '''[[User:Velyanthe|Vely]]'''[[User talk:Velyanthe|►Talk]][[Special:EmailUser/Velyanthe|►Email]] 23:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
::::See "[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Expressing_opinions|Expressing opinions]]" in Wikipedia's RfA guidelines. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 00:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::This is exactly the sort of thing that disqualifies RobinHood from being an admin. He's quite happy to accept "Support" votes from people with few contributions, but heaven forfend anyone should oppose him. Disgraceful. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 05:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

== Easter Eggs page protection? ==

I just noticed that several unapproved edits were recently made to the Skyrim Easter Eggs page...by IP users. Uh...isn't the page supposed to be semi-protected? How can an unregistered user edit it? [[User:ThuumofReason|ThuumofReason]] 12:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

:It's edit protection expired a week ago. I'm not entirely sure it should be re-protected either, as it hasn't seen any major spike of editing since the protection expired. If it becomes a target of a large number of incorrect edits, I'll re-protect it. --[[User:Alpha Kenny Buddy|AKB]] [[User_talk:Alpha_Kenny_Buddy|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Cont]] [[Special:Emailuser/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Mail]] 17:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
::Sounds good. Like you said, activity on the talk page has slowed to a trickle, so maybe we're finally done with that nightmare, eh? [[User:ThuumofReason|ThuumofReason]] 17:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Rpeh

2012-04-18T18:08:41Z

Rpeh: /* For what it's worth... */ reply

User talk:Rpeh

2012-04-18T18:08:17Z

Rpeh: /* Imperial City image */ reply

UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard

2012-04-18T18:06:16Z

Rpeh: /* Votes */ oppose

[[Category:Message Boards|{{PAGENAME}}]] __NEWSECTIONLINK__
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. For certain specific requests, see instead:
* [[UESPWiki:Purge Requests|Purge Requests]]
* [[UESPWiki:New Page Requests|New Page Requests]]
{{Archive Table|title=Major Discussions
|UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Vandalism|Vandalism|Mostly spam, actually.
|!|History|
|History#Page Archives|Page Archives|
|History#Past Administrative Requests|Past Administrative Requests|
}}

== SEVERE caching issues on ths mobile site ==

Title says it all. On a whim, I checked the CP on my iPhone, and it's '''way''' out of date. I'm talking December out of date. Hard refreshing did not fix it, so it's definitely server-side. When I log in, it takes me away from (and keeps me off of) the mobile site, so I can't purge it. Can someone please take a look at this? • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 01:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

== Discontinuing creation limits ==

I belatedly realized that page creation limits [[UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard/Archives/More Skyrim-Related Policy Changes|originally proposed]] to be discontinued on February 29th were still in place. I've now gone ahead and lifted the limits. I'd expect that we'll probably start to get the usual assortment of unnecessarily-created pages that need to be proposed for deletion. If the problems seem unusually numerous, we can of course discuss whether other measures are needed. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 00:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
: Why not make it another 6-month deal? Page creation is one of the few things we have under control - and we're alive because of that. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 04:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
::I'd rather see what happens over the next week or so first. Having to put some pages up for deletion is no more work than having to respond to new page requests, and it has the additional bonus that more editors can help out with tasks such as creating redirects. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 04:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
:::I just asked this on RH's page, but since he didn't know of anywhere on the site, maybe one of you might. Is there somewhere on the site which shows a list of the most recently created articles? It's not really important, I'm mostly just curious about it. [[User:Alphabetface|ABCface]][[User_talk:Alphabetface|◥]] 19:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
::::Have you tried [[Special:Newpages]]? Is that what you're looking for? [[User:Eshe|eshe]][[User talk:Eshe|talk]] 19:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)`
:::::Yes, thank you! And thanks to ES, too :) [[User:Alphabetface|ABCface]][[User_talk:Alphabetface|◥]] 19:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::D'oh! Thanks, Eshe. I thought there should be one somewhere, but I went looking for it under Logs and didn't think to check Special Pages like I should have. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 19:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I just went ahead and re-instituted the page creation limits in the main namespace. The only pages created in the main namespace since March 17th have been spam pages that needed to be speedy-deleted. Furthermore, I don't think we want to allow even most typical editors to create main namespace pages, since such pages have historically always been pages that actually belonged in a game namespace but were created by an editor who wasn't familiar with our namespace system. So I think it's best overall if we limit main namespace page creation to admins/patrollers/etc. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 01:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

== Request for a New User Group ==

During the patroller nomination for [[UESPWiki:Patrollers/Nominations/Completed#Helenaannevalentine|Helenaannevalentine]] I noticed that while she's a fine editor, one that doesn't need to have her edits checked by a patroller, she doesn't actually patrol much as was denied due to this. Due to the backlog with unpatrolled edits, several editors have been put forward for patroller rights on the grounds that we wouldn't have to patrol their edits if they were made a patroller. I think it would be easier to simply create a new user group which puts its members on autopatrol, saving everyone else the hassle. The only requirement for joining the group is that an administrator believes their edits don't require any oversight, and that it would be a waste of time having to manually patrol their edits. Likewise, it can be taken away if an administrator doesn't believe their edits don't require a second look.

While I don't understand the technicalities of creating a group, I'm sure this can be done. While I don't think this group will have a particularly large number of members as a few of those who would of been part of this group went on to be patrollers, I still think it would do the site some good. --[[User:Alpha Kenny Buddy|AKB]] [[User_talk:Alpha_Kenny_Buddy|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Cont]] [[Special:Emailuser/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Mail]] 19:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

:I second this. Also put [[User:Alphabetface|Alphabetface]] and [[User:Elliot|Elliot]] into this group. • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 20:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

::I'm in favour of the idea, and I can handle the technical side of things easily enough. If we're collecting names, I'd also suggest [[User:PLRDLF|PLRDLF]].
::However, I'd like to suggest that perhaps patrollers should be the ones responsible for deciding who belongs in the group, rather than administrators -- since patrollers are the ones affected if someone is added to the group (it doesn't even have any affect on the editor who is added to the group). Perhaps any patroller can nominate someone to join the group; as long as another patroller seconds the nomination, it can take effect immediately (and any admin would be able to do the promotion). (Where "patroller" implicitly includes administrators, since admins all have patroller rights). --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 22:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

:::I guess that's not that much more difficult, while allowing more people into the pool to help make decisions here. If we are collecting names, let me add [[User:Manic|Manic]] and [[User:Helenaannevalentine|Helenaanevalentine]] to my list of candidates to start this group off. --[[User:Alpha Kenny Buddy|AKB]] [[User_talk:Alpha_Kenny_Buddy|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Cont]] [[Special:Emailuser/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Mail]] 23:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

::::Good idea. It may be premature, but [[User:The Silencer|The Silencer]] is also on my list of up-and-coming users that could go into this user group. • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 00:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::We should definitely keep the number of users on this low. As of now, the only users that would truly make sense are myself, [[User:Manic|Manic]], and [[User:PLRDLF|PLRDLF]]. The other ones I would hesitate with; however, since I am not a patroller, it won't matter much. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 01:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

::::::Since we're putting forth names, I agree with most of the above suggestions, and would like to add [[User:Kimi the Elf|Kimi the Elf]] and [[User:Aliana|Aliana]] to the list. (Note: Aliana tends to be active in spurts, but she's been around the wiki for years and I completely trust her edits at this point.) Also, I think at this point, Alphabetface should just plain run for Patroller and skip the new group altogether.

::::::As a side note to this discussion, our level of unpatrolled edits has slowly been creeping down, though all it would take to start going the other direction very fast would be for one of the top five Patrollers to stop doing so. As of right now, we're sitting at a little under 1500 unpatrolled edits over the last 28 days. Looking at all the editors mentioned to this point, they have 1418 total edits between them in that same 28 days, 104 of which remain unpatrolled at this point. It goes without saying that not having to patrol those edits would make a ''huge'' difference. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 06:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::::I seriously think we should limit it to 5 or 6. And RH, until Kimi can provide reasonable edit summaries, I really do not think she belongs in this group. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 02:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

{{od}} I don’t think we should go down this path whatsoever. Basically, everybody makes factual mistakes in SR-namespace these days and, to be perfectly honest, not even administrators should be auto-patrolled. After playing Skyrim since November (every day), I feel knowledgeable about 10-15% of the game, and I definitely take comfort knowing that another editor looks/reads through my edits. So, what am I saying here? Well, I believe that handing out too many of these high-fashion auto-patroller-thingy’s is an open invitation to lower standards, simply because the editors in question will be aware that their edits will no longer be cross-checked by another editor. It is also an invitation to patrollers to easily ignore edits and instead jump straight to the latest addition to the Blood on the Ice talk page. Admitted, when somebody edits a page on my watch-list, I patrol the edit regardless of exclamation marks, editor and status, because that’s what I’m supposed to do. I think that this attempt to make life easy will end up making it harder – and I believe we need to halt this uprising ‘un-patrolled edits panic’ and focus on quality content. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 06:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

:The counter-point to that, though, is that by allowing the more trusted editors to be autopatrolled, Patrollers can focus on the edits that will be lower-quality/more dubious, on average, and thus bring the wiki's standards up. I don't know about anybody else, but right now, I spend far more of my time patrolling than actually playing, which means that I'm not as knowledgeable as I'd like to be either. By cutting back on the patrolling burden, all of us will have more time to get more familiar with the game, or do more in-depth research in the CK, and therefore be able to answer more questions with the correct facts. In the end, I'd rather have reasonably trustworthy edits go unpatrolled than have edits of unknown quality go unpatrolled. I know the days the patrolling burden has been lighter, I've been able to give much better answers than I otherwise would have. Today, for example, if I couldn't find an answer in 5 minutes or so, I just gave up and moved on to the next issue. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 07:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

::I always read any edits in the Recent Changes that seem interesting, patrolled or not. This includes edits made by Patrollers and Admins. Usually, these pages that I check regardless are in my area of expertise. Because I am knowledgeable about those topics, and I check any edits made to them regardless, it really wouldn't affect how factually sound those articles are if the person who made the edit is in the Auto-Patrolled user group. • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 17:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

:::What if we accepted members freely into this group (I say "freely", but there would have to naturally be prerequisites that have to be met) without a size cap, but have the editors in the group go up for a Patroller nomination after a period of say... One or two months? That would help ease the burden of unpatrolled edits. The editors that we have an eye on can have their edits autopatrolled, but they have to keep an eye on the Recent Changes as well since they would have their names up for a nomination. That would keep the group small, since you have to be interested in eventually making larger, more responsible contributions to the site... They get autopatrolled, and in exchange they eventually have to help us patrol. A decision on what to do should they fail the nomination would have to be thought of, but I thought this could be an interesting little suggestion. [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 18:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

:::: I'm simply going to say that I support this idea. There is nothing I can say that has not been said already. Hopefully the community will vote in favour of this. I also agree with the idea that only trusted editors should be eligible to ensure that (like Krusty says) it reduces problems rather than creates more. --[[User:Manic|Manic]] 19:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

{{od}}If we really wanted to keep it small and trustworthy, we could do the same thing that we already do for patrollers, with a week of voting. One of the huge factors for becoming a patroller is the question "Do we trust their edits?" If we do and if they edit recently changed pages, then they tend to become patrollers. These people wouldn't have the exclamation points, nor would they have to monitor recent changes; however, we'd still be trusting them with their own content as much as we trust patrollers. The only difference in the nominations for these people would be the lack of the question "Do they patrol the recent changes?" --[[User:Velyanthe|Velyanthe]] 19:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

:Just to jog people's memory in terms of those who we might want to add to the new group, assuming it goes ahead, here are the top 10 editors in the last 28 days excluding all edits that are autopatrolled. This is strictly based on the editing data and obviously shouldn't be taken as any kind of endorsement, just a list of names to make sure we're not forgetting anyone obvious.
:* [[User:Alphabetface|Alphabetface]] (User Patroller)
:* [[User:CapnZapp|CapnZapp]]
:* [[User:DextroWombat|DextroWombat]]
:* [[User:Elliot|Elliot]] (User Patroller)
:* [[User:Helenaannevalentine|Helenaannevalentine]] (User Patroller)
:* [[User:Kertaw48|Kertaw48]]
:* [[User:Kimi the Elf|Kimi the Elf]] (User Patroller)
:* [[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] (User Patroller)
:* [[User:The Silencer|The Silencer]]
:* [[User:ThuumofReason|ThuumofReason]]
:– [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 04:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
::I would only support myself and Helena (considering Alphabetface will be a patroller) out of that list. I understand Krusty's concerns (despite his digression and comments on "stopping the uprising"), which is why a few members should only be included. My edits are typically en masse, which is annoying for some patrollers, and Helena's edit quality is fine, as well as PLRDLF.
::Also, we should definitely ''avoid'' turning this into a voting process. This should be a decision made by the patrollers, with members being included without any opposition from a patroller. This doesn't ne to be overcomplicated. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 06:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

:::Since Elliot mentioned it, if we were to exclude Alphabetface, PLRDLF would actually have been next on the list, if only by a few edits. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 06:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

::::It seems to me that what is being asked for is to have a group of 'trusted users', those users who have proved to be responsible over a period of time. That is, to separate them from the ordinary members group, and add an extra layer to the heirarchy of the site. This wouldn't stop their edits from being checked, occassionaly a patroller could scan their edits while taking a rest from reverting vandalism. As a watcher of recent changes I look at almost all that appear and wouldn't be afriad of changing anyones work. I don't think I've been here long enough to prove myself though. [[User:The Silencer|The Silencer]] 18:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::That's not the intent, it's merely intended to create less work for patrollers. With PLRDLF, as an example, not many people can patrol the majority of his edits as he's one of the few people here with a grand understanding of Daggerfall. There are a few editors who have none of the necessary permissions to not currently be auto-patrolled, despite their edits requiring no large amount of oversight. There are better ways to spend our time than just patrolling someones edits on sight. --[[User:Alpha Kenny Buddy|AKB]] [[User_talk:Alpha_Kenny_Buddy|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Cont]] [[Special:Emailuser/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Mail]] 18:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::: Please, can we stop this idiocy? --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 00:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::::It's idiocy for being banned from the UESPWiki channel on IRC for not voting. Are you kidding me? ~ [[User:Dwarfmp|Dwarfmp]] 00:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
{{od}} Forgive me if it is obvious and forgive me if this is some outside discussion that I am referring to that I shouldn't know about, but Krusy's latest comment has lost me. What exactly is the "idiocy" being mentioned? I see a stack of paragraphs containing some pretty valid thoughts on the subject. I am just curious so that I can keep following properly how the conversation is progressing. [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 00:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
:While I wouldn't consider this idea "idiocy", I'd just suggest we exercise extreme caution as far as who gets added to this group. Everybody is making a lot more mistakes than usual, especially because of the new content lately. Just my two cents. —[[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] [[User talk:SkoomaManiac|Talk]] ♫ [[:Special:Contributions/SkoomaManiac|Contribs]] 00:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
::So being banned for no reason is ok? No need to say anything about that... Do you think this is proper behaviour for an administrator? ~ [[User:Dwarfmp|Dwarfmp]] 01:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

:::No, that's clearly not okay, but I think we need to hear Krusty's explanation first.

:::As for "idiocy", that was just rude. We know you disagree with the suggestion Krusty, but so far, you're the only one who has expressed outright opposition to the idea. Accept that it has consensus and move on to something else. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 01:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

::::Just for the record, then, I doubt the utility of creating such a group. I don't know if "idiocy" is the right term, I just don't think that creating the group will create significant returns in terms of efficiency, and if we really trust someone to make edits with little or no oversight, he or she should just be made a patroller. If they choose not to patrol the work of others, that would be the prerogative of the individual; everyone contributes differently. [[User:Minor Edits|Minor Edits]][[User_talk:Minor Edits|Threats]]•[[Special:Contributions/Minor Edits|Evidence]] 01:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::PLRDLF and myself currently don't want to be patrollers. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 01:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
::::::Maybe you two should be conscripted, then ;) [[User:Minor Edits|Minor Edits]][[User_talk:Minor Edits|Threats]]•[[Special:Contributions/Minor Edits|Evidence]] 01:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

=== Edit Break 3===
The argument that trusted editors should just be made into Patrollers holds some merit, and that's the reason a group like this hasn't been created before whenever the idea was floated. But as Elliot says, some people don't want to be Patrollers (PLRDLF has turned it down repeatedly in the past) while other people simply don't qualify to be Patrollers. The early days of Alphabetface would be one example, where I trusted her edits completely, but she didn't yet have enough content edits to qualify for full Patroller. There are a number of other people in a similar position. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 02:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

:I see no problem at all with having this group. Patrollers are elected to help patrol the last time I bothered to check. That is what hinders the other editors such as PLRDLF and elliot from having autopatrol. They simply don't want to actually patrol. This group would enable us to give autopatrolling to our trusted editors who want it without expecting them to patrol. [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 02:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

::Just running for Patroller won't work - it hasn't in the past. Remember [[User:Helenaannevalentine|Helenaannevalentine]]'s [[UESPWiki:Patrollers/Nominations/Completed#Helenaannevalentine|nomination]]? Most people agreed that she has good edits, but that she isn't quite up for being a Patroller. This is what we'll inevitably run into; plus, as has already been mentioned, many people just don't want to be Patrollers. • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 03:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

:::{{ec}} Like I said, I doubt that making a "Trusted User" group will be very useful, but if it's useful at all, more power to you. However, while it's not an issue with vets like elliot and PLRDLF, I'm concerned that the group could become used as a way to circumvent the patrolling system for newcomers who are considered promising, which is not a good idea. I suggest that this proposed group have disqualifying requirements like those for patroller nominations, including at least an edit requirement, a time requirement, and a clean record, which would help protect us from capricious users, particularly deceptive trolls, and the incautious use of administrative discretion. Forgive me if that's already been suggested; I guess I missed it. [[User:Minor Edits|Minor Edits]][[User_talk:Minor Edits|Threats]]•[[Special:Contributions/Minor Edits|Evidence]] 04:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

::::I think those suggestions were sort of implied in some comments, but they definitely weren't spelled out. You're right that we want to take steps to make sure it's not some kind of free-for-all or anything close to it. I would tend to think the requirements should be fairly similar to those for full Patroller, but perhaps smaller edit counts or allowing edit counts in talk space to count towards the total. We could probably lighten the activity requirement a little as well or make it an either/or thing, like "At least 200 edits anywhere on the wiki and recently active '''or''' 500 edits anywhere on the wiki and periodically active within the last year." (That's shortened slightly, but you get the idea.) The latter would be good for users like PLRDLF and Aliana, who are often sporadic in their edits and have few (if any) edits during off periods. But maybe that's overcomplicating it. We could do something simpler, like nominated/approved by at least x (2? 3?) Patrollers/Admins. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 05:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::I agree with RH. As been as this group will be limited in members, it should only need to be approved by a few and the qualification that you mentioned seem fair. It is just taking out that important and defining phrase that makes people need to patrol. --[[User:Manic|Manic]] 06:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

::::::I think that a general consensus has been reached. What happens now? Do we need an official vote?—[[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] [[User talk:SkoomaManiac|Talk]] ♫ [[:Special:Contributions/SkoomaManiac|Contribs]] 01:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

{{od}} It seems a general consensus has been reached about creating the group (in favor), but not about the requirements or method of choosing who may be added to the group. That should be determined before anything takes place, I believe. [[User:Alphabetface|ABCface]][[User_talk:Alphabetface|◥]] 02:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

:I think that 200 edits and one month or 500 edits and one year (count all edits) are reasonable requirements. I also think that having a vote of two or three Patrollers/Admins is sufficient. • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 03:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

::By "all edits", do you mean ALL edits, or content edits? I think that it should be restricted to content edits (i.e. Gamespaces, File, Lore, etc), similar to the Patrollers page. It is the content edits that matter if we are giving out auto-patrol rights. I wouldn't vote on giving the rights to someone if have of them were user edits. [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 04:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

:::I was thinking more along the lines of including talk page edits (because a lot of the users I'd put in this group edit talk pages extensively) but you're right, User edits probably shouldn't count. • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 04:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

::::Honestly, I would put it at 1,000 content edits and 1 year of editing. The point of the group is to autopatrol people who make a lot of edits and are completely trusted. You ''cannot'' satisfy such a standard in 250 or even 500 edits. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 04:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::Why 1,000 edits and a year? This group is simply for autopatrol privileges as I understand it. We give patrollers autopatrol and then some if they have at least 250 edits and a month. I would say that at the ''very highest'', we set the requirements to the same as the Patrollers. [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 04:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::The issue with that is that we'd have more strict requirements for Trusted Users than Patrollers, which really restricts the Trusted Users group a bit too tightly for my tastes. I think 500 edits is better. I'm also open to having a straight-up nomination process, which seems to be what you're leaning towards, although odds are only Patrollers would nominate (which is OK). Also, one year of editing seems a bit much. If we had that standard for Patrollers, then people like Minor Edits, Kiz, Eric Snowmane, Velyanthe, Alphabetface, and some guy named Jak Atackka :P wouldn't be Patrollers, and those who were would be continuously swamped by our combined 13,978 edits, or about 50 edits per day (!)
:::::If we're going to go that direction, then I think 500 edits is sufficient, and a flexible time requirement of two months, so that way if we have a very active user that doesn't want to patrol we don't have to wait ten months to autopatrol their edits. A truncated nomination process over the course of a week would take place, with a basic "Yea" or "Nay" being sufficient. Self-nomination is not accepted, but asking one of the Patrollers to nominate you is perfectly fine. • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 05:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

{{od}} My 500 edits suggestion was only for those who are periodically active, like PLRDLF and Aliana. Making it more edits than Patrollers in that case is simply due to the amount of time between edits - we need to know they still remember what they're doing when they've been away for a while! :) For those who are currently active, it seems to me the requirements should be close to those of Patroller, but a little less. Otherwise, the group itself becomes a non-entity...we'd just make people Patrollers and if they didn't want to patrol, there's nothing saying they have to. Also, I agree that talk page edits should count towards membership in the new group. As has been said above, if we make it content-only, we're excluding users, whom we may already know are good editors, just because they hang out a lot on talk pages (as is the case for a few highly active users like [[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]], [[User:JR|JR]], and [[User:Br3admax|Br3admax]]). Talk page edits for users like them are in the 40-50% range. I think by the time a user becomes trusted, even if they're not active on content pages often, we can at least trust that they'll go to someone or undo if they goof and need help fixing it. If we didn't trust them to do so, then presumably they wouldn't be nominated in the first place, even if they met the prerequisites. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 06:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

: I guess the next step then is creating a nominations page and the group. --[[User:Manic|Manic]] 08:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

:: Yeah, I think that's probably a good step. A more concrete nominations page will also help us refine the discussion about what, exactly, they should be. Unfortunately, while I have a lot of ideas about what that should look like, I'm off to bed now, and I may not be on much (if at all) till later tomorrow night, so someone else feel free to play with it. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 08:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

::: What is the user group to be called? --[[User:Manic|Manic]] 08:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

::::I have created a sandbox [[User:SkoomaManiac/Trusted Users|here]] to mess with this stuff before we actually create the group and nominations page. It's an open sandbox; please contribute. Obviously "Trusted Users" is a tentative title, but I thought I'd take some initiative. —[[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] [[User talk:SkoomaManiac|Talk]] ♫ [[:Special:Contributions/SkoomaManiac|Contribs]] 15:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

{{od}} If this is the case then, I must voice my opposition to this group. If you count people with 200 or more edits, you have 239 eligible users. I think that if we do implement this, we should put a limit on the number of users in the group. I still don't think we should create this anymore, but if we do, then do it right (and hope this group isn't regretted later). [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 16:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

:If we vote on them, that would keep it down. After all, there's plenty of people with the 250+ edits required to be a Patroller, but not all have edits that are good enough. --'''[[User:Velyanthe|Velyanthe]]'''[[User talk:Velyanthe|►Talk]][[Special:EmailUser/Velyanthe|►Email]] 16:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

::Elliot, while I see where you're coming from, really the key is that ''only patrollers may vote''. This way, the people who are most closely entangled with who provides what kind of edits get to reject the ones that are sub-par. I don't see how this could go wrong otherwise. —[[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] [[User talk:SkoomaManiac|Talk]] ♫ [[:Special:Contributions/SkoomaManiac|Contribs]] 16:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

:::Perhaps; there is a temptation to add more users to make it easier on them. But regarding the name, the best name for it should simply be ''autopatrolled''. Using "Trusted User" implies that other users aren't trusted; we should avoid such implications. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 16:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
::::I was going to say the same thing about the name later, but since I'm typing one-handed, I can't put write up all my input at the moment. 'Autopatrolled' is definitely a better name for the group. I'll write up some more of my opinions on this in general later, when I don't have a baby on my lap. [[User:Alphabetface|ABCface]][[User_talk:Alphabetface|◥]] 16:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::I'm also with Elliot and Alphabetface on the name. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 16:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

::{{ec}} We can equalize it with Patrollers, same requirements in terms of edit counts, activity, etc, since it is simply for auto patrolling. Then, we make that an alternative, like what Aryon said to the Player during the Telvanni questline, ''"I can grant you the rank of Master now. That will give you an equal place on the Telvanni Council. But if you aspire to a higher claim, I can also grant you the title of Magister."'' Similar to that. You can simply request for a straight autopatrol, or you can request the extra powers and responsibilities. It wouldn't be a definite split as "go for more responsibilities or stay merely a Trustee", of course. Maybe add in a time requirement. If you want to go from a Trustee to Patroller, you have to stay as a Trustee for a month or so, so that your edits can be verified again. But, it '''definitely''' shouldn't be a higher requirement that patrollers, because we give them autopatrol, skipcatpcha, the tools, etc. which is more of a responsibility.

::And, Elliot: We wouldn't give every single person who has the edit requirements met the role. It would be like with Patrollers where you have to read through their contributions and make sure they are good edits. It definitely wouldn't be, "Well, Fakeusername, you meet the requirements so here are your autopatrol privileges." For this idea to work as it is meant to be, we have to be quite selective, IMO, but at the same time, we can't give a group with less rights more scrutiny than a group with more rights. [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 16:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

{{od}}{{ec}}The name change idea seems legit, and actually a better idea. I'll make the move. —[[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] [[User talk:SkoomaManiac|Talk]] ♫ [[:Special:Contributions/SkoomaManiac|Contribs]] 17:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

=== Edit Break 4 ===
Okay, I've got a lot of my own input on this, but it may not be very organized. Sorry about that. I know a lot of this has already been been mentioned, but I'm just summing up what I've gathered from the entire discussion, and adding my opinions.
*'''The point of this group''' is to help lessen the workload for Recent Changes Patrollers. Due to the backlog of unpatrolled edits, it would be a convenience for RCPs not to have this user group's contributions in the list of unpatrolled edits. Once this group is made, RCPs can focus on all other unpatrolled edits (as normal), which would be a better use of their time than manually patrolling many edits by the users whose contributions don't need much oversight.
*'''This group is ''not'' about''' the users in the group. Yes, technically they will be given a new set of [[UESPWiki:User_Group_Rights|User Rights]], however, the point of the group is not meant to have any effect on their contributions. It is not about a hierarchy, it is not about ''wanting'' to be added the group, and it's not about slacking off because they know their edits aren't being cross-checked (if RCPs trust the contributions of these users, it should be a given that we trust that adding them to the group is not an invitation to lower standards).
*'''The requirements to be included''' in this group should not be overcomplicated, in my opinion. I don't believe it's important to specify a specific number of contributions or time spent on the wiki. While these factors will definitely affect them being added to the group, this should be an ''indirect'' way of affecting it. Given the point of this group, I believe the simplest and most sensible way to add users to this group is for RCPs to nominate and vote, using ''their'' judgement as the ones who regularly patrol the Recent Changes page. For the purpose of this group, they are the ones who should judge whether a user's contributions need much oversight in terms of patrolling their edits, because they are the ones doing the patrolling.
:Only RCPs would be allowed to nominate users for the group, and only RCPs would be allowed to vote. A certain number of RCPs should vote in support for a user to be added (let's say, 5? I'm not picky on that number, just throwing it out there.). However, I also think it's a good idea to add a stipulation that ''users can not be added to the group if there are 3 or more votes in opposition'' (or something to that effect, 3 being another number I'm not too picky on). That way, even if enough RCPs don't feel they need to patrol certain users, the user will not be added if enough RCPs disagree. (The votes in opposition to certain users would hold more value than those in favor, basically.)
*'''Some other details and opinions''' I have... (this section is a lot less organized, jumping from topic to topic, be warned)
**Administrators are obviously included when I mention Recent Changes Patrollers above. UserPatrollers are not (simply because Userspace is very well patrolled, and the backlog of unpatrolled edits to Recent Changes does not affect them in terms of patrolling).
**To address the concern that users in this group won't have their edits cross-checked at all... Many RCPs have pages on their watchlists which they check regularly regardless of who made edits to the page or whether or not the edits have been patrolled. (I'm sure I'm not the only one who has a ridiculous number of pages on my watchlist, either.) Also, this ''is'' a wiki which ''all'' users are allowed to edit, so anything which is absolutely, horribly wrong ''will'' be fixed in time. And, again, we wouldn't add users to the group unless we trust them not to make questionable edits on a regular basis. (Besides, we ''all'' make mistakes from time to time— again, this being a wiki, those mistakes ''will'' be fixed.)
**Any user who is added to this group would be removed from the group if/when RCPs agree it's for the best. This would only happen if they begin to make questionable contributions, or otherwise change their editing habits on the site. (Of course, if/when they become RCPs themselves, they would no longer need to be in this group, so they would be removed in that case as well.)
**The nomination/voting for each user should remain on the page for one week, so that <s>those who aren't as addicted to UESP</s> all RCPs have a chance to comment or vote before the nomination is decided/archived.
**Many of the users who may be added to this group are users who are on the path toward becoming RCPs in the future anyway, but don't qualify at the moment— they don't have enough edits in the right areas, they haven't been around long enough, or whatever other reason. I'm hesitant to add some of these users to the group because I believe any user which will be nominated for RCP in the near future should have their edits scrutinized ''more'' closely prior to nomination, but this would be a hard thing to regulate, so it's probably not even worth mentioning... but I mentioned it anyway. :P
**Of course there are those who don't wish to be RCPs, yet their contributions already need hardly any oversight, and these people are perfect examples of who should be added to the group. Again, this has already said, but... I don't know, I'm probably just rambling now. :)

So, I don't know how many people will actually read ''all'' of that, sorry for the overly long post, but I tried to cover most of the points mentioned in the discussion, and... yeah, I'm done for now. :) [[User:Alphabetface|ABCface]][[User_talk:Alphabetface|◥]] 04:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
:I generally agree with you, and am glad to see you got the baby down. Please check out the Sandbox we've been contributing on today, and I'm going to go ahead and scrap the userbox, considering your point that it shouldn't be an aspiration or "rank". Thinking that a badge of honor is a little too... Flashy... Anyhow, seriously, [[User:SkoomaManiac/Autopatrolled Users|check it out]]. —[[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] [[User talk:SkoomaManiac|Talk]] ♫ [[:Special:Contributions/SkoomaManiac|Contribs]] 04:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
::Looked over your test page, and it all appears to be in order. However, I don't really like the description, specifically the phrase "extreme trustworthiness". I would personally use this as a description for the group:
::"'''Autopatrolled Users''' are a group of users whose edits are [[UESPWiki:Patrollers/Patrolling Guidelines|automatically patrolled]]. Editors in this group are editors whose high-quality edits have been noticed by the community, especially the [[UESPWiki:Administrator|Administrator]]s and [[UESPWiki:Patroller|Patroller]]s. They are selected by our current Administrators and Patrollers, and they have not yet qualified or do not wish to be Patrollers."
::I don't know, something to that effect. Basically, I don't like using the term "Trusted User" because it bears a heavy weight as a title, yet the group itself is not nearly that significant. • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 05:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
::: I took the liberty of adding Jak's suggestion to the sandbox, and made a couple other changes as well. I removed the 'elite' note because of the whole 'not a hierarchy' thing, and the note about asking questions because the mentors page is a more appropriate place for those who wish to be available for questions from other users (encouraging others to ask them questions doesn't seem appropriate, since some users may not want to be available for questions-- just like not wanting to be a patroller). As for the qualifications, I'm not opposed to the specific number of edits and time on the wiki being in there (though I don't think it's necessary, personally), ''but'' I do think the number of votes in support should be higher than two. [[User:Alphabetface|ABCface]][[User_talk:Alphabetface|◥]] 06:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

{{od}} I went ahead and removed the disqualifications, since they seem frivolous. These "trigger" requirements often remove qualified users (such as myself). I'm sure that the voting admins and patrollers would take any warnings and blocks into consideration when determining a user's eligibility. Plus, 6 months is a long time for an "observation" period. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 06:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
:The "Trusted Users" and "elite" crap was left over from it being "Trusted Users" as opposed to "Autopatrolled Users". It just never got taken out.
:Makes sense, Elliot.
:ABC, I think (I can't say for sure; I wasn't the one who put it up) that two was the MINIMUM number that could approve for a promotion. If I'm not mistaken there is a certain amount of time that the user has to be voted on. If not, I'll add it now at a week. —[[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] [[User talk:SkoomaManiac|Talk]] ♫ [[:Special:Contributions/SkoomaManiac|Contribs]] 12:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
::The point of having that edit count is to adequately gauge the ability of the user... I do like the requirement, as with less than 200 or so I feel like I can't tell whether or not the quality of the edits will persist or if the person has made enough recent quality edits, especially if past edits have been of a lower quality. I agree with the current 200/500 edit requirement in the sandbox. I also agree with the one-week voting period, and I would like to keep a minimum amount of time on the wiki.
::Skooma, the sandbox does say minimum of two, yep. --'''[[User:Velyanthe|Velyanthe]]'''[[User talk:Velyanthe|►Talk]][[Special:EmailUser/Velyanthe|►Email]] 15:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

:::All right, are there any further suggestions or major complaints? I think it's ready if there's nothing else... —[[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] [[User talk:SkoomaManiac|Talk]] ♫ [[:Special:Contributions/SkoomaManiac|Contribs]] 17:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
::::Because of the comment about not yet qualifying for patroller status it should be clarified whether being part of this group is a prerequisite to becoming a patroller, I am undecided on this issue and therefore cannot think of the appropriate wording. [[User:The Silencer|The Silencer has spoken]] 18:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::-Yeah, I understand the point of the edit count, but if a Patroller feels strongly enough that a user should be added to the group to make a nomination (or vote in support), the user has most likely met the criteria already anyway. Maybe instead of using the term "qualifications" or "requirements" we should use "guidelines" so it's not quite as strict. As mentioned somewhere above in this long discussion, some users who have been proposed/mentioned in this discussion have many edits on non-Userspace Talk pages which don't normally count as "content-related" edits. So making it a 'guideline' rather than a 'requirement' would allow for users such as these to be eligible.
:::::-Also, I think the minimum vote in favor should be three rather than two, but if I'm the only one who doesn't think two is enough of a minimum, I'll leave that be.
:::::-And, last, I don't believe this group should be a prerequisite for patrollership. [[User:Alphabetface|ABCface]][[User_talk:Alphabetface|◥]] 21:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
{{od}}I'm in agreement with three votes in favor, and that would make it equal to the current opposition vote, since it says "if more than two oppose..." (unless that's been changed). So three minimum for agreement, three votes for opposition. I think we'll have plenty of voters, though. I think that a Suggested Qualifications section should work fine, with an Immediate Disqualifications that's looser than the one Patrollers have. There should be a note in there about warnings/bans--I would say two weeks for a warning and a month for a ban. I would feel uncomfortable with some people on the basis of that if they applied a week after getting unbanned or right after a warning, and that extra time would be long enough for them to prove themselves again. Recent resignation of autopatrol rights (for whatever reason) should be the same as Patrollers, though I don't see that happening any time soon so I don't know whether or not it's even worth mentioning. --'''[[User:Velyanthe|Velyanthe]]'''[[User talk:Velyanthe|►Talk]][[Special:EmailUser/Velyanthe|►Email]] 22:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
:I changed "Guidelines" to "Suggested Guidelines" and "minimum of two supports for consensus" to "three". And in the interest of this group being "not an honor or hierarchical" it should ''not'' be a prerequisite for patroller, ESPECIALLY since users can't nominate themselves. Other than that I can say that I agree wholeheartedly with everyone's comments. —[[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] [[User talk:SkoomaManiac|Talk]] ♫ [[:Special:Contributions/SkoomaManiac|Contribs]] 22:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

::The block/warn disqualification if frivolous at best; however, in light of recent adjustments, I will support this new group. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 01:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

:::The group now exists. Which still leaves the question of who should be the first guinea pigs. However, all admins should be able to add/remove group members, so getting that done won't get held up by the Bureaucrat-only bottleneck. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 03:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

::::Robin Hood, can you get us an up-to-date list of the top 20 contributors over the past month? That would be helpful in figuring out our guinea pigs. I think Elliot is a prime candidate. • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 03:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

:::::The following list is the top 20 contributors, excluding file uploads and, for Userspace Patrollers, any edits that were already autopatrolled anyway. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 05:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
{{Showhide|List|
:::::* Acaveman
:::::* Coronus
:::::* DayDreamer
:::::* DextroWombat
:::::* Elliot (Userspace Patroller)
:::::* Evil4Zerggin
:::::* GrogGrogGrog
:::::* Helenaannevalentine (Userspace Patroller)
:::::* JR
:::::* J'ZhirrthePriest
:::::* Kertaw48
:::::* Kimi the Elf (Userspace Patroller)
:::::* Manic (Userspace Patroller)
:::::* MrL
:::::* Nikofeelan
:::::* PLRDLF
:::::* SkoomaManiac (Userspace Patroller)
:::::* The Silencer (Userspace Patroller)
:::::* ThuumofReason
:::::* Zappatized}}
::::::Thank you for the list Robin Hood. I went ahead and [[UESPWiki:Autopatrolled Users#Nominations|nominated]] [[User:Elliot|Elliot]], [[User:PLRDLF|PLRDLF]], [[User:Manic|Manic]], and [[User:Aliana|Aliana]] to start off. Don't forget to vote! • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 05:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

=== Edit Break 5 ===
{{od}}Once members of the group are we aloud to vote for future members? --[[User:Manic|Manic]] 18:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
:Probably not, since we aren't the ones patrolling. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 18:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
::The point of the group is to remove the task of manually patrolling the group members' edits, for the sake of Patrollers. Only Patrollers and Administrators are allowed to vote for that reason. [[User:Alphabetface|ABCface]][[User_talk:Alphabetface|◥]] 18:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
:::However, all users are allowed to comment on any nominations. [[User:Alphabetface|ABCface]][[User_talk:Alphabetface|◥]] 18:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

::::Fair enough, just checking so not to make an ass of myself. --[[User:Manic|Manic]] 18:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

== Massive numbers of accounts being created ==

I think someone is running some sort of bot to create a very large number of accounts. Anyone who hasn't noticed this on the [[Special:RecentChanges|Recent Changes]] can look [[Special:Log/newusers|here]] and see. You can tell it's a bot because it seems to be selecting a random first and last name and then sometimes adding a number at the end. I don't know how to check what IP is creating them (I don't think I have the permission) but if it's the same IP I think they ought to be blocked for spamming account creation. • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 00:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

:If I may put forward a suggestion to counter this kind of spam, if it is proven to be a bot, I believe the site should be set so that account verification through an email is required, and you can have 2 accounts per email. I say two, because we have users with legitimate alternate accounts (NepheleBot, HotNBothered, RoBoT). This is the only site that I have contributed to that hasn't required a valid email address. This is something I assume Nephele can do, and its a one-time validation per user. That way, if someone where to spam the site usernames, they would have to go through the inconvenience of creating new email accounts as well, and I doubt the average account spammer would care to go through all that trouble. [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 01:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

::Without installing an extension, we can't place any email validation limits on account creation. Also, I don't think that's a good idea unless we can fix our problems with AOL and some other ISPs that block all email sent from UESP -- unless we're absolutely sure we can send email to all valid email addresses, any email validation requirement will prevent legitimate users from being able to create accounts.
::As for IP addresses, when I looked last week most of the accounts being created were using different IP addresses -- spambots typically have control of significant numbers of IP addresses, because they know that individual IP addresses are trivial to block. I blocked one IP address range that had been used to create multiple spambot accounts, but even figuring out patterns of IP addresses is pretty time-consuming, because it means running checkuser on a lot of different user names. Plus any time an entire range of IPs is blocked there is an increased risk of blocking legitimate users. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 04:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

:::(I completely missed Nephele's previous comment before replying.) I don't think much can be done regarding this, and even if we could do something, I don't think we should. They don't pop into editing or vandalizing, so we would be limiting account creation based on perceived patterns rather than facts. I had Nephele [[UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard/Archives/ConfirmAccount|implement]] the $wgAccountCreationThrottle setting, which limited account creation based on IPs. I think that is enough, for now. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 04:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

::::I completely understand your logic, and it does make sense, but I believe something should be done, at least for a short term that would limit account creation, assuming this is all one guy. It is ridiculous to do nothing because

::::'''A.)''' We have the RC flooded with 5+ new accounts every few minutes, and

::::'''B.)''' There could be a legitimate user who wants to use their name, and it seems wasteful to have them all sitting idle because we have a hypothetical spammer who we have to accept as running wild with account creations.

::::I am backing out of this conversation to sleep, its 2AM, and I have had a long day. I just wanted to throw in my thoughts on the issue real fast. [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 06:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::In the last few minutes there have been more accounts made that follow the pattern such as KonradConradMetcalf and LizzieBusch4. Maybe when creating an account you should have to answer some basic question or something. [[User:RIM|RIM]] 19:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
::::::This question idea has been suggested before, but it could turn real users away if they don't know the answer or can't be bothered to figure it out. --[[User:Kiz|kiz]] {{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|Kiz| '''[[Special:EmailUser/Kiz|email]]''' | '''[[User_Talk:Kiz|talk]]''''''[[Special:EmailUser/Kiz|email]]'''}} 19:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::::It doesn't have to be general knowledge or Elder Scrolls question, I just mean something that a bot could not answer. Just a suggestion. Also new accounts like this are being made now.

:::::::: Recently when I edited a page, I had to enter a captcha(sp?). I hadn't seen this before. It might have be because I was linking to wikipedia.
:::::::: Why not require this captcha when creating an account. If this continues the account name that I might want will be taken...
::::::::: Is there some cleanup of just created and unused accounts for a certain time? -- MartinS [[Special:Contributions/94.255.233.233|94.255.233.233]] 19:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
{{od}} A lot of the names they use are nonsensical anyway, reduce the chances of users wanting them. A captcha is another idea, this has been shot down to. I'm not saying just TES-related, not everyone will have been schooled in the same way. Theres no way of creating a question everyone in the world (which is our audience really) will know the answer to, its just so daft. --[[User:Kiz|kiz]] {{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|Kiz| '''[[Special:EmailUser/Kiz|email]]''' | '''[[User_Talk:Kiz|talk]]''''''[[Special:EmailUser/Kiz|email]]'''}} 19:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
:<s>Wait, you mean we '''don't''' use captcha for account creations? –[[User:Eshe|Eshe]][[User talk:Eshe|talk]] 19:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)</s>
:Never mind, I see we do. Well...if that isn't stopping it, then it can't be a bot, right?
:Also, a quick run through checkuser reveals the latest batch are all coming from the same IP range. Not sure if that helps or not, but there it is. –[[User:Eshe|Eshe]][[User talk:Eshe|talk]] 19:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
::Just looking down the recent changes has shown various completely random accounts. One way to monitor this would be to check if any of these accounts contribute in anyway. What are the odds of 50 accounts (lets say) being created with none contributing in anyway. --[[User:Manic|Manic]] 20:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

:::There are seriously too many accounts being created now. This IP needs to be blocked asap. --[[User:Manic|Manic]] 20:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
::::It is ridiculous, I know. We need to risk an IP range block to kill the account creation nonsense, or go with my suggestion of finding a way to require email verification or an extra captcha or question like the others suggested. It may be ridiculous, but why not add (just for a short term) two or three additional captcha/question entries. That way, you would have to seriously want to contribute or seriously want to flood the page with new accounts. Chances are, the person(s) involved will grow impatient with multiple captchas, and they will abandon the the creation. Then, for good measure, we keep it active for upwards of a week-ish to make sure. And, during the creation, if it is possible, we should have a message for the legitimate users saying that the inconvenient list of captchas is to counter an account spammer, which will be removed after X amount of time.
:::EDIT: This is crazy. I pulled up the account creation log, and [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&limit=100&type=newusers at least 100 accounts have been made] following the First name-surname-optional number pattern. Without a block, I am unsure this will stop. [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 20:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
::::Problem is, that it might take a while to set up. We need something for the short term. --[[User:Manic|Manic]] 20:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
{{od}}A short term range block while a way to inhibit this kind of behavior is thought of? [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 20:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
:Unfortunately, not a single admin or blocker is currently online. By time one comes on there could be another 50 accounts. --[[User:Manic|Manic]] 20:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

:Can you all please calm down? They're not doing anything, so it isn't that big of a problem. Blocking them is pointless until someone determines the range (which I can't as I lack Check User), and if any make any edits that break site rules, they can be dealt with. The request for the range block is clear, there is no point in worrying about it further. --[[User:Alpha Kenny Buddy|AKB]] [[User_talk:Alpha_Kenny_Buddy|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Cont]] [[Special:Emailuser/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Mail]] 20:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

::Just to clarify on the above comments, there ''is'' a Captcha on account creation, but either someone's developed a bot that's got some pretty good OCR, or they've designed the bot to display the Captcha for human resolution, then immediately move on to the next one. If either of those are the case, additional questions or Captchas probably won't bother them for long. I don't think the latter would be very hard at all. Also, we don't need to feel special...other wikis are being hit by this same bot as well. As AKB mentioned, the only people who can effectively range block will be the longer-serving Administrators who have CheckUser ({{Pl|Special:ListUsers|group=checkuser|list}}). Blockers and the newer Admins can both block ranges, I believe, but wouldn't know what range to block. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 23:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

:::Unfortunately, captchas can only do so much. I read about this bot that actually crowd-sources captchas. Take the captcha image and publish it on another site (promising free porn or something like that), and real people give it the answer, which it then turns around and uses to solve the captcha on the target site. Not sure if that's what's hitting us right now, but it does exist, and is one way that bots can get past such measures. --[[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] [[User_talk:TheRealLurlock|Talk]] 12:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

::::I've done some more poking around via checkuser and I can pretty confidently confirm that all these accounts are being created from the same IP range. I don't have a problem implementing a range block if that's what everyone agrees should be done. Thing is, I've never done it before and I'm honestly not sure how--from what I remember, Nephele usually does this kind of thing... –[[User:Eshe|Eshe]][[User talk:Eshe|talk]] 17:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

::::: Oooh... That's clever. I'll make a "train solve captchas" site... -- MartinS [[Special:Contributions/94.255.233.233|94.255.233.233]] 18:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::: Hehe, I'd set up a bot just to give a ton of wrong answers on one of those sites. • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 19:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

{{od}}You can take a look at the [[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Range_blocks mediawiki article]] on them. Though, if you feel uncomfortable with it, I'm sure we can wait until Nephele or someone is willing to do it. --[[User:Alpha Kenny Buddy|AKB]] [[User_talk:Alpha_Kenny_Buddy|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Cont]] [[Special:Emailuser/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Mail]] 17:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

: I think that an IP range block is necessary, given the circumstances. If any of those blocked IPs tries to create an account, what do they see? It should have something along the lines of, "''If you believe that you were mistakenly blocked, then email (← hyperlink) us.''" That way people who are caught in that IP range aren't out of luck. • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 19:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

::Thanks for the link, AKB. Unfortunately, it's a bit over my head, and I think it's especially important that I ''not'' screw it up. Thankfully, it's not an urgent situation, so we can wait until someone with a bit more expertise in this kind situation gets around to it. –[[User:Eshe|Eshe]][[User talk:Eshe|talk]] 19:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

:::I just checked the last 9 spammers who were blocked and found 10 different IP ranges (IPs>spammers because a couple spammers had used two IPs). And none of them were using the same IP range that Eshe had identified -- plus that was a fairly broad IP range (a class B network, i.e., 65536 different IPs) so I'd prefer to be sure that such a large block is needed. Blocked IPs aren't given an email address or any other way to contact the site -- and in the case of IP ranges, I'm not entirely sure whether they're even able to edit a user talk page to appeal the block.
:::The bottom line is that I'm no longer seeing any IP ranges that need to be blocked / can usefully blocked.
:::We may need to upgrade our captcha at some point, but I haven't looked into what all would be necessary to install one of the newer captchas (including what mediawiki version they require). --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 03:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

::::Just to clarify, I was checking the accounts that were following a real first name / real last name pattern, not spam accounts. Actually, I'm not sure if any of the ones I checked had actually made any edits at all. Everything I looked at was coming from 173.208.something.something. [[User:Eshe|eshe]][[User talk:Eshe|talk]] 20:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

{{od}}I've added a titleblacklist block on names with the format Name19##. It's a name format that has been used to create 8 spam accounts in the last few days -- only one recent account with that format has not been using for spamming, and I'm willing to bet that account is also a spambot account. It means that any users who want to create a unique name by adding the year to the end of their name (e.g., Nephele1968) won't be able to do so. But they can still add a two-digit year (e.g., Nephele68), which should be more than enough to create a unique name on UESP. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 01:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

== "Very nice site" vandals ==

May we start blocking these IPs at the first offense? I'm also unclear why some IPs which have received a warning and continued to vandalize, such as [http://uesp.net/wiki/Special:Contributions/91.121.142.140 this guy], have not been blocked yet. [[User:Minor Edits|Minor Edits]][[User_talk:Minor Edits|Threats]]•[[Special:Contributions/Minor Edits|Evidence]] 16:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
:A lot of those warnings are mine because I can't block. They should be blocked because they delete other content and add nonsense. [[User:The Silencer|The Silencer has spoken]] 16:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
::I only asked because there are some, like [http://uesp.net/wiki/Special:Contributions/193.86.149.157 this one], who have already vandalized more than once and haven't even been warned yet. It seems like only a matter of time before each IP is used to vandalize again. Most of the recent vandals to [[Lore:Gods M]] haven't received warnings yet, but I think it would be absurd at this point to give them the benefit of the doubt, so we might as well just skip to the blocking. [[User:Minor Edits|Minor Edits]][[User_talk:Minor Edits|Threats]]•[[Special:Contributions/Minor Edits|Evidence]] 16:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
:::Oops, this is probably somewhat my fault. I was under the impression we were dealing with a bot here, so I didn't warn them. Instead I was planning to ask if they could get blocked, but then subsequently forgot. I didn't block them myself because then an admin would have to extent the block, and it didn't seem that urgent. Thanks for following up though, Minor Edits. [[User:Wolok gro-Barok|Wolok gro-Barok]] 17:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
::::I think they are bots. Even if they are not, they have "bot-like" qualities and probably should just be blocked. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 17:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
{{od}}Since blocking them all myself would be pointless, I'll just list a few that I haven't already mentioned for the convenience of any admin who may wish to take action:

[http://uesp.net/wiki/Special:Contributions/93.82.197.98 93.82.197.98] 
[http://uesp.net/wiki/Special:Contributions/200.241.156.143 200.241.156.143] 
[http://uesp.net/wiki/Special:Contributions/213.160.143.150 213.160.143.150] 
[http://uesp.net/wiki/Special:Contributions/212.87.24.211 212.87.24.211] 
[http://uesp.net/wiki/Special:Contributions/218.127.28.112 218.127.28.112] 

[[User:Minor Edits|Minor Edits]][[User_talk:Minor Edits|Threats]]•[[Special:Contributions/Minor Edits|Evidence]] 18:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

:Alrighty, I think I've got all of them now. Thanks for making the list, Minor Edits! [[User:Eshe|eshe]][[User talk:Eshe|talk]] 18:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

::As a side note, Krusty suggested I hit them for 1 month, so that's what I did. [[User:Eshe|eshe]][[User talk:Eshe|talk]] 19:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

== Beginning of the Month/Archive Semi-protection ==

[[Skyrim talk: Glitches/Archive 4|This]] needs semi protection. More likely to come. —[[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] [[User talk:SkoomaManiac|Talk]] ♫ [[:Special:Contributions/SkoomaManiac|Contribs]] 16:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
:And [[Skyrim_talk:Easter_Eggs/Archive_7|here]]. —[[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] [[User talk:SkoomaManiac|Talk]] ♫ [[:Special:Contributions/SkoomaManiac|Contribs]] 16:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
::[[Skyrim talk:Skyrim/Archive 7|Here]]. —[[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] [[User talk:SkoomaManiac|Talk]] ♫ [[:Special:Contributions/SkoomaManiac|Contribs]] 17:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
:::Here's [[Skyrim_talk:Creatures/Archive_1|another]] one. [[User:Alphabetface|ABCface]][[User_talk:Alphabetface|◥]] 21:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
::::Done! [[User:Eshe|eshe]][[User talk:Eshe|talk]] 22:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

== We need more people to Patrol old edits! ==

Just look at the [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&days=30&limit=5000&hidepatrolled=1 backlog] of unpatrolled edits we have. This is a long list (Robin Hood last calculated it to be about 1000 edits long) but we need to patrol them!

Just so people don't think this is such a daunting task, I will remind them of these simple tips to cut down the list:
*Edits in which people edit their own post can be patrolled.
*A lot of the edits are people just adding {{tl|Unsigned}}s.
*If you are unsure about a content edit (a non-talk page edit), then check the page history (or even just hit Newer Edit) and see if it was undone. If it was undone (for good reason), then patrol it.
*If you are unsure and it wasn't undone, then either add a {{tl|vn}} tag or leave it unpatrolled and hope someone else can come along and answer it.
I do have one question. Can we just patrol any edits to talk pages that are now in an archive? I know it's standard procedure to answer a question before patrolling it, but it's also standard procedure not to edit archives. [[Skyrim talk:Followers]] is a good example. • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 07:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

:Yes, I would say you should patrol archived questions. In theory, an unanswered question probably shouldn't be archived if it's still on the Recent Changes list, but in practice, especially on a high-volume page, if a question remains unanswered even for a couple of weeks, chances are, it never will be, so some people choose to archive it if it's not "Good question" worthy.

:As for the backlog, 1000 (995 right now, to be exact) is actually a ''lot'' less than it was just a month ago. For the most part, I can handle patrolling the 40ish edits per day that make it through to the back end of Recent Changes, but help is certainly appreciated. A second Patroller who mostly patrols the back end of RC would be ideal. But if the regular Patrollers can take two minutes to glance over the the ones at the ''very'' bottom of the list, that would be a big step in ensuring that we have as much factual, good quality information on pages as we can.

:Oh and on a side note, since Jak mentioned it, I have a process that automatically downloads the RC and Patrol Logs into a database a few times a day. It's literally point-and-double-click for me to get up-to-date stats on our Recent Changes list. Is this incredibly geeky? You're damned right it is! :) But hey, before I went on disability, it used to be my job, so I like to keep at least my basic skills up. Point is, generating stats based on RC or the Patrol Log is stupendously easy for me, so don't hesitate to ask if there's some statistic you want to know (how many people in the last few months would qualify for Autopatrolled status comes to mind, for instance <g>). – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 09:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

::I have 4 free hours and absolutely nothing to do - let's have a patrolling party!! :D [[User:Kitkat1749|Kitkat]] •[[User talk:Kitkat1749|Talk]]•[[Special:Contributions/Kitkat1749|Contrib]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Kitkat1749|E-mail]] 10:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

:::I have a small amount of free time this week (no school), so I suppose I could go ahead and help out.--[[User:Kalis Agea|Kalis Agea]][[User talk:Kalis Agea|Yes?]] [[Special:Contributions/Kalis Agea|Contrib]] [[Special:EmailUser/Kalis Agea|E-mail]] 18:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

== Mass Proposed Deletion ==

I'm going through and cleaning up [[Special:UnusedCategories]], and a lot of empty ''faction'' categories still exist. All 364 are listed below.
{{Showhide|List of categories|2=
Skyrim-Factions-put on doors to keep NPCs from opening

Skyrim-Factions-friends to both sides in MQ101

Skyrim-Factions-for the NPCs who can use the load door

Skyrim-Factions-faction for party guards

Skyrim-Factions-faction for guards in front

Skyrim-Factions-faction for NPCs who should stay out of palace

Skyrim-Factions-dunValtheimKeepBanditFaction

Skyrim-Factions-dunUstengravDraugrFaction

Skyrim-Factions-dunRavenscarFaction

Skyrim-Factions-dunMistwatchFjolaFaction

Skyrim-Factions-dunMistwatchFactionAlly

Skyrim-Factions-dunMistwatchFaction

Skyrim-Factions-dunMarkarthWizard SpiderFaction

Skyrim-Factions-dunMarkarthWizard SecureAreaFaction

Skyrim-Factions-dunLostKnifeCatFaction

Skyrim-Factions-dunHarmugstahlFactionWarlockAttackedbySpiders

Skyrim-Factions-dunHarmugstahlFactionSpiderNormal

Skyrim-Factions-dunHarmugstahlFactionSpiderDocile

Skyrim-Factions-dunForelhostSoldierUnfriendly

Skyrim-Factions-dunForelhostSoldierNeutral

Skyrim-Factions-dunForelhostGrifterUnfriendly

Skyrim-Factions-dunForelhostGrifterNeutral

Skyrim-Factions-dunFolgunthurThrallFaction

Skyrim-Factions-dunFolgunthurMikrulFaction

Skyrim-Factions-dunFaldarsToothDogAttackFaction

Skyrim-Factions-anyone in this won't fight with mq101 alduin

Skyrim-Factions-Wolf Faction

Skyrim-Factions-WinterholdJailFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Winterhold

Skyrim-Factions-WindhelmJarlOwnershipFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WindhelmHostlerFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WindhelmAretinoResidenceFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WindhelmApothecaryFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Whiterun Guard Neutral Faction

Skyrim-Factions-WhiterunJarlOwnershipFaction

Skyrim-Factions-White River Prisoner Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Werewolf Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Warmaidens

Skyrim-Factions-WIThugFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WIThiefFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WITavernPatronFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WIPlayerEnemySpecialCombatFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WIPlayerEnemyFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WEUnaggressiveAdventurerFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WEThalmorFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WEThalmorDialogueFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WESpecialCombatFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WERoad02NobleFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WERoad02BodyguardFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WERJ10EnemyFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WEPlayerFriend

Skyrim-Factions-WEJSMerchantHorseFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WEJS25EnemiesFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WEJS21HunterandDogFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WEEnemiesFactionB

Skyrim-Factions-WEEnemiesFactionA

Skyrim-Factions-WEDL10SprigganFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WEDL10LumberjackFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WEDL09HunterFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WEDL09GiantFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WEDL08Faction

Skyrim-Factions-WEDL06ThugFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WEDL06LutreshFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WEDL05Faction

Skyrim-Factions-WEDA07JorgenFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WEDA07DaetraFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WEAggressiveAdventurerFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WEAdventurerHorseRiderFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WE20WarlockFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WE20BanditFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WE19BanditFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WE16HunterFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WE16DeerFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WE15FrostAtronachFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WE15FlameAtronachFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WE14SkeeverFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WE14DogFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WE11SabreCatFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WE11MammothFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WE06PredatorFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WE06BanditFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WE05OrcFaction

Skyrim-Factions-WE03EnemiesFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Vampire Thrall

Skyrim-Factions-Vampire PC Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Used to control DialogueOrcHunters conversations

Skyrim-Factions-TownIrontreeMillFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Thieves Guild

Skyrim-Factions-Thieves' Guild

Skyrim-Factions-The Pale

Skyrim-Factions-Thalmor - Fooled by PC disguise

Skyrim-Factions-Tailor

Skyrim-Factions-TGTQ04 Niranye Attacks Faction

Skyrim-Factions-TG09 Nightingale Enemy Faction

Skyrim-Factions-TG08BMercerHatesPlayerFaction

Skyrim-Factions-TG07 Vald Hates Player

Skyrim-Factions-TG02 Aringoth Player Enemy Faction

Skyrim-Factions-T03HatePlayerFaction

Skyrim-Factions-T01EnmonFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Sybille Stentor

Skyrim-Factions-Storm Atronach Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Steward has already been blackmailed.

Skyrim-Factions-Spriggan Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Soljund's Sinkhole Guards

Skyrim-Factions-SolitudeBluePalaceServants

Skyrim-Factions-Sleeping Giant Services

Skyrim-Factions-Slaughterfish Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Skooma Dealer

Skyrim-Factions-Sinding

Skyrim-Factions-SilverHandFactionPacified

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesThievesGuildNiranye

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesThievesGuildMallus

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesThievesGuildGulumEi

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesThievesGuildEnthir

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesThievesGuildEndon

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesThievesGuildCaravanZaynabi

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesThievesGuildCaravanMajhad

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesThievesGuildCaravanAtahba

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseWindhelmSpells

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseWindhelmMiscVendor

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseWindhelmInnkeeper

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseWindhelmBlacksmith

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseWindhelmApothecary

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseWhiterunSpells

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseWhiterunMiscVendor

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseWhiterunInnkeeper

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseWhiterunBlacksmith

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseWhiterunApothecary

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseSolitudeSpells

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseSolitudeMiscVendor

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseSolitudeInnkeeper

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseSolitudeBlacksmith

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseSolitudeApothecary

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseRiftenSpells

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseRiftenMiscVendor

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseRiftenInnkeeper

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseRiftenBlacksmith

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseRiftenApothecary

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseMarkarthSpells

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseMarkarthMiscVendor

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseMarkarthInnkeeper

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseMarkarthBlacksmith

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesSpouseMarkarthApothecary

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesHonningbrewMeaderyPost

Skyrim-Factions-ServicesDawnstarWindpeakInn

Skyrim-Factions-Rorikstead Manor Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Robber's Gorge Bandit Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Riverwood Trader Services

Skyrim-Factions-Restoration Ritual Ghost Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Rank = which mission was last successful

Skyrim-Factions-Rank = which mission was last failed

Skyrim-Factions-Rank = which mission is the player's active mission

Skyrim-Factions-Rank = which mission is in "slot" 2

Skyrim-Factions-Rank = which mission is in "slot" 1

Skyrim-Factions-Rank 1 = Being Absorbed, 2 = Done

Skyrim-Factions-Radiant Raiments

Skyrim-Factions-Put in this faction to get WI follower comments

Skyrim-Factions-Put dragon here when player absorbs power

Skyrim-Factions-Prey Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Player set prisoner free (used to conditionalize packages, etc.)

Skyrim-Factions-Player is being escorted by a friend

Skyrim-Factions-Player has accepted mission hooks from this field co

Skyrim-Factions-Player assaulted this NPC

Skyrim-Factions-Player Horse Faction

Skyrim-Factions-PlayerWerewolfFaction

Skyrim-Factions-PlayerMarriedFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Penitus Oculatus Faction

Skyrim-Factions-POIVolcanicHunterFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Owners of the Common House

Skyrim-Factions-Orthorn's Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Only shows up if Player is Stormcloak

Skyrim-Factions-Only shows up if Player is Imperial

Skyrim-Factions-Once the player gives the cow to the giant they are both permamently added to this faction

Skyrim-Factions-Nilheim Faction

Skyrim-Factions-NPCs Immune to Mehrunes Razor

Skyrim-Factions-NPCs Captured by Bandits

Skyrim-Factions-Moorside Inn Services

Skyrim-Factions-MarriageRivalAttackFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MarriageCourtingFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MarriageAskedFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MarkarthThalmorFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MarkarthStewardOwnershipFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MarkarthJarlOwnershipFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MarkarthHousecarlOwnershipFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Makes them more suspicious in dialogue

Skyrim-Factions-Makes them enemies of the player

Skyrim-Factions-Makes enemy of WEPrisonerFreedCombatPrisonerFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Makes enemy of WEPrisonerFreedCombatCaptorFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Make dungeon creatures not attack me

Skyrim-Factions-MS08AlikrBaseFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MS06CultistFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MS03ChaletOwnershipFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MS03ChaletGuardEnemyFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MS02GrisvarEnemyFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MS02ForswornFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MS02CidhnaMineEnemyFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MS02CidhnaMineCombatFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MS01WeylinKillMargretFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MS01WeylinBeserk

Skyrim-Factions-MS01TreasuryHouseEnemy

Skyrim-Factions-MS01PlayerEnemyFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MS01ConspiracyCombatFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQGreybeardTrainingFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQBladesSparringFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQ306TemporaryFriendsFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQ304AlduinFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQ301SoldierDialogueFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQ301CombatFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQ206PastFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQ206AncientAlduinFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQ206AlduinFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQ202EnemyofPlayerFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQ201ThalmorEnemyFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQ201FriendDistractionDoneFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQ103TemporaryFriendsFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQ103SonsOfSkyrimSoldierFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQ103ImperialSoldierFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQ102ChatterFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQ101StormcloakFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQ101LokirEnemyFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MQ101ImperialFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MG05CreatureFaction

Skyrim-Factions-MG03 Caller Faction

Skyrim-Factions-MG02BossNonCombatFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Largashbur Orcs

Skyrim-Factions-Kyne's Peace

Skyrim-Factions-Kolskeggr Mine Guards

Skyrim-Factions-Karthwasten Guard

Skyrim-Factions-KarthwastenPlayerEnemyFaction

Skyrim-Factions-JobStewardFaction

Skyrim-Factions-JobPriestFaction

Skyrim-Factions-JobHousecarlFaction

Skyrim-Factions-JobHostlerFaction

Skyrim-Factions-JobCarriageFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Ice Wraith Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Hunters of Hircine

Skyrim-Factions-Hunter Prey Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Horker Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Horgeir's House Occupants

Skyrim-Factions-Honningbrew Meadery

Skyrim-Factions-Hjaalmarch

Skyrim-Factions-Great Council Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Gray Pine Goods

Skyrim-Factions-Giant Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Frost Atronach Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Forsworn Dog Faction

Skyrim-Factions-ForceFullBodyStagger

Skyrim-Factions-For intimidate brawling

Skyrim-Factions-For dailogue when Thalmor have prisoner with them

Skyrim-Factions-Fletcher

Skyrim-Factions-Flame Atronach Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Fisherman Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Fence

Skyrim-Factions-Fellstar Farm Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Fellglow Prisoner Faction

Skyrim-Factions-FavorAllowIntimidateFaction

Skyrim-Factions-FavorAllowBribeFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Falmer Servant

Skyrim-Factions-Falmer

Skyrim-Factions-FalkreathJarlOwnershipFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Falkreath

Skyrim-Factions-Exiled Government

Skyrim-Factions-Eorlund Gray-Mane

Skyrim-Factions-Enemies

Skyrim-Factions-East Empire Company

Skyrim-Factions-DunAnsilvundBanditFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Dummy Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Dremora Faction

Skyrim-Factions-DragonsreachBasementGuards

Skyrim-Factions-DismissedFollowerFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Dialogue Faction for Wndhelm Guards

Skyrim-Factions-Dialogue Faction for Haafingar Hold Guards

Skyrim-Factions-Dialogue Faction for Falkreath Hold Guards

Skyrim-Factions-Dialogue Faction for Dawnstar Guards

Skyrim-Factions-Death won't trigger WIKill04

Skyrim-Factions-DawnstarJarlOwnershipFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DawnstarHousecarlOwnershipFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Dark Brotherhood Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Daedra

Skyrim-Factions-DB RecurringTarget 9 CrimeFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DB Attack Player Faction

Skyrim-Factions-DB Attack Gianna Faction

Skyrim-Factions-DBCiceroDawnstarFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DB09 Door Lock Faction

Skyrim-Factions-DA16 Player Hate Faction

Skyrim-Factions-DA16 Orc Dream Faction

Skyrim-Factions-DA16OrcAmbushFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DA16ErandurFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DA11GlooredhelAllyFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DA11CannibalAttackFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DA11AttackPlayerFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DA10PlayerEnemyFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DA09TemporaryDragonFriendFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DA08SelfPacifyFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DA07RazorOwnerFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DA07PlayerEnemyFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DA06YamarzCrimeFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DA06YamarzCombatFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DA06GiantFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DA03VampireFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DA02GuardsPlayerEnemy

Skyrim-Factions-DA02ElisifAfraidOfPlayer

Skyrim-Factions-DA02CultistsAreEnemies

Skyrim-Factions-DA02CulistsPlayerEnemy

Skyrim-Factions-DA02ConduitPlayerAlly

Skyrim-Factions-DA01PlayerEnemyFaction

Skyrim-Factions-DA01NelacarEnemyFaction

Skyrim-Factions-CurrentHireling

Skyrim-Factions-CurrentFollowerFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Crowd Spectator

Skyrim-Factions-Crew of the Red Wave

Skyrim-Factions-Condition on Spectator Idle Anims

Skyrim-Factions-CompanionsTrainingSpecialCombatHateFaction

Skyrim-Factions-CompanionsTrainingSpecialCombatFaction

Skyrim-Factions-CompanionsSingleCombatFaction

Skyrim-Factions-College of Winterhold Arch-Mage Faction

Skyrim-Factions-College of Winterhold-Evoker

Skyrim-Factions-College of Winterhold-Apprentice

Skyrim-Factions-Chaurus Faction

Skyrim-Factions-Can show up at battles in this hold

Skyrim-Factions-CWSurrenderTemporaryAllies

Skyrim-Factions-CWSoldierPlayerEnemyFaction

Skyrim-Factions-CWSoldierDefenderFaction

Skyrim-Factions-CWSoldierAttackerFaction

Skyrim-Factions-CWSoldierArcherFaction

Skyrim-Factions-CWRewardFactionWinterhold

Skyrim-Factions-CWRewardFactionWhiterun

Skyrim-Factions-CWRewardFactionRift

Skyrim-Factions-CWRewardFactionReach

Skyrim-Factions-CWRewardFactionPale

Skyrim-Factions-CWRewardFactionHjaalmarch

Skyrim-Factions-CWRewardFactionFalkreath

Skyrim-Factions-CWPlayerAlly

Skyrim-Factions-CWMission08GiantFaction

Skyrim-Factions-CWMission08EnemyToGiant

Skyrim-Factions-CWMission04PrisonerFreedFaction

Skyrim-Factions-CWMission03BedFaction

Skyrim-Factions-CWJobFortPatrolExteriorFaction

Skyrim-Factions-CWJobFortJailorFaction

Skyrim-Factions-CWJobFortGatekeeperFaction

Skyrim-Factions-CWJobFortCommanderFaction

Skyrim-Factions-CWFinaleTemporaryAllies

Skyrim-Factions-CWDisaffectedSoldierFaction

Skyrim-Factions-CWDialogueSoldierWaitingToDefendFaction

Skyrim-Factions-CWDialogueSoldierWaitingToAttackFaction

Skyrim-Factions-CWCivilianFaction

Skyrim-Factions-C06PlayerWolfSpecialCombatFaction

Skyrim-Factions-C06KodlakAndWolfFaction

Skyrim-Factions-C00JorrvaskrFightingFaction

Skyrim-Factions-C00GiantHuntFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Bounty Hunter

Skyrim-Factions-Bounty Collector

Skyrim-Factions-Blue Palace Guard for DA02

Skyrim-Factions-BladesRecruitsFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Bits and Pieces

Skyrim-Factions-BardNoRequestFaction

Skyrim-Factions-BardAudienceMarker

Skyrim-Factions-Bannered Mare Services

Skyrim-Factions-ArenaSelfLoathingFaction

Skyrim-Factions-ArenaPacifyFaction

Skyrim-Factions-Allowed Faction for Execution Guard Package

Skyrim-Factions-Agents of the Black Marsh

Skyrim-Factions-After Hadvar/Ralof get to know you, they are in this faction - used to conditionalize dialogue

Skyrim-Factions-1 = Imperial, 2 = Stormcloak supporter
}}

Now, some of these are just alternative descriptions of currently used faction categories, but some are used temporarily for individual quests. I am not too sure these should be kept as categories, though; rather, they should be described on the faction page. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 04:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

:So, after thinking about, I want to go ahead and propose all empty faction pages for deletion. I really do not believe they serve a purpose by "being empty"; it doesn't really add to the fact that there is no one in that faction. So any of them found on [[Special:UnusedCategories]] are ''officially'' proposed for deletion. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 05:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
::Being 10 days old now, these can be deleted. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 01:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

::Done. --[[User:Alpha Kenny Buddy|AKB]] [[User_talk:Alpha_Kenny_Buddy|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Cont]] [[Special:Emailuser/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Mail]] 02:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
:::Thanks! Not to be picky, but my second comment prodded ALL of the faction pages, which includes Tes3Mod and Morrowind. However, I still want opinions regarding those. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 02:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

::::And Oblivion, right? Well, they would be useful, if we could determine who is ever a member of the group. However, I see no way of going through the game scripting to determine who joins what faction. As such, I don't see a problem with them being deleted. However, I think we should err on the side of caution with Tes3mod factions, as all of those factions are a part of Tamriel Rebuilt, which is still a work in progress. We may have a need for them yet. The others however, should be deleted. If we were going to figure out a way to add all relevant NPCs to their factions, surely we would of done this already when the bots were running. Most of them also appear to only exist for the PC, so there intended purpose (categorizing what NPC is in what faction), can never be fulfilled as the faction only exists for the PC. --[[User:Alpha Kenny Buddy|AKB]] [[User_talk:Alpha_Kenny_Buddy|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Cont]] [[Special:Emailuser/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Mail]] 02:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

== Clean Image vs Cleanup ==

I'm aware of the fact lately everyone's using clean image. I've always used cleanup for images instead. So my silly question, is it wrong to use cleanup for images instead of clean image? I'll use clean image in the future, but I saw a person using cleanup, and I don't know whether I HAVE to correct that or not ~ [[User:Dwarfmp|Dwarfmp]] 05:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

:Clean Image has the benefit of automatically categorizing the image according to what needs to be done to it, which is helpful for people who may want to only take new pictures, only do cropping, etc. So I'd say yes, you probably should correct it. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 07:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

== Very nice site nonsense bot ==

[[Special:Contributions/89.73.170.132|89.73.170.132]] —[[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] [[User talk:SkoomaManiac|Talk]] ♫ [[:Special:Contributions/SkoomaManiac|Contribs]] 01:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
:Done. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 01:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

== Request for Adminship: RobinHood70 ==

:''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.''

{{userlinks|RobinHood70}} has been an obvious administrator candidate for a couple of years, at least. However, until recently he has turned down suggestions that he be nominated for the position. He is now willing to become an admin, so I think UESP should take advantage of the opportunity to add such a qualified editor to the team.

The biggest question is perhaps, why now? Thanks to our group of temporary-turned-permanent admins, plus the welcome return of several inactive admins over the last few months, UESP has more active and semi-active admins than ever before. So we don't have an urgent need to add more administrators. However, it never hurts to have an extra person available to help out, plus I think it's better to start an RfA discussion when the site is relatively under control rather than waiting until after a crisis has erupted. At this point it's been long enough since RobinHood70's return to the site to be sure that he's re-acquainted himself with everything that's been going on at UESP and, perhaps more importantly, that the current community has had a chance to get to know him.

As for RobinHood70's qualifications.... He's been on the site longer than almost any other active editor (even a few hours longer than me!), and has been a patroller for four years (since April 2008). He is very knowledgeable about wiki mechanics — including a thorough understanding of templates, plus having enough wiki know-how to run one of the very few UESP [[User:HotnBOThered|bots]]. He's clearly familiar with the site's policies; his participation in countless current discussions demonstrates his interest in maintaining and improving those policies. He has had Blocker rights since months after the group was first created (August 2010), and has always shown good judgement in using those rights. In fact, he has consistently been one of the most accessible editors with blocking rights, so making him an administrator should provide the community with a reliably-available admin in case of any urgent vandalism or other requests. He's been very active helping other editors and answering questions — to the point where I wouldn't be surprised if many new editors on the site think that he already is an administrator.

In short, he's an obvious candidate.

===Questions===
'''Q1''': ''Why were you previously not interested in being an administrator, and why have you now changed your mind?''
:There were several reasons I was opposed to becoming an administrator, but the two most prominent ones were that I don't like being the final arbiter in most situations—I prefer discussion and consensus, probably to the point of driving people nuts—and, as Elliot has already mentioned, I had concerns about my ability to do the job effectively given the frequent cognitive difficulties caused by the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.

:The reason I've changed my mind in terms of being the one to make the final decision has been twofold. First, with the current admin team being so large, ''any'' decision—even something as trivial as a page deletion—is really a collaborative effort, so nobody makes the final decision on anything. Second, I've been one of only two admins on [http://wiki.white-wolf.com/worldofdarkness/index.php another small wiki] for almost a year now, and realized that...it's really not that scary to be the one who has final say on something. :)

:As far as the CFS goes, it's something I've been dealing with since shortly before I started editing at UESP. Yes, I make some really dumb mistakes at times or misunderstand what I'm reading, but so do we all...I just do it a little more often than others. In the end, though, I haven't done anything that would earn me a spot on the [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Village stocks|Village Stocks]] page (if we had one), and if I don't catch my mistakes, I know that there's a whole wiki full of editors who will point out what I've done wrong so that the appropriate action can be taken.

'''Q2''': ''What do you hope to accomplish as an administrator? What have you accomplished already? Have you made any notable mistakes, and if so, what did you learn from them?''
:Being the template editor that I am, one of the things I'd like to do in the near future is to review our various template pages for their protection level. Some years ago, we had an attack on our most commonly used templates and it wreaked havoc on the wiki. Subsequent to that, most widely used templates were semi-protected, and a couple even have full protection, but I'd like to review that list and make sure that we haven't missed anything important.

:In addition to that, I've noticed a couple of times that our [[:Category:Marked for Deletion|pages marked for deletion]] have been a bit backlogged. It's been noticeably better recently thanks to the efforts of {{Pl|Special:Log|one admin in particular|3=limit=500&type=delete}} (who has done 344 out of the last 500 deletions), but it's definitely something I intend to help out with.

:In terms of accomplishments, I tend to think my biggest accomplishment is in Template space, where, over the course of about half a year, I systematically went through all of our templates and did a lot of simplifying, adding new features, harmonizing, etc. Templates remain my biggest single interest in terms of wiki work, though I'll admit, the bot is starting to become better developed as well, and therefore more interesting.

:As for notable mistakes, the most notable one was actually on the wiki I mentioned above instead of this one. (And as I've said before, while it may not be a wiki guideline, I personally believe that an admin's behaviour on other wikis should reflect on those where they hold a position of responsibility.) I recently accidentally blocked a legitimate user because I wasn't paying close enough attention to their edit. When another user pointed it out, I promptly unblocked the user and apologized, though the unblocked user has not, as yet, returned. That was a definite reminder to me that even when I'm convinced something is yet another spambot edit, that I need to stop and be certain before doing anything drastic.

:Of course, I've also made mistakes on this wiki, such as spectacularly screwing up the various Ingredients pages due to a template error the other day, but I see that kind of error as somewhat less problematic. People generally know when something's an accident that'll be fixed shortly...accidental blocks don't tend to be dismissed quite so easily. (And thanks again to Elliot for spotting the template problem before I did...one tiny little space, or lack thereof, is all it takes sometimes!)

'''Q3''': ''What do you see as the UESP's main challenges in the near future? Are there any changes that you think need to be implemented?''
:My answer to this isn't anything original, though all of the recent admin nominees have had slightly different takes on it. I feel that our biggest challenge is getting accurate information onto the Skyrim pages. I think several recent discussions have started to shape how that will come about, and other than encouraging those types of discussions to continue, I don't see any major changes that need to be implemented. (Well...except for needing new templates of course. I always think we need new templates. <grin>)

'''Q4''': ''What other wiki-related activities do you perform that people might not know about?''
:Honestly, others have largely stolen my intended answers to this question! Probably the one thing left that some people might not be aware of is that I like to take up the "rear guard" when it comes to patrolling—doing my best to ensure that as few things as possible hit the four-week patrolling limit without being patrolled—and I intend to continue that as an admin.

'''Q5''': ''What action will you take if you see another administrator perform an action that you completely disagree with? When you strongly oppose something, how do you plan to express it?''
:It really depends on the nature of the action. If it's clearly just an accident and it needs immediate correction (e.g., deleting the Main Page), I would undo it without further comment unless I can come up with something as hilarious as {{Pl|UESPWiki:Mentor Program|diff=prev&oldid=932706|this}}. But that's obviously not the main focus of the question.

:In the event of a dispute, I've always felt that it's preferable for an admin team to be as professional as possible, and I think part of that is knowing when to try to resolve the dispute behind the scenes and when to solicit community feedback. If the disagreement affected only a small portion of the wiki or one or two users, I would therefore probably try to talk to them via e-mail or IRC rather than making it a public issue. If, on the other hand, the issue affects a very large portion of the wiki or its user-base, or if private discussions don't result in a compromise or understanding, I believe that public discussion is the way to go. In the end, this wiki isn't about what any one user thinks or feels is the right thing to do, it's about what works best for all of us as a whole.

:As for how I express my opposition to something, again, I think it comes back to being professional. That means trying to be courteous and non-judgmental as much as possible, taking a breath and choosing my words carefully, even when I'm convinced the other person is wrong. While I won't hold it up as a model of ideal behaviour, I think the recent discussions about information on quest vs. place pages is a good example of ''why'' I feel this is the way to discuss opposing views. A lot of people use the wiki in ways that I don't, and had never even considered prior to that discussion. By talking it out rather than digging in my heels (much), I realized that there were issues I wasn't thinking of that needed to be addressed in order to ensure that we were serving as much of the community as possible.

===Votes===
Cast votes with '''Support''', '''Oppose''', or '''Neutral'''. '''Comment'''s are also welcome.
*'''Support''': As nominator. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 05:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''': He hasn't yet answered the questions, but I don't need to hear his answers. RH70 is a fabulous editor. He is very friendly, he knows and edits every namespace on the site flawlessly, and is never impatient with any stupid, serious or other questions that I, or anyone else, have for him. I would argue that out of every editor, regular, patroller, admin, or otherwise, RH70 is the most deserving of the position. [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 05:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''': I don't know whether I am allowed to vote or not, but either way, RobinHood70 certainly has helped me with countless things across the period of time that I have been a member on the UESPWiki and he is more than deserving of this position. Plus he does have professional integrity and the ingenuity along with the edits, etc, to more than qualify for this position. I would highly be disappointed if somehow he didn't manage to obtain the position of Administrator, but I doubt that would ever occur because nearly every member on this wiki knows how muhc work and dedication he has put into this site :) [[User:Helenaannevalentine|Helenaannevalentine]] 05:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
:*'''Comment''': I am 99% certain that every editor can cast a vote in an RfA. [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 05:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
::*'''Comment''': Well in that case, I'll change my comment to a vote right now, but if I cannot, then it's not such a biggie as I've gotten my message across as to how RobinHood70 deserves this. Thanks for confirming Eric! [[User:Helenaannevalentine|Helenaannevalentine]] 05:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
:::You ''most certainly'' can vote. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 06:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''': The first thought that came to my mind when I saw this was ''finally''. I know that Rob's CFS has been a major factor in his activity on the site, so I am glad to see that he has decided to change his mind or has deemed himself healthy enough for it. When it comes to templates, there are really only two people that ''I'' can turn to for questions regarding templates: one is [[User:Nephele|Nephele]], and the other is [[User:RobinHood70|RobinHood70]]. Being one of the most knowledgeable users on the site in regards to templates and especially metatemplate is something that should not be ignored. Now, not only does he run a bot–which has helped me wade through template data–he edits more than most users. For awhile now, I have considered it a detriment to the site by ''not'' having Rob as an administrator. I could go on, but I don't see there being any problems with this nomination. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 06:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''': Wait - you're not an admin already? The fact that I didn't know that is probably a good sign. --[[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] [[User_talk:TheRealLurlock|Talk]] 11:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''': Well, it's about time! RH, everybody knows you're incredibly knowledgeable and helpful, and on top of that you're also one of the nicest, most patient, most reasonable and level-headed people I know. This nomination is a long, long time coming, and I was so happy to wake up this morning and see that I'll finally be able to vote "support" for your RfA :). [[User:Eshe|eshe]][[User talk:Eshe|talk]] 13:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
*<strike>'''Support''': Wait, you mean he isn't an admin already? WHY NOT? [[User:ThuumofReason|ThuumofReason]] 14:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)</strike>
**Change vote to '''Oppose''': Several good points have been brought up, and while I'm not entirely aware of the circumstances discussed above, after seeing evidence of the opinion flip-flopping from the links above, I agree that it's probably not a good idea to give RH the power to ban people, among other things. He's a good editor, but so was rpeh, and I don't believe rpeh should have been de-admined for off-site actions in the first place.[[User:ThuumofReason|ThuumofReason]] 17:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''': Not much I can say that hasn't been said, either by voters or RH70 himself. He's an excellent contributor and completely deserves this position. '''[[User:Velyanthe|Vely]]'''[[User talk:Velyanthe|►Talk]][[Special:EmailUser/Velyanthe|►Email]] 17:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
*<s>'''Support''': RobinHood has my complete support, per all of the above; his suitability for administratorship can't be disputed. --[[User:Legoless|Legoless]] 18:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)</s> Removing my vote for the time being. I'd prefer to stay neutral until I know more. --[[User:Legoless|Legoless]] 18:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''': I could write an incredibly lengthy wall of text listing all my reasons, but I won't. Let's just say ''it's about time!'' --[[User:Alphabetface|ABCface]][[User_talk:Alphabetface|◥]] 20:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''': An unofficial admin for a long time, it's time that he finally claimed his rightful title! • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 21:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''': This seems to be an RfA for RobinHood, and I'll sign off on that. But my vote is contingent upon me being entirely unaware of anything written above, as I'm too busy. If I notice later that Robin has written something I intensely disagree with here, such as a call for a religious war or any use of the word "indubitably", then I will change my vote. [[User:Minor Edits|Minor Edits]][[User_talk:Minor Edits|Threats]]•[[Special:Contributions/Minor Edits|Evidence]] 02:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''': I've been in detox for my recent [[Lore:Skooma|skooma]][http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Mentor_Program&diff=prev&oldid=932706] binge, so my apologies for coming to the party late. I want to put my ''full'' support behind this nomination. RobinHood has always been one of the most helpful, nicest, mildest editors on the sight, and I can only see promotion as helping the wiki. When I was a young lad back in 2011, I was legitimately surprised to find that RH wasn't an admin. Even though we have plenty right now, Robin has been around forever and I can't see that changing in the near future. You're awesome, Robin. Keep up the good work — as a patroller, and as an admin!! —[[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] [[User talk:SkoomaManiac|Talk]] ♫ [[:Special:Contributions/SkoomaManiac|Contribs]] 19:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''': When Nephele posted this nomination two days ago, I literally revisited all the different emotions I’ve been through since joining the UESP three years ago, and it resulted in an immediate wikibreak on my part - I needed to get my head on straight so I could approach this nomination in a decent manner. The day was ruined anyway, so I decided to write a lengthy, nasty oppose-vote from hell, just to get my concerns scribbled down somehow. It took me less than 5 minutes to find 13 reasons to oppose the nomination, but I realized that all my reasons looked like personal attacks, and that wasn’t exactly constructive, nor was it fair. I then decided to just abandon the wiki, leave it behind, and live happily ever after – but then I realized that it would mean three years of hard wiki-work would go down the drain. The e-mails from concerned users kept popping in, and I finally realized that I had to place a vote, even if I didn’t really want to – but as administrator, it is the only responsible thing to do so here goes.

: For the past few months, I’ve changed my behavior somewhat – I know an awful lot of you is under the impression that I’m going nuts, suffer from personal issues or whatever, but it all comes down to frustration with what this site has become since the release of Skyrim back in November. Over and over, I have shouted the word “idiocy” as loud as I could, but to no avail, and have seen my opinions being ignored 99% of the time. One way or the other, these idiocy shouts can be traced back to the nominee, so I’ll try and figure out how a person can mean so well – and do so bad. It’s going to be a long post, because it’s incredibly complex to explain – but if you care about this wiki, please read.

: Of course, we can’t skip the Rpeh/KrustyIDaveh incident, so let’s just start there and be done with it. After nearly a full years wiki-break, RH70 rejoined the wiki on December 22nd to help out with the huge amount of Skyrim edits, which was fine. We had an incredible community back then, and an awful lot of fun, mostly due to how ridiculous and chaotic everything was. The fun lasted 40 days, then Snowmane posted his infamous [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive_23#rpeh.27s_attacks_on_TESWiki.2C_request_for_resignation_of_admin_privilages.|de-admin request]] for me and rpeh, a rushed and unneeded action that both me and rpeh tried to stop. Unfortunately, somebody smelled blood; notice RH70’s uncertain oppose to the de-admin request then jump to [[User_talk:Daveh#Community_Discussion_About_rpeh|his post on Daveh’s talk page]], where he shows his true colors. He didn’t seem satisfied with the way the votes were going, so he brought in Daveh who had no choice but to de-admin both me and rpeh in an attempt to shut people up. Can’t blame him for that. The rest is history, Daveh decided to de-admin rpeh permanently, while I managed to get through the scandal with the tools intact. What is really important to note is that I started it, by calling the Wikia people morons in an edit summary, reverted Snowmane’s first attempt at drama, and even called Snowmane a moron when I had to go through the usual [[User_talk:Krusty/Arc_2012a#Inappropriate_Edit_Summary|concerns]] on my talk page – rpeh simply followed up on an action initially performed by me – but he was butchered, and I was spared. Wonder why? Look no further – or please look closely: who is missing from [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive_23#Restoring_krusty.27s_adminship|this post about my admin-ship]], despite having started it all – take a wild guess. He was busy agreeing with Daveh in the aftermath just above – where RH70 more or less explains all of this a whole lot better than I can. That is true bloodthirst wrapped in polite words, but it is right there on the page, so make your own decision. Let me finish off this section with a RH70 quote that leads to the next section: “Clearly, there are people in this discussion who would see rpeh back as an Administrator. But just as clearly, there are a good number of people who wouldn't.” Let’s take a quick look on these people, shall we? Ironically, they can all be found complaining on my talk page, in the very same [[User_talk:Krusty/Arc_2012a#Inappropriate_Edit_Summary|concerned thread]] I linked to above. What’s even more ironic is that the exact same people were the first ones to support this nomination. Just scroll up and see for yourself.

: Let’s look at this group of people. Where did they come from? Answer is simple – with the exception of helenaannevalentine, they are all the first ones to respond when they believe power is being misused, just like RobinHood70: they all spend an awful lot of time making ‘maintenance edits’ and none of them could make a content edit to save their life. When they see injustice, however, they will jump out of their PC-friendly IRC-chatroom and attack right away. Please click each and every link in the section above, then look at their contributions to the site. A clique like that is to be expected on any wiki, but RobinHood70 encourages them (maybe even leads them?) in the everlasting wiki battle between people with authority and people with no understanding of the word whatsoever. These people will often throw guidelines and policies all over a heated debate, just to prove their point – but can more often be seen breaking the same policies by ignoring consensus (or simply ignoring the fact that the community may have something to say) and will never even stop to think twice about the possible consequences of their actions; in short, cliques like that should never be encouraged, they should be controlled. That’s what administrators are for, but when rpeh understandably left the wiki, the clique and RH70 suddenly found themselves ahead of everybody else – and the downfall of UESP was unavoidable.

: What did RH70 do next? Well, he took it upon himself to make sure that each and every possible unpatrolled edit on the wiki would be patrolled. Once again, he never even thought about the consequences and started recruiting good editors whenever they popped up, and without knowing them at all. This lead to a series of more or less uninspired patroller nominations, including some kind of inappropriate “The UESP needs YOU”-job add, which I (thankfully) can’t find anymore. RobinHood70 knows better than anybody that a patroller nomination will scare 50% of all users away, but he went ahead anyway – strangely obsessed with unpatrolled edits, and unaware of the rising concerns from editors all over the wiki, he started using up good editors, in the process causing them to disappear. Where is Alfwyn? Where is Thuraya Salaris? Where is everybody? Answer is simple and quite natural – they jumped the sinking ship while they could. Who can blame them? Alfwyn seriously tried to discuss how to handle things, and went a long way to prove his point - and he was probably one of the best editors I’ve seen on the site. What did he get? He got yelled at, he was belittled, and nobody cared when he started uploading Skyrim dungeon maps in an attempt to organize things. When he disappeared without a trace, RH70 finally woke up and asked where he was gone – but damage done, Alfwyn gone. That’s very poor considering how much of an interest he took in the, at the time, incredibly unimportant amount of unpatrolled edits. This section was aimed at the many patrollers out there – be very aware that it is thankless to make an effort on the Wiki. That being said, the situation reflects my point - before Skyrim, we handed out cookies to encourage users to keep up the good work – now, we’re reduced to judging people’s efforts from stat tables and whether or not they agree with the clique and RH70.

: Still obsessed with unpatrolled edits, RobinHood70 then decided to send an invitation to all inactive administrators, so they could ‘re-join’ now that everything was great on the Wiki. Problem is, the Wiki was shit. When Nephele decided to prove a point by digging up a dinosaur of a guideline and belittle my efforts on the [[Skyrim:Forbidden Legend|Forbidden Legend]] page, I was getting tired. So very tired. Please read through [[UESPWiki:Community_Portal#Skyrim_Quest.2FPlace_Organization|this discussion]]. Please note that RH70 couldn’t be bothered to participate until he realized Neph was getting into trouble. Just read it. RH70 reveals he knows nothing about the specific quest, nor can he be bothered with doing research on the matter. Witness the amount of wasted words and how I finally get angry and ask him to at least play through the quest ONCE to validate the ton of opinions. Also, take note that RH70 admits that he hasn’t even played the game at all, which is suspicious considering the amount of edits he’s patrolled, and his strong opinions on the quest page. Finally, witness how the unneeded discussion ends with me leaving quest pages behind, to little effect, then witness how the entire thing gets ridiculous and the absence of RH70 when Neph tries to [[UESPWiki:Community_Portal#Wrapping_Up|sum things up]]. I rest my case – I think you get my point; discussion for the sake of discussion and we ended up with the exact same policy as before. I doubt RH70 even read Neph’s walkthrough though, despite all his nodding and agreeing when it was finally posted and turned out to be even longer than the Forbidden Legend page, but that’s beside the point. Time was wasted and most of the newly invited ex-administrators went back to sleep. Can’t blame them for that.

: At this point, idiocy popped up everywhere. The whole [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard#Request_for_a_New_User_Group|auto-patrolled user discussion]] was launched, and while it was well-intended, it was nothing but a side effect of the RH70 ‘unpatrolled edits’ craze. Again, nobody even thought about the consequences. If you’re interested, read my post, then read RobinHood’s response underneath. It all ended up with three really good editors having to go through a voting session they never really accepted or deserved (I’d compare it to making a CP post called “What do you think about [User]?”) with the usual controversy and even more bull to follow. Can’t be bothered with a link, but it basically ended up with anger from Aliana and Manic – I just hope that PLRDLF missed it completely.

: I could keep going, but it is time to stop. RH70, I seriously believe that you meant no harm with any of this and did what you thought was the right thing to do. I think you’re an excellent editor and patroller and you have done a ton of good stuff for the site – but you as an administrator is a really really bad idea. Maintaining this site (and the quality of the content) takes an awful lot of knowledge, not only about Elder Scrolls and wiki markup, but about how to deal with people, how to think twice when suggesting or discussing something, and always take into consideration how your opinions may affect the wiki and all the editors, not only at the current time, but also two years into the future. Sorry about using this nomination to sum up what I think went wrong with the wiki, but you played a huge part in the demise and it should be taken into consideration – I love this wiki to death, warts and all, and I’ll openly admit that I have made my share of mistakes in the past few months, due to my frustration over the problems explained above. I really want to see the wiki flourish again, but I don’t see that happen with you as administrator. Sorry. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 17:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''': Something strikes me wrong, someone who has claimed for so long to not wanting to be an admin being offered it and just accepting. I don't think the line of 'I was surprised to find he wasn't an Admin' really adds much either.
**During [[UESPWiki:Community_Portal#Skyrim_Quest.2FPlace_Organization|this discussion]] in which he appears to agree with Nephele about the''content'' of quest pages, Krusty makes a point about how wording can make a different to the ''content'' of the Quest Pages in questions, but RH70 ends talking about ''quality'' somehow... topic change? In his next comment, RH states to know nothing of, and not participate in, the FA procedure (possibly to ignore Krustys point about them) . But one comment down the line he then decides to bring FAs back up to prove his own point, to which he claimed he was not a participant. I'm not sure having your opinion on something jump from one side of the fence to the other is a valued attribute for prospective administrators.
**During [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive_23#rpeh.27s_attacks_on_TESWiki.2C_request_for_resignation_of_admin_privilages.|this discussion]], I also read the RH seems to hold personal grudges (which would be fine if he didn't hold the personal grudge and then act upon it) by conveniently looking up (i'm sure anyone interested could of done so) rpehs history elsewhere.
**As well as this, I don't feel the need for another Administrator at the moment. I feel like this RfA has made things very uncomfortable around the wiki this past few days, I could see this RfA being successful driving the community into two more obvious halves than previously when rpeh got summarily de-adminned. The amount of people that have disappeared since this RfA has shot up has got to be more than average, I think this can be no coincidence and do not wish to see this unique community split more for the sake of one more Admin at a time when we have plenty around. I cannot blame this RfA soley I think its been coming on for a while, but I think this was the final nail in the coffin for a few editors.
*I can’t think of much else to say, but I just don’t like the mood and community around here at the moment. And I honestly believe its driven a few of my fellow editors away. --[[User:Kiz|kiz]] {{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|Kiz| '''[[Special:EmailUser/Kiz|email]]''' | '''[[User_Talk:Kiz|talk]]''''''[[Special:EmailUser/Kiz|email]]'''}} 17:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''': There's absolutely nothing to justify this. Krusty has already covered the main points, Kiz has added some detail, but there's another important point. There has always been a tradition that admins should have some Major Work behind them before being nominated. While some have had to be prompted (one of the "Support" voters for instance), there's simply nothing on RH70's CV that qualifies. His main input has been to spend hours splitting hairs and pushing his own idiosyncratic POV on policy debates while doing nothing but fixing typos, over-complicating templates, and sucking up to people he thinks will benefit his wiki career. This entire nomination is nothing but a façade to add another voice to one "side" when votes are called. It has no merit whatsoever. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 18:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard

2012-02-18T00:19:46Z

Rpeh: /* Request for an Immediate Block */ reply

[[Category:Message Boards|{{PAGENAME}}]] __NEWSECTIONLINK__
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. For certain specific requests, see instead:
* [[UESPWiki:Purge Requests|Purge Requests]]
* [[UESPWiki:New Page Requests|New Page Requests]]
{{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
|Archive 15||June 2010
|Archive 16||June 2010 – October 2010
|Archive 17||November 2010 – January 2011
|Archive 18||February 2011 – April 2011
|Archive 19||May 2011
|Archive 20||June 2011 – August 2011
|Archive 21||September 2011 – October 2011
|Archive 22||November 2011 – December 2011
|!|Past Administrative Requests|
|User:Aristeo/RfA|Aristeo's Request for Administrator|''Approved Jun. 19, 2006''
|User:Nephele/RfA|Nephele's Request for Administrator|''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 Administrator|''Approved Jan. 31, 2007''
|User:TheRealLurlock/RfA|TheRealLurlock's Request for Administrator|''Approved Feb. 23, 2007''
|User:Rpeh/RfA|Rpeh's Request for Administrator|''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 Administrator|''Approved Mar. 31, 2008''
|User:GuildKnight/RfA|GuildKnight's Request for Administrator|''Approved Nov. 11, 2008''
|User:Timenn/RfA|Timenn's Request for Administrator|''Approved Aug. 7, 2009''
|User:Krusty/RfA|Krusty's Request for Administrator|''Approved May 3, 2010''
|User:Rpeh/RfA 2|Rpeh's 2nd Request for Administrator|''Approved April 18, 2011
}}

== Skipcaptcha ==

Is there anyway I can be put in the group permission ''skipcaptcha''? Adding all of these tags is being seriously slowed down by this (it's ''annoying''). Thanks. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 04:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

: I've made you a userpatroller, which gives you the skipcaptcha right. I know you've previously stated that you aren't interested in patrolling but this is the only way of giving you skipcaptcha short of setting up a whole new group. Patrolling a few userspace edits here and there wouldn't hurt either. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 15:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
::is the anyway I could not get these it is very very difficult to pass a captcha on an ipod touch----'''''[[User:Candc4|Candc4]], Also known as the Man Inside the Sexy Leather Pants [[Special:Contributions/Candc4|C]][[User talk:Candc4|T]]''''' 16:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
:::The easiest way would be to apply to be a UP or wait around for someone to make you a UP --[[User:Kiz|Kiz]] ·•· [[User_Talk:Kiz|Talk]] ·•· [[Special:Contributions/Kiz|Contribs]] ·•· [[Special:EmailUser/Kiz|Mail]] ·•· 16:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
::::ok how would I apply for something like that do i just say I apply for User Patroller or what?----'''''[[User:Candc4|Candc4]], Also known as the Man Inside the Sexy Leather Pants [[Special:Contributions/Candc4|C]][[User talk:Candc4|T]]''''' 17:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::See [[UESPWiki:Userpatroller|this page]], although I have just pointed an Admin this way via [[UESPWiki:IRC|IRC]] --[[User:Kiz|Kiz]] ·•· [[User_Talk:Kiz|Talk]] ·•· [[Special:Contributions/Kiz|Contribs]] ·•· [[Special:EmailUser/Kiz|Mail]] ·•· 17:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

== [[Special:Contributions/174.125.253.42|User:174.125.253.42]] ==

Can a blocker deal with this anon? I have reverted at least 4 consecutive vandalism's by him, sent a warning, and he continues to vandalise the site. [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|T]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|E]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|C]] 16:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

:I see a single nonsense edit after being warned. If it continues, it'll be blocked. --[[User:Alpha Kenny Buddy|AKB]] [[User_talk:Alpha_Kenny_Buddy|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Cont]] [[Special:Emailuser/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Mail]] 16:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

== Trainer icons ==
''Moved to [[UESPWiki:Community Portal#Trainer icons]]'' [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 20:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

== Dirty spamming spammer ==

IP:70.135.118.126. End him! [[User:Minor Edits|Minor Edits]] 06:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
: Sorry you all had to go through such a wave of spam - thanks for reverting. He is now ended. Minor Edits and Wolok, you both now have the Blockuser rights, so feel free to add yourself to the proper pages. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 07:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
:Thanks! I will go refresh myself on blocking policy, and I'll be extremely careful about exercising them. Any of the possibly controversial blocks I'll leave to you more experienced folks. [[User:Minor Edits|Minor Edits]] 07:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
::Thanks, this should be useful. Like Minor Edits said, time to look over the blocking policy. [[User:Wolok gro-Barok|Wolok gro-Barok]] 17:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
:::Since we always liked to have two admins saying "aye" to permanent changes of this nature: I say "aye". Krusty, can you do the same for Lukish (above) or, alternatively, remove his blocker rights? [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 19:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
:::: Haha, aye - let's get the Lu as a backup as well. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 19:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::Is is just me or do I not actually have any blocking rights (and I suppose Minor Edits and Lukish don't have it either). I can't find any option to perform a block. Furthermore, according to this: [[Special:ListGroupRights]], we have blockers and Blockers. The former doesn't have any block rights at all, while the latter does. Shouldn't we be in the latter list instead of the former? I don't know what the use of the former group is. [[User:Wolok gro-Barok|Wolok gro-Barok]] 00:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::Well you should notice an additional link next to usernames and IPs in the recent changes, and I suppose you would've noticed that if you had the rights. Well when you finally do get the right.. rights, try not to block yourself, trust me... ~ [[User:Dwarfmp|Dwarfmp]] 00:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::: How about now? --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 00:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Ah, I see the new option now. That seems to have fixed it. Thanks. [[User:Wolok gro-Barok|Wolok gro-Barok]] 00:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
{{od}}Dwarfmp: Ha, just blocked myself, but I could immediately unblock myself. No lasting consequences it seems... [[User:Wolok gro-Barok|Wolok gro-Barok]] 01:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
::Yes, sorry for failing to mention you can unblock yourself. When I accidentally blocked myself the first time though, I was unaware of that, made myself look really stupid there, which was what I meant with that last post ;) ~ [[User:Dwarfmp|Dwarfmp]] 20:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

== IP 219.89.225.250 ==

Unpleasant fellow keeps changing stuff on Skjor's page with a racial slur, so... Would a warning be sufficient? --[[User:Amadeus|Amadeus]] 07:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

:Yep, i already warned him. ([[user:Eddie the head|Eddie The Head]] 07:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC))

::I am definitely the slowest one at the party today. Thanks! [[User:Amadeus|Amadeus]] 07:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

== Merge Page Histories? ==

I just noticed that there's an orphaned talk page at <nowiki>[[Skyrim talk:Arniel's Endeavor (D)]]</nowiki>, where the content page has been moved to [[Skyrim:Arniel's Endeavor]]. Did an admin want to do a delete-and-merge on them to retain the page history, or shall I just do a copy & paste move? – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 03:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

:Thanks, AKB! – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 04:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

::I don't think I did that in the most efficient way possible, but that should do it. --[[User:Alpha Kenny Buddy|AKB]] [[User_talk:Alpha_Kenny_Buddy|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Cont]] [[Special:Emailuser/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Mail]] 04:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

:::From what I could tell on my end, that's the way you're supposed to do it. It makes for a rather odd page history, but there's only so much you can do. I've only had to do it a few times on another wiki where I'm an admin, so one of the more experienced admins may have more insight into other ways. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 04:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

{{od}} Just for fun, <nowiki>[[Skyrim talk:Arniel's Endeavor (B)]]</nowiki> and <nowiki>[[Skyrim talk:Arniel's Endeavor (C)]]</nowiki> are similarly orphaned. Sorry, I forgot to check these yesterday. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 21:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

:While I won't claim that the article is chronologically correct, they're now merged. --[[User:Alpha Kenny Buddy|AKB]] [[User_talk:Alpha_Kenny_Buddy|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Cont]] [[Special:Emailuser/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Mail]] 21:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

::I'm in the middle of about 20 different things, but I'll try to remember to go through the edit history later and put it in the right order. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 22:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

:::Meant to mention last night that I went through it and straightened it all out. Confusing as all hell, but it's done. :) – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 19:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

== Resignation ==

Hi all. As some of you have probably noticed, I haven't been active at all on the wiki since I was appointed admin back in October. I was concerned that something like this might have occurred, but I figured the wiki needed all the able bodies it could muster and I thought I could handle it. After a full term at university, I've had to accept that not only don't I have time to be an admin, but that I barely have time for the site in general, let alone to play Skyrim. Since I do not see the situation changing from here to February (in fact it will probably get worse, unfortunately) I hereby resign from my adminship. It just doesn't feel right to keep the tools without having practically ever used them and with the knowledge that I will rarely be using them in the future. I apologize for deciding this so late and wish everyone the best in ensuring UESP is the prime source for Skyrim material in the year to come. Regards, --[[User:SerCenKing|SerCenKing]] [[User talk:SerCenKing|Talk]] 14:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

:In the past, we've always allowed people who resign to keep whatever level of rights they had unless they specifically requested immediate removal of rights. Given that your Admin rights are temporary anyway, if nobody's opposed, what I would suggest is that you keep the rights until the end of February, and then assuming things have gone as you predict, that they be removed at that time along with any other temporary Admins who choose not to run for permanent Adminship.

:It's unfortunate to see you go, but university will do that to you. I wish you the best, and if things somehow miraculously change and you're able to contribute, I look forward to working with you again. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 18:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
::I'm not the least bit disappointed, you needn't apoligize. Makes me look better with my few edits ;) Good luck with your studies, which are surely more important than all this.
::Robin, I wasn't aware of the ability to keep the admin rights if we would choose so, is that right? ~ [[User:Dwarfmp|Dwarfmp]] 20:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
:::Did you mean upon retirement or after the temporary Admin period is done? If you meant retirement, we've always done that. Just go through the {{Plainlinks|Special:ListUsers|group=sysop|list of Admins}} and you'll see several long-inactive members there. If you meant converting temporary Admins to permanent Admins, that's obviously going to be up to each individual to decide, but I would imagine at least some will want to go run for permanent Adminship. Since we only have three listed as active and two more as semi-active, I think we could use a few more permanent admins come the end of February. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 23:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
::::Sounds good enough for me. After all, you never know: I might be able to help out from here to February should a miracle happen once or twice :P --[[User:SerCenKing|SerCenKing]] [[User talk:SerCenKing|Talk]] 22:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

== Caching for anons ==

It looks like that quite an old version is displayed for most of the content for anons. It was [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Skyrim:Fortify_Health&diff=prev&oldid=849257 this edit] that led me to investigate it, because the editor apparently wasn't seeing an edit I made about 5 hours earlier to [[Skyrim:Quest Items]]. Testing it myself as anon, almost all content I see is several hours outdated, a force reload fixes it for a given page. Such long caching times make contributions of anons look odd, because they see other things than logged in users do. --[[User:Alfwyn|Alfwyn]] 19:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

:Another anonymous editor has just had this same problem, following an incorrect redirect for [[Skyrim:Charmed Necklace|Charmed Necklace]] that was fixed two days ago! (See [[Skyrim_talk:Quest_Items#Bad_Redirect|Bad Redirect]].) – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 04:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

::I can also confirm this. I viewed an article before logging on and it showed the 5-day old version of it. Reloading the page fixed it, though. • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 01:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

== Google Indexing Issues ==

I've noticed for a while that whenever I do a UESP-related search on google, a handful of google's results tend to point to obscure variants of UESP's URL (e.g., newcontent1.uesp.net instead of www.uesp.net). It's not a major problem, but it does contribute to a handful of minor problems, for example issues such as [[UESPWiki:Reference_Desk#Morrowind_.28view_on_map.29_links|this]]) when editors follow a non-standard link, it means some readers are bypassing our squid cache and increasing server workload, and could cause problems if we need to take down one of our servers for maintenance.

Which is all a long-winded explanation for a [[UESPWiki:Upgrade_History#9 January 2012|change]] I just made to the site. It's adding a tag to every wiki page that should have no effect on readers, but should tell google and all other search engines to consider "www.uesp.net" to be the canonical name for each of our wiki pages. It's likely to take a week or more for it actually to take full effect (i.e., not until google has re-indexed every page on the site).

Also, as semi-followup to some questions raised during [[UESPWiki:Community_Portal#Quest_Item_Redirects|another discussion]]. Google does index wiki redirects. However, it only indexes those pages (or any pages) if there is a link to the page somewhere. So Amren's Family Sword only gets indexed if the link [[Skyrim:Amren's Family Sword]] appears somewhere on a wiki page. Categories are in theory one way to ensure that redirects are listed somewhere, except right now google will only ever see the first 200 entries in a category. So the huge [[:Category:Redirects from Alternate Names]] is for the most part useless as a way of telling google about a page.

--[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 21:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

:So if I've understood your reply correctly, you're saying that now that we've linked Amren's Family Sword here, Google should index it? If that's the case, why hasn't Google already indexed it, since it's been linked to from [[Skyrim:Valtheim Towers]] since {{Plainlinks|Skyrim:Valtheim_Towers|diff=prev&oldid=754055|November 13}}? Or did I misunderstand? Good work on the change, though. I've been noticing that for a year or more, though in the past, usually those links were fairly low ranked compared to the general uesp.net ones. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 23:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

== Easier Patrol ==

So, I found an easier way to patrol the many edits we have been getting. The javascript is at [[User:Elliot/ajaxpatrol.js]]. I basically marks the edit as patrolled without leaving the page. Just add the following code to [[Special:Mypage/monobook.js]].
<pre>
importScript('User:Elliot/ajaxpatrol.js');
</pre>
I figured this would help out. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 05:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

:Whenever we upgrade to 1.18+ and we have the Vector skin available, [[metawikipedia:User:Krinkle/Scripts/AjaxPatrolLinks#Usage|the bookmarklets]] would probably be a useful addition as well. For me, the AjaxPatrol itself wouldn't really affect how I patrol (I don't wait for the page load after patrolling, I just move to the next tab and bulk close windows later on), but having a single-click patrol button that's in a consistent location and auto-closes the tab, ''that'' would help enormously. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, though. So...Dave, Neph, when are we upgrading to 1.18 again? ;) – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 07:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

== Skyrim Map ==

This is an enquiry on how to go about creating a map for Skyrim like we have for Morrowind and [http://www.uesp.net/maps/obmap/obmap.shtml Oblivion]. Extracting the map marker data from the game files is no problem. For the terrain data scans of the paper map could be used now, that get later replaced by something else (depending on CS capabilities). I'd be willing to put some time into such a project, but don't want to duplicate existing work in progress and any temporal solution should be upgradeable to the envisioned final version without too much hassle. --[[User:Alfwyn|Alfwyn]] 14:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

== Oversight Permissions ==

I remembered reading that Oversight had been added while I was away, and was just familiarizing myself with who had those permissions and who didn't. I noticed that Nephele was conspicuously absent from the list. I suspect this has to do with who the active admins were at the time the permissions were added. Given that two of the current Admins who have it are only semi-active, and that Nephele is a Bureaucrat and one of the longest-serving editors on the wiki right now, I'd like to suggest that she also be given Oversight permissions. (Not to mention the fact that with server access, she can presumably give herself these permissions any time she chooses. <g>) – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 23:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

: Yup, the Oversight feature was added before Nephele came back. It seems obvious that she should be on the list. --[[User:Legoless|Legoless]] 22:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

:: Nephele's a 'crat so she can give the rights to herself any time she wants. The option hasn't been used very much and hopefully nobody will need it at all for much longer because a better way of doing it is included in later versions of MediaWiki. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 06:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

== Ads obstructing pages ==
[[File:AdsObstructingPages.png|thumb|right]]
Forgive me if this is the wrong place for such a question, but I assume its something the admins may have some amount of control over. Are the adverts on the pages supposed to fly up and obstruct the pages as seen here. It seems to me that over the last day or two, ads would occasionally pop up over the screen if I left the page in place for a while to read the contents, such as on the Jyggalag page in the picture. [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 07:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
:I presume they do, but, how are ads categorized? And, i've never seen one like that. I've not had any ads misbehaving or any of the interesting ones some people were previously getting. Just a question - where the pop up and the bottom ad related? --[[User:Kiz|kiz]] '''[[User_Talk:Kiz|talk]]''''''[[Special:EmailUser/Kiz|email]]''' 19:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
::Honestly, I can't remember anymore. But it was definitely an ad from UESP, since it was only on that page and it kept recentering everytime I scrolled down the page. [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 20:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
:::No I don't think this should happen, they're supposed to stay low-key on the bottom of a page. I can tell you though that this IS the place to discuss such issues, as there have been issues with ads in the past ~ [[User:Dwarfmp|Dwarfmp]] 22:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

::::While this is the appropriate place to bring such things up, I believe that Dave is the only one of us who can block certain ads from appearing on the website (maybe Nephele can as well? I really don't know). And I do agree, they should be blocked if at all possible. There is little worse than a pop-up ad. --[[User:Alpha Kenny Buddy|AKB]] [[User_talk:Alpha_Kenny_Buddy|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Cont]] [[Special:Emailuser/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Mail]] 22:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

== Protected ==

Just a note: I've protected this page for the week. Hopefully by then, the recent spree of nonsense bots going after this page will have stopped. --[[User:Alpha Kenny Buddy|AKB]] [[User_talk:Alpha_Kenny_Buddy|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Cont]] [[Special:Emailuser/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Mail]] 20:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

== Deleting redirects from renamed files ==

When I've been renaming files that didn't follow our naming conventions, I've put the remaining redirects up for speedy deletion after fixing all the links. Krusty has deleted a few of them as speedies, but rpeh has just switched a couple of recent ones to proposed deletions since they don't meet the [[Project:Deletion Policy#Criteria for Speedy Deletion|Criteria for Speedy Deletion]]. You ''could'' argue that they're redirects created as the result of typos, but not following our naming conventions is probably a bit of a stretch to be considered a typo, so I consider rpeh to be correct. That said, since only Patrollers and Admins can directly move files, and there's no loss of information in the move, it would make sense to me to allow speedy deletion in these cases.

It makes no difference to me, but for the sake of consistency, we should figure out whether speedy or proposed deletion is the appropriate choice here, and if we do decide to go with speedy, we should explicitly add that to the [[Project:Deletion Policy|Deletion Policy]] page. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 08:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

: The basic rule is that if an image has been around for several days, a redirect should be left when moving it, and that redirect should be prodded rather than speedied. If the image is very new then it can either be moved without leaving a redirect or moved and the redirect speedily deleted. There are several reasons for this - you can get some info at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Redirects Wikipedia Criteria for speedy deletion] page.
: I don't think there's a need to rewrite the deletion policy. It's already pretty clear on the criteria for speedy deletion and redirects caused by renaming images to meet our naming conventions don't meet them. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 08:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

::I think we should definitely meet somewhere in the middle of your two stances here. While I agree that many problems can arise from speedying a redirect, I think seven days prodded is too much. As Wikipedia states, ''If the redirect was the result of a page move, consider waiting a day or two before deleting the redirect.'' That clause is inexplicably missing from the current criteria. Adding it would be a good way to get a policy written on this minor matter. So, we should disallow redirect suppression on the possibly controversial moves (after a few days), and reduce the proposed deletion time for redirects to two days. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 08:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

::: Too tricky, TBH. It's easy to spot files that are 7+ days old on the deletion category but having to check everything to see if it's a redirect over the smaller limit will take extra time that it's not very useful to spend. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 09:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
::::Yeah, I just realized that. I tried to fix it with <code><nowiki>.redirect-in-category, .allpagesredirect {font-style: italic;}</nowiki></code>, but the prod tags mess with it. Since that really isn't a fixable option, it would be best to stick to 7 days. I think most people figured the rules were a little lax since Skyrim's release, so it might be best to start following them a little more. Plus, it never hurts to be overly judicious. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 09:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

:::::Okay, I'll Prod them in future then. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 19:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

::::::Same here, i'll prod them from now on. I just didn't honestly see any harm in speeding them, but if its causing problems i'll desist --[[User:Kiz|kiz]] '''[[User_Talk:Kiz|talk]]''''''[[Special:EmailUser/Kiz|email]]''' 20:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

== 2.14.20.76 ==
This user should probably be blocked, at least temporarily. [[User:RIM|RIM]] 17:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

:I've blocked it for a week, in case this user starts up again while no one is around. --[[User:Alpha Kenny Buddy|AKB]] [[User_talk:Alpha_Kenny_Buddy|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Cont]] [[Special:Emailuser/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Mail]] 17:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
::Thanks Alpha.[[User:RIM|RIM]] 18:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

== Stolen Content ==

Before the release of Skyrim, an agreement was struck with a minor site about their continual use of UESP content on their own site. The basic idea was that any UESP content used on TES Wiki would be deleted on sight, and that any content of theirs used on UESP would be similarly deleted. Of course, while UESP content has been used repeatedly on TES Wiki, none of their articles or images has come close to the standard required here.

The thieves at TESWiki have decided to abandon this agreement and allow UESP content to be stolen for use on their own site. The thieves concerned are so paranoid about their regular thefts being exposed that even the term "UESP" is now banned on their IRC chatroom, as are the names of several UESP editors. Luckily, their admins aren't very bright so they tend to get themselves kicked for using these terms.

Please can editors who have their content stolen by TESWiki report it directly to Wikia staff using [http://www.wikia.com/Special:Contact/general this] page. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 02:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

:Note that both wikis uses the CC-by-SA license which permits copying so long as attribution is made. There is no "official" agreement (if such a thing is possible) of content sharing between any of the ES wikis and the UESP. If you do find or suspect stolen content on another ES wiki or site please report it to the site admins and myself. Do *not* presume to delete it yourself....imagine how we would feel if someone from another site came and deleted a bunch of our images thinking they were stolen? I would also expect that any UESP editor or admin treat other Wikis with respect whatever the situation may be. In the end time is better spent improving this site that worrying what someone else is or isn't doing. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 22:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

::I spoke with the administrators on the site at length regarding this last week. Basically, if our images show up on their site, they will attribute them to us. However, they still would prefer to have their own images on their site instead. No one will revert you if you add the tag yourself, but being hostile in any manner is not going to help anything. If anyone doesn't feel comfortable doing it, feel free to email myself. I'll notify Timeoin and he will take care of it. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 06:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

== Minor CSS Error ==

While it seems to work in everything I've looked at, technically the wikitable CSS border specifications we have in [[MediaWiki:Common.css]] are in the wrong order. They should both read: <code>border: 1px solid #aaaaaa;</code> (swap "solid" and "#aaaaaa"). Can an Admin please fix this when they have the chance, just to be sure all browsers will interpret it correctly. Thanks! – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 20:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

: I've [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki%3ACommon.css&diff=871096&oldid=832729 made the change]. Hope everything's fine. --[[User:Legoless|Legoless]] 21:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

:: Our tables still look like tables, so everything's fine. :) Thank you! – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 23:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

== Need some help here ==

Can somebody please have a word with [[User:Rylasasin]] about his habit of erasing other users' contributions to talk pages? [[User:ThuumofReason|ThuumofReason]] 23:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
:You actually need to stop reinstating what he removes. Since it is his talk page, he is permitted to remove anything that is posted on it. By removing comments, he acknowledges that he has read it. It's not a big deal, so I would just ignore him. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 23:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
::Official warnings/block notices are the only things that HAVE to stay, Thuum, and he has none. [[User:Eric Snowmane|Bloodaxe]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 23:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
:::Well, you learn something new every day... [[User:ThuumofReason|ThuumofReason]] 23:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
::::But just for future reference, I know that it's not wise to continually revert edits on a single subject, as it makes one look obsessive and, in some cases, downright petty, which is why I only reinstated my comment once before stopping. I appreciate the consideration, but I wish you could have phrased it as a suggestion instead of an imperative. [[User:ThuumofReason|ThuumofReason]] 23:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

== [[Special:Contributions/92.138.240.231|92.138.240.231]] ==

Keeps inserting YouTube links, I tried to talk to him via the comment line when reverting and left a message on his talk page, but he continues to do so. What to do next? --[[User:Ulkomaalainen|Ulkomaalainen]] 20:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

:He's only tried once since the talk page message, so it's reasonable to think he may not yet have read the message. If he tries again, I'll give him a short block. Please post if you notice any further activity, but I'll add the page to my watchlist as well, so hopefully I'll notice fairly quickly myself. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 20:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

== January Traffic Numbers ==

Since I know some people like seeing big numbers as much as I do:
[[Image:UespTraffic-Jan2012.png|center|frame|<center>January 2012 Wiki Traffic</center>]]
Note that traffic dropped noticeably (20-40%) after the first week of January due to school starting. I didn't have Google Analytics running during November/December but the traffic from those months would have been 2-3x higher. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 14:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

==Anti-spam/vandalism bot==
(''Copied from [[User_talk:RobinHood70#Anti-spam_bot]]'')
I came up with this idea in the IRC, after I was talking with Krusty about the recent spam wave, and he suggested I direct this question to you. I was thinking that a bot to prevent spam/vandalism could be employed on the site, since there are a lot of editors and anons on the site now. Here is what I was thinking for a bot:

# The bot will be able to identify common words, such as "penis", "vagina", "fuck", and other common words that are inserted into pages, then revert them.('''Edit:''' And be able to revert edits where nonsense characters that don't make words are added i.e. hfdjkslfhs or similar, Excluding the in-game language pages, and the pages on Morrowind, for example, where there are pages written with ciphers in game, therefore not making real words) There are a couple of pages ([[Lore:The Real Barenziah, Part IV]]) that have a legitimate use of those common words (Penis, in this instance) and those legit pages will be white-listed so that the bot can pass over them.
# The bot will be given a list of sites frequently used as spam, (the Coach site, for example from the recent spam wave), and will create a black list. Any of those links that are added by a user that is not Patroller or higher(Trustworthy positions, since you have to be helpful to the wiki to want them anyways), will be automatically blocked by the bot, with a block notice for spam posted to the page.
# And, the bot will be able to revert revisions of a page where a large section of text is removed, with an appropriate warning issued to the offender. (Again excluding Patrollers, Admins, and other trustworthy positions, in case it was blanked for a redirect). Userspace pages are frequently blanked legitimately, so I can't see the bot functioning properly in the userspace, so it should be excluded from there.

There is are bots that preform similar functions on Wikipedia, which is where I got the idea from.

What do you think of my proposal? Krusty suggested that you would be able to accomplish the project, or with the permission of a few admins, I can begin coding the bot myself over the next few weeks. [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 00:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

:Actually, my bot coding skills are the least developed of the three of us on the site who have bots. I suspect [[User:Nephele|Nephele]] would be the one to talk to since she's done a lot more work on server-side utilities than either [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] or I have; [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] might also be able to comment, but I wouldn't start there. The biggest issue I see with the above is that to be of the most use, a bot like you're talking about would have to run on the server - right now, all three bots on the site are being run from our own machines, not from the server. I'm not sure if we can run a server-side bot in our current setup or not, though I know there was some discussion a while back of setting up a bot server for UESP.

:Some of what you're suggesting can actually be set up without a bot, though. For example, we have a [[MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist|Spam Blacklist]] page that prevents unauthorized users (maybe all users...not sure) from posting links to certain sites.

:A third possibility might be to set something up similar to HotCat, where it's a user-assisted bot that simply reverts and issues warnings. I remember a similar discussion coming up a while ago, though, regarding the use of the rollback feature, and the decision at the time was not to allow any but Admins to use it because it would make it too easy to edit war.

:So in the end, my recommendation would be to bring this to the Administrators Noticeboard and see what feedback you get. I suspect rpeh and Nephele probably both have a better feel for the feasability of this than I do. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 02:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

So, I pulled this from Robin's talk page, as he suggested above, and I wanted to know from some of the more experienced editors what the feasibility of creating a bot to perform these actions, and, if no one else wanted to do the coding, if I could do it if I was given the greenlight. [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 02:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
::I can't say much other than: seems like a good idea. I just wanted to mention that you'd need to put [[Oblivion:Weebam-Na|Weebam-Na]] on that white-list, with the rant about his powdered deer penis ~ [[User:Dwarfmp|Dwarfmp]] 04:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

== IP 95.43.37.222 ==

The IP address 95.43.37.222 has repeatedly vandalized the [[Skyrim:Redguard]] page, continuing after a warning was given, the IP obviously needs a block. ([[user:Eddie the head|Eddie The Head]] 13:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC))
:Done. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 16:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

== To Kill an Empire revert ==

Hi, I'd like to get an admin opinion on my edit and its consequential revert [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Skyrim%3ATo_Kill_an_Empire&diff=874770&oldid=874231] I'm not aware of any specific policy, but I believe grammar errors in dialogue aren't worthy of being in an article. Don't want to start an edit war, so, opinions, please? --[[User:Kotekzot|Kotekzot]] 17:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
:At the moment, the grammar bit resides in the notes section. --[[User:Kotekzot|Kotekzot]] 17:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
::I'd say let it stay. When the dialogue for Astrid gets contributed, it'll probably be mentioned as well, and perhaps then it can be deleted, though even then it is at some level worth mentioning on the quest page ~ [[User:Dwarfmp|Dwarfmp]] 18:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
:::The reason we have the Bug template is to make it easy for modders to find and fix the bugs, and I wouldn't consider a typo to be a "bug" per se. Using the UOP as an example, though, it did fix a number of typos, and whenever we get a USP, someone will probably want to track those all down. So I'd say Notes is probably the best place for now, and as Dwarfmp says, once the dialogue is done, we should move it there and add a {{tl|Sic}} template to it to make it easy to find. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 21:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
:::: I disagree. A bit of bad grammar shouldn’t be mentioned on quest pages – if we start to do that now, we invite people to add even more unnecessary bugs and notes to the overloaded quest articles – and right now, we have tons of questionable bugs and notes to test already. For the time being, grammar/spelling mistakes should be kept on NPC pages – and if the dialogue has yet to be added, it shouldn’t be mentioned at all. We will drown if we allow this. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 22:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::I agree with Krusty. Dialogue should be on NPC pages. An error in the dialogue is not noteworthy material for a quest page. [[User:Wolok gro-Barok|Wolok gro-Barok]] 22:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::Considering I would barely find this worthy of being on an NPC, it should definitely be removed from the article. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 22:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
{{od}} I hadn't been paying attention to the fact that it was a quest page and not an NPC, so yes, it makes sense to remove it from there. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 00:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
:If the dialogue will be handled well on the NPC page, it's going to be up there with a sic tag, that's all that needs to be. Not saying it should be noted on the quest page if it's the only dialogue mentioned. I'm fine with having it removed from the quest page, some good points mentioned above. I'm looking forward to having the CK and tidying up the site, then such problems wouldn't occur anymore ~ [[User:Dwarfmp|Dwarfmp]] 01:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

== [[Special:Contributions/69.210.128.200]] ==

Can a blocker take care of this anon? He has made numerous edits to another user's page, and after receiving a blanking notice on his page, he continues to delete content. Thanks. And, if this is the appropriate place for a question, since I am on pretty frequently, can I get blockuser rights for instances like this? Thanks. [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 02:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

:Temporary block in place pending Admin action. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 02:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

== Posts disappear? ==

Hi... my Discussion page message on [[Skyrim:Honeyside|Honeyside]] with the subject titled "reputation needed among citizens?", which I posted over a week ago, and *I think* is relevant to the discussion on the page content and perhaps could create an addition/modify on the article by someone informed on the quest ... is now only visible to me when I'm logged in?

It appears to have not been deleted for any editorial reason, looking at Talk page history.. but it is visible to me when I AM logged in. On the Talk page history, only one unrelated, but still contributing post has been made since. It doesn't seem that that person has removed my post, either intentionally or by accident. What gives? TIA for any response. {{unsigned|Trep35|4 February 2011}}

: Don't worry, it hasn't been deleted. This can often happen due to caching issues. The solution, as you've already discovered, is to create an account. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 09:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

:: Hi rpeh, I appreciate your responding. As far as caching, my browser cache is set to be emptied every time I close my browser. It seems to happen across IE/Firefox/Opera/Chrome: my comments on that article are only visible when I'm logged in (but on other discussion pages, or actual articles I've edited, they are always visible even when not logged in). Maybe there's a UESP cache issue, or something else with the way I posted? [[User:Trep35|Trep35]] 07:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

:::Your theory is correct: the caching issue isn't on your end, it's on UESP's, and it only happens to IP editors, though I'm not sure if we've narrowed down why and when it happens beyond that. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 20:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

::::It seems to be third party proxies caching the pages (overly long). A force reload will help in those situations. When looking at the headers of UESP http responses, I see a line "Expires: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 ...", and " Cache-Control: s-maxage=2678400, must-revalidate, max-age=0, max-age=604800". The duplicated "max-age" is a bit strange, but if a proxy uses the second definition, it will most likely cache the page for a week before getting a new version on its own. Registered users send an authentication along with their http request, replies to those should never be cached by proxies. --[[User:Alfwyn|Alfwyn]] 21:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

== Odd Community Portal Behaviour ==

I'm getting odd behaviour on the Community Portal page. It's showing a version that's several edits out of date even though I'm logged in. Also, there are ''always'' new edits shown past the last edit, but it just repeats the last edit summary with no changes. This occurs across browsers, and I ''am'' logged in. Can someone else confirm that this behaviour is happening for them as well, please? – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 22:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

:I just did a Purge, and it's now showing the latest content, but the odd "always another edit" behaviour remains (e.g., {{Plainlinks|UESPWiki:Community_Portal|diff=876433&oldid=875365|this}} always shows a "Newer edit" link). Also, it reverts to the older version (roughly Jan 29) on a refresh. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 22:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
::Quite annoying indeed. I've just given an anon a vandalism warning and immediately afterwards it tells me the page doesn't exist! [[User:Wolok gro-Barok|Wolok gro-Barok]] 23:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
:::Elliot broke the wiki! :P Okay, no, he didn't, but tracing back where the problem started, I come up with this diff: {{Plainlinks|UESPWiki:Community_Portal|diff=next&oldid=872479|Elliot's edit}}. Notice that there is no "Newer edit" on that one, despite the fact that the history shows additional edits afterwards. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 00:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

: It probably has something to do with us switching back to using db2 for reads this afternoon. The [[UESPWiki:Upgrade_History|Upgrade_History]] page also shows this behavior. If anyone notices it happening to other pages let me know. If it is just the odd page I can fix it manually but if it is more widespread I'll have to redo the db2 replication. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 00:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

:: The patrol log downloads I do highlighted a few more anomalies, although they don't all exhibit the same behaviour even though they look the same on my end. Most of them just needed to be "re-patrolled"—they had entries in the Patrol Log, but were not marked as patrolled in Recent Changes—but [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Skyrim_talk:Addvar%27s_House&diff=next&oldid=872844] has the same problem as CP did (still does, actually) - no "Newer edit" when there should be. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 02:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

:::I saw this as well on [[User talk:rpeh|rpeh's talk page]]. I thought maybe someone was doing some archiving, since the discussions I was looking for both there and on the CP were pretty well concluded, but I thought it was odd to archive them so quickly while much older and more concluded discussions are still there. Makes more sense now that I know it was just a technical glitch. --[[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] [[User_talk:TheRealLurlock|Talk]] 04:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

::::Yeah, we're getting some really weird behaviour all over the place. I just tried to edit [[Skyrim:The Golden Claw]] and I'm not even sure if my edits took. They don't show in my contributions or the page history, and on viewing, it looks like nothing happened, but when I try to edit, the changes show. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 05:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

:::::I've just uploaded a new version of this file and it did not keep the version history. The only file listed is the one I've just uploaded. Posting here as this is likely related to this same issue perhaps. [http://uesp.net/wiki/File:SR-place-Burguk%27s_Longhouse.jpg][[User:Thuraya Salaris|Thuraya Salaris]] 05:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

::::::Also, I've just noticed Recent changes is no longer working at all and nothing I do is added to my contribution list [[User:Thuraya Salaris|Thuraya Salaris]] 05:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

:::::::Should we be making this more public? • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 06:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
{{od}}''New Symptom'': Naturally, [[Special:Editcount]] doesn't work, however transcluding from the page works. On [[Special:Editcount/Jak Atackka]] it shows that I've made 912 edits, but if I transclude it it (accurately) displays that I've made {{Special:Editcount/Jak Atackka}} edits. • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 06:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

'''Update''' -- I've reverted back to db1 for all Wiki reads so, assuming the issue was replication on db2, everything should be back to normal. If it is isn't let me know as it may indicate other issues. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 13:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

:Not sure is this is related, but someone recently replaced a bunch of images for [[Skyrim:Armor]] in order to have them in correct aspect ratio, but what you see in the thumbnails is the old images stretched out to be 1:1, which appears to give you a bunch of very obese Khajiits showing off this armor. If you click through to get the full-size image, you can see the new images properly, but the thumbnails are all stretched like a funhouse mirror. I've tried refreshing and purging the pages to no avail. I know it's not a caching issue on my side because I don't think I've visited that page before. Is anyone else seeing this? --[[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] [[User_talk:TheRealLurlock|Talk]] 13:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

::I've seen that too. The full image is ok, but the thumbnails are strange. That behaviour could be observed in several cases before, just reuploading the image another time fixed that. Purging the url of the thumbnail image helped (e.g. [http://images.uesp.net/thumb/0/0e/SR-item-Steel_Plate_Armor_Female.jpg/600px-SR-item-Steel_Plate_Armor_Female.jpg?action=purge]), but purging the image description page before did nothing. --[[User:Alfwyn|Alfwyn]] 13:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

:::Should I re-upload the images that do this then? Or is it different for everybody? The images for glass, iron, steel (alt) and steel plate armors are the only four that have done this from what I can see. If it's the same four for everybody I can re-upload those, or if it's others or even all of them, would re-uploading really fix it? [[User:The Invisible Chocobo|The Invisible Chocobo]] 14:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

::::Currently no images on the Armor page look bad anymore for me. Try force reloading the Armor page. --[[User:Alfwyn|Alfwyn]] 14:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

:::::That's better. I had to do it on both the Armor page and the individual image pages, because those previews were still stretched. Will it still be a problem for everyone else though? [[User:The Invisible Chocobo|The Invisible Chocobo]] 15:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

::::::Ditto for me as well. I didn't have to reload the page for the images to appear correctly, though I'm not sure whether I've visited the page recently or not. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 19:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Not quite all fixed, theres still ''something'' wrong somewhere, i've just done a hard refresh of [[Special:ActiveUsers]] page twice, but it still disagrees with my [[Special:EditCount/Kiz|edit count]]. I presume this is a similar issue? --[[User:Kiz|kiz]] '''[[User_Talk:Kiz|talk]]''''''[[Special:EmailUser/Kiz|email]]''' 19:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

{{od}} That ''might'' be normal and expected. If I recall correctly, Edit Count looks at a slightly different set of edits than Active Users does - like maybe it includes deleted pages...? I've got an idea that might narrow that down...I'll report back if I find anything conclusive. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 20:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

:Yup, confirmed. If you look at a recent spammer, [[Special:Contributions/DonnaHildwatere31|DonnaHildwatere31]], you will see she has no edits, nor does she show anything on [[Special:Editcount/DonnaHildwatere31|her edit count page]]. In Active Users, however, she currently appears at [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Special:ActiveUsers&limit=500&offset=10000 position 10135] with one edit to her name (though I suspect that ranking will change rapidly). So it's Active Users that includes deleted edits, not the edit count as I had first thought. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 20:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
::Okay, was just a bit confused by it. Thanks for the info, shouldn't Active Users and Edit Count look at the same set of numbers? --[[User:Kiz|kiz]] '''[[User_Talk:Kiz|talk]]''''''[[Special:EmailUser/Kiz|email]]''' 20:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

== Archive Protection ==

Can an Admin please semi-protect {{Plainlinks|Special:PrefixIndex/Daggerfall_talk:Daggerfall/|these pages}}. They were archived and the template put on them, but never actually semi-protected. Thanks! – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 03:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
:Oops. Sorry. Thought the template autoprotected automatically. Sorry. Thanks, RobinHood... —[[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] 03:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
::In some ways, it would be nice if it could, but then if it could, anybody could protect anything. :) – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 03:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
:::I realize you're joking, but maybe it wouldn't be a bad thing if Patrollers or even autoconfirmed users could protect. Maybe at least until hype from Skyrim died down. The other areas of the site are getting edits too, but they drop so quickly to the bottom of recent history that Admins may never even see them. It'd probably save a lot of confusion. —[[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] 03:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
::::It's really not necessary. Looking at {{Plainlinks|Special:Log|the protection log|3=type=protect}}, there are so few protections done, it wouldn't be worth having that many who could protect pages. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 03:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::Done. As for the matter about extending protection privileges, I don't see that being necessary. Most protections are done mainly to adhere to the archive protection policy (which is hardly a task that must be performed right away without error), besides that, page protections are hardly needed. More importantly, patrollers already have section protection, which while not perfect, can basically solve most problems that come up. --[[User:Alpha Kenny Buddy|AKB]] [[User_talk:Alpha_Kenny_Buddy|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Cont]] [[Special:Emailuser/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Mail]] 04:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

== rpeh's attacks on TESWiki, request for resignation of admin privilages. ==

If you look over [http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rpeh rpeh's edits] to TESWiki, you will see the deletion of content (including properly attributed content, allowable by CC-by-SA), and changing information on their pages[http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/index.php?title=The_Elder_Scrolls_Wiki:Policies_and_guidelines&diff=prev&oldid=386041], an agreement he apparently calls invalid since he wasn't in it. And then he was harassing and attacking them [http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk%3ANeguy71inok%2FAnotherReply here] and [http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Timeoin/Archive_Rpeh here]. Rpeh then [https://twitter.com/#!/rpeh attacked Timeoin on Twitter]. All of these actions make the wiki look bad, and are definitely not becoming of an admin, so I would like to formally request that Rpeh has his admin privileges removed. [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 05:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
'''EDIT:''' I would like to request Krusty's removal as well. We are trying to act in the interest of this wiki moving forward, and Krusty, by removing our comments and calling TESWiki "annoying", is not helping out. He is acting like an unfit administrator, as well. [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 06:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
===Votes===
*'''Support''': as proposer. [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 05:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I'm not really "from" here, so I wont support it formally. However, I do, in principle. The attacks he made on our wiki recently were pointless and unnecessary. Having someone who vandalises a different wiki just because its not his own isn't really someone that you should want as an administrator. (Just my two cents worth) [[User:Timeoin|Timeoin]] 05:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': If this had come at any other time, my vote would likely have been support. However, we need all the editors we can get right now, and there is no doubt rpeh is an amazing editor. He should, however, step very carefully at this point. I don't approve of his actions, and therefore just because I don't think we need petty infighting, it doesn't mean I won't support this if the behavior continues. —[[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] 06:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
:This isn't a proposal for a ban. This is to just remove his administrator ''privileges'' with a public admonishment, because he has tarnished UESP's name. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 06:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': It's good that this comes to our attention, despite.. well the irrelevancy.. rpeh doesn't represent UESPWiki outside of UESPWiki, or am I wrong? That doesn't mean I'm "taking his side". Anyway, this seems more of a discussion for admins alone, I'm not going to get involved (I don't see myself as a real admin f.y.i.). And sure, Krusty shouldn't have removed the whole topic, although I can understand why he would do that. But if you haven't got any other reasons why Krusty should resign, well then I find your request to have him resign laughable, Krusty is one of the finest editors on the site. ~ [[User:Dwarfmp|Dwarfmp]] 06:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
*:'''Comment''':Krusty is a fine editor. But his actions, such as dictating what can or can't be put on the AN, his rude remarks about TESWiki, and an attack against me, suggest he is of the same mind with rpeh, who doesn't help us with the whole wiki argument. Maybe Krusty's resignation is extreme, but he isn't acting like a '''good''' administrator should, and he needs to at least straighten up. And Rpeh doesn't ''speak'' for UESP, but his actions do. Read some of his contributions in the links I gave you guys, he is clearly under the assumption that he is speaking for the wiki. After speaking with people on both sides, there is a clear mistrust of the UESP and its editors over this nonsense. I simply am trying to help the wiki. I mean nothing personal against him, or any other editors. [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 06:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

*'''Comment''': This is an idiotic discussion and a clear attempt to waste the time of editors. Stop stealing our content and there won't be a problem. I'm sick and tired of seeing images that I spend a good deal of time collecting used on a site that claims to be a competitor. Of course, it's no such thing and needs our excellent content to give it the faintest scintilla of quality, but that's not the point. Make your own content and stick your legalistic attitude where it belongs. You might think it's morally acceptable to use our content on a rival site but I sure as hell don't. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 18:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': To you, its a waste of time. All I am doing is trying to help smooth out the damage you have done, which is hindering both wikis from operating. Yes, its in bad taste to use our images, but its still acceptable by our own copyright laws that Daveh has set in place. You don't run UESP, and it isn't your place to dictate what is and isn't acceptable or "pointless" to say. TESWiki is at fault for not attributing our images properly, and you're at fault for talking down to them and our own editors, and for vandalizing other sites to get your point across. Do some good for UESP, and step aside. I feel you are hindering our ability to make amends and get some work done. [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 18:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': I've been enjoying the show, but this is not a productive area of discussion. In his off-site messages, Rpeh was addressing people informed enough to distinguish him from the UESP in general. It was understood he was acting as an ordinary contributor on that other wiki, and not as a representative of the UESP, therefore, there's no reason to penalize certain intemperate comments he may have made there. So his behavior on the UESP is all that really matters, and while he has been uncooperative with Snowmane's proposal, that's to be expected. He shouldn't have engaged in this edit war, but I don't think that's an offense worthy of losing admin privileges. [[User:Minor Edits|Minor Edits]] 19:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Neutral''': It's no secret that I opposed rpeh's re-nomination for Admin and that there's no love lost between us. That said, however, all of the evidence presented above was prior to {{Plainlinks|UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard|diff=870275&oldid=869646|the site owner's comment}} about the matter. Since there has been no evidence presented of any subsequent issues, I would say that there's no call for rpeh's removal. The subsequent attempt of both Krusty and rpeh to stifle this discussion, however, goes against all wiki policy. There was no reason to believe that the original message was an attempt at disruption—it was a legitimate concern brought forth by an active user. So on those grounds, I have to admit, I'm concerned. For those reasons, I am not voting to oppose, as was my initial inclination, but neither will I vote in support. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 20:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''': Eric, I've already spoken to you, so you know where I stand on this issue. Rpeh shouldn't have edit-warred, I'll acknowledge that, but I can see his postion. At any other time, I might be more open to your suggestion - but this '''is not''' what the site needs right now. We need to focus on improving Skyrim content, and getting rid of two admins, (and two of the most prolific editors on the wiki) isn't going to help. The request for Krustys de-adminship is frankly ridiculous, and seems tacked on as an after-thought. I'm sorry, I can't bring myself to support something as pointless as this right now. [[User:Kitkat1749|Kitkat]] •[[User talk:Kitkat1749|Talk]]•[[Special:Contributions/Kitkat1749|Contrib]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Kitkat1749|E-mail]] 20:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

=== Update ===
'''Update:''' I've de-admined both Rpeh and Krusty on at least a temporary basis...how temporary really depends on their actions from this point forward. I have more to say on this but I have a day job and can't spend the time until later this evening. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 20:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

'''Detailed Response:''' There's a lot going through my head at the moment (not solely of this incident) so I'll try to keep it short and hopefully somewhat comprehensible:
:* Being an admin, or editor, here is a privilege and not a right. As has happened in the past if there is a conflict or disagreement between the "site" and the admin/editor then we simply agree to disagree and part ways.
:* The various rules/guidelines set by the site apply equally well to any member of the site be it a new user or senior admin. I have, however, given a lot lenience to several people in the past by overlooking or ignoring certain actions due to both me generally assuming the best in people (everyone can make a mistake) as well as having a personal fault of avoiding confrontation.
:* A good lesson to learn in life is that you have little to control over the actions of others: it is only your actions and reactions that you control. If some other site, such as an ES Wiki, wants to steal/borrow/legally license UESP content then ultimately I cannot stop them. I can, however control how I react to their actions. In my opinion the wrong way would be to harass, threaten, and insult them. Not only is this unlikely to convince them it only makes me, and the site/community I ultimately represent, look bad. And yes, I could technically sue but if you have the few $100,000 it would take for such a lawsuit I could suggest far better uses of that money.
:* From my point of view I see admin(s) who (in part or in whole):
::* Deleted stolen images from a competitive ES wiki (I have yet to see any indication of any stolen content and even if there was I wouldn't expect any admin/user of the site to delete it themselves)
::* Confronted and insulted the admin staff of that wiki who, from what I could, dealt with it in a very professional manner
::* Ignored my "subtle" comments (somewhere above) to deal with any stolen content through me.
::* Deleted topics on this board concerning this issue!
::Any one of those would be grounds for de-admining, especially considering the controversial past history of one such admin and all of them reflect very poorly on this site as a whole. I'd rather not be known as "that site with the bad admins".
:* If anyone thinks that such actions are tolerable then I would strongly suggest that your goals and morales do not match that of this site and you refrain from contributing here. I'm not looking or demanding anyone's apology or their explanation here.
:* Right now I intend Rpeh's adminship permanently over given his past history. He is welcome to contribute as a regular editor providing he abides by the rules of the site. I am more than willing to re-admin Krusty depending on the opinion of other editors/admins and that his part was minor in the whole affair.
I'm now off to write a front page news article apologizing for this sort of behaviour from our admins. I have lots more to say but I don't want the important parts to be lost in a wall of text. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 00:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

:::I'm quite frankly shocked by this post, as it is based entirely on accusation rather than fact.
:::*I have deleted nothing from TESWiki - I can't. I'm not an admin.
:::*I don't believe I have insulted anybody on TESWiki.
:::*Your comments, which don't address the fact that there is '''still''' a lot of content on TESWiki that fails to obey the CC license, which means the entire license is void, came '''after''' the debate on TESWiki. Imposing a penalty for actions committed before a sentence was discussed is totally against any kind of natural justice.
:::*The topic deleted was - and remains - entirely disruptive, thus falling into the jurisdiction of admins for summary removal. I have addressed the removal of content here before. I'll state it again: it was entirely disruptive. The fact that not one person voted for my removal as admin (a vote that has been ignored, I note) proves just how disruptive it was.
:::*I have tried, again, again and again to deal with the admins at TESWiki and its predecessors. Every time I manage to gain some kind of understanding with one of them, along comes some other new admin to undermine it. So much of the discussion has been deleted that this is, alas, unprovable. The fact that one editor found it necessary to apologise to me on my talk page for uploading UESP content should give you pause for thought, however. In the most recent case, I was approached in the hope that we might come up with a solution. The agreement, struck on their IRC site between me and three of their admins, was that UESP would delete any TESWiki content uploaded to it, and in return TESWiki would delete any UESP content uploaded to it. Since this did not, '''in any way''' exceed my authority as an admin, I agreed. A productive period ensued where UESP content was flagged for deletion on TESwiki and deleted quickly. I would have deleted any TESWiki content just as quickly, except it's all so poor that none was ever added to UESP. Unfortunately, Timeoin decided, on his own, to revert to an earlier policy. When I reverted his edit to reflect ''established policy'' I was blocked for vandalism - a totally inappropriate reason - and had to watch while Timeion instigated a ''post hoc'' vote to legitimize his policy change. Nothing I did at that site was vandalism.
:::Basically, you have been tragically misinformed on these topics.
:::I'm sure there are some editors who will be beside themselves with glee about these developments.
:::As I have always done, I stand by my record: there is nobody who has done more for this site. I have earned my rights, twice, by sheer hard graft and talent. Let any member of this site - including its owner - stand up and tell me otherwise.
:::If you need an apology, I offer this: I'm sorry that my desire to see UESP as the foremost TES site on the Internet means that I am unable to tolerate the naked theft of our content by "rival" sites. If they consider themselves competitors, they should compete on their own merit.
:::I await your reply. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 01:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

::::I mentioned in the original ban message something to the effect of "what happens now depends your actions from this point". In my private e-mails with Krusty we had a good two-way discussion which led me to understand the issue in more detail and realize that de-admining him outright was too much. Our emails, however, have apparently led to the point where I'm at fault and need to apologize to you. This has only confirmed my original decision. While you raise a few points of misinformation I'm not entirely sure having a back and forth argument is worthwhile. I will be reviewing some things tonight to make sure I haven't acted on anything in error, however. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 14:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

:How do you figure that "it is based entirely on accusation rather than fact"? We have many links of your derogatory remarks towards everyone. Not to mention, your use of empty threats to suppress opposition to what would conflict your interest that are not linked(i.e this [[User Talk:Eric Snowmane#Disruption|lovely warning to block me]] for being concerned about the image you have given our wiki). And your "record" it isn't that big of a deal, anyone can move files, reword stuff, code a bot to sort categories, etc. No matter how big your edit count is, it doesn't guarantee you the right to harass other editors, on UESP or elsewhere. Your arrogance hurts you more than anything. Even now, you still try to deflect any guilt away from you. However, I will give you one complement: It takes a lot of talent to be a troll and still find a way to become a wiki admin. I am done talking now, I am taking a break for a week or so. [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 03:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

::Anyone can move files, reword stuff, code a bot, create images, patrol edits, decode game data, write full articles and create fully detailed online maps. But who has actually been doing all of that, for 4-5 years? I'll admit that rpeh my sometimes flaunt his record too much, but it's certainly not something you can dismiss so callously.
::Yesterday I verified that my Skyrim game was actually working again (savegame filesize + patch 1.4, anyone?), today I find this. What seemed to me to be a legitimate complaint (so we could discuss whether it was true or not) at first now seems to be again degenerated into a shouting match. Over the years I've had myself disagreeing with rpeh on various points, but somehow we never came to the likes of this. I wonder why that is?

::Back to the matter of the complaint/accusation; I want to throw in my lot with that of rpeh and Krusty. I may not have been active on the other Elder Scrolls wiki's, but I did and do condone rpeh's (and Krusty's) activities there. Previous administrators of the other wiki's have actually deleted content on our request, so that's why you may find so little of it now. What I ''can'' say is that I've checked the stolen images over the years, and the pains of having the other wiki's actually removing them, and rpeh's claim is ''correct'', without a question! Yes, he may have been too bullying to certain people about it, but I can understand that very well. We can hardly "sue" (I wonder why that is always brought up...), and it's not like there's an internet authority that actually resolves such situations.
::Copying other people's work (which making screenshots definitely is) and claiming it as your own is bad conduct. Really, check the scientific or art communities yourself, and the outrage when such theft has taken place. I think it's very unfair to dismiss rpeh's anger over it.

::So if the current UESP community agrees that either rpeh or Krusty should resign their administrator rights over this (I might be leaping to a conclusion here, seeing how few support votes there are for that) I'd like my rights revoked as well. --[[User:Timenn|Timenn]]-<[[User talk:Timenn|talk]]> 09:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

:::"anyone can move files, reword stuff, code a bot to sort categories" - if anyone can do it, Eric Snowmane should try doing it instead of trolling. I can't believe that the actions of a couple of trolls has resulted in the loss of two of UESP's best editors. Three if Timenn goes too. Daveh, you have really messed up on this one. [[Special:Contributions/193.114.72.80|193.114.72.80]] 16:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

To reiterate some of my comments regarding Rpeh: His ban was *not* due to the actions of deleting or requesting deletion of mis-licensed UESP images on another Wiki but the manner in which he did it (insulting and harassing) and then his behavior and continued actions on this site (deleting a relevant AN discussion concerning himself). I actually knew of the TESWiki last week and while I considered banning at that time I didn't feel it was needed and was, in fact, planning to talk with him about it when this whole thing blew up.

If Rpeh had a good history I would have just given a warning, updated site policy to be clearer, and moved on, but his history is "interesting" (I don't feel it is wise to dig up the past and list everything as it is not productive. I'm more than willing to say that Rpeh has performed a huge amount of work on this wiki but personally I don't think taking the bad with the good is worth it. At what point do you think someone's behaviour is "too much"? Is it acceptable to regularly verbal abuse users of this site, or other wiki admins, or to delete controversial discussion regarding themselves here?

While my ban holds for now the ultimate decision has to be made by the admins and active editors of this site but you'll have to sway my opinion that this sort of behavior is either acceptable or that an outright ban is too severe a punishment.

-- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 13:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

'''Comment''': What rpeh does on other sites as Some User is between him and them, even if it extends to vandalism, ban evasion, and abuse like it did in this case. However, what he does on other sites while representing himself as the personification of UESP is something that Daveh has every right to involve himself in. Users of this wiki should be more concerned about rpeh's behavior here: he deleted this topic ''four times'' to try and sweep it under the rug, and threatened to block ES for daring to bring it up in the first place, hiding behind claims of it being "disruptive" while clearly motivated entirely by self-interest. That's as good a definition of "abuse of admin rights" as there is, and is easily reason enough to consider action regardless of anything that happened anywhere else. rpeh's "I'm untouchable, policies don't apply to me" attitude ''is'' something that only Daveh can address, because it's clear even in the "Oppose" votes that people feel they have to opt for practicality over principles and let rpeh skate - to say nothing of risking making themselves targets for someone with a long history of using his position to bully, threaten, and abuse other contributors to the wiki if he ends up keeping his privileges: as most recently evidenced by his reaction to this very topic. I've had this comment sitting in an edit window for literally hours while trying to decide if I dared post it, because despite it being honest and objective I know damn well what I can expect from rpeh if his edit count saves him from his behavior yet again and he remains an admin here. [[User:Aliana|Aliana]] 15:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

:Thanks for your comments and you hit upon a very important point: users of this wiki should be able to post something like this and not be afraid to have it "disappear" or be threatened/verbally abused by our editors or admins. Open and honest discussion of site matters is vital in ensuring a health site community. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 17:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

:For the record, I fully support Daveh's actions in this matter. In particular, I think removing rpeh's admin rights was an appropriate response to rpeh's actions yesterday on UESP, which included multiple counts of abusing admin rights, as already detailed by others. The issue of what was done on TESWiki is, in my opinion, secondary to what was done here on UESP. (For what it's worth, I'm ambivalent on the original discussion regarding the TESWiki issues). I have no interest in dragging out this discussion, however, I felt that it was appropriate for me to provide some feedback. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 16:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
::{{ec}} This thing surely has blown up... wow. I can imagine how rpeh feels right now. The way I see it, rpeh has an obsession: UESPWiki. I don't know how else all this could happen. When I joined, the recent changes pretty much consisted of 80% Rpeh edits. I thought: "is this guy online 24/7 or something?".
::But let me get straight to the point. His obsession drives him to do a LOT of good for the site, since he does so much on the site, he knows it through and through. That causes him to see certain additions to be wrong, and then he goes all "bully" as is stated above. He stood up for UESPWiki on TESWiki, but just in the wrong way. He's convinced he's doing the right thing, always is. Mostly he's right, but his manner is wrong. Now it's like he's being punished for sticking up for UESPWiki, that's how I see it.
::Indeed, his additions to UESPWiki are irrelevant, at least technically. This is about how he acted, but you know why he did it in the first place. I don't know if his attitude will change. He's driven away a lot of people because of his obsession to do good, I think Timeoin included. The talk on TESWiki is more than just policies, it's personal.
::What I'm trying to say is, I feel that de-admining (if that's a word) him permanently is just too harsh. ~ [[User:Dwarfmp|Dwarfmp]] 16:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
:::Hi. I'm a new editor, I'm still finding my feet, and I don't claim to have the experience to influence the outcome of disputes like this. Nor am I fully aware of all the facts behind these events. What I will say though is that as a site newbie, it is very off-putting to see what could be considered internal squabbling on a project that is supposed to be a group/community effort. I accept that there will always be those within the group/community who contribute more than others, which I understand is where rpeh's credit lies. However, it seems to me he has fatally undermined his credibility as a UESP representative - and this affects not only the wiki's reputation, but also how fellow editors feel about the value of their contributions. --[[User:Reka|Reka]] 17:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

::::In the end, this isn't about a single incident. As Daveh has said, rpeh has a long history of verbally abusing editors and ignoring the rules except when they worked in his favour. Has he done a lot of good work here? Absolutely! Nobody's denying that for a moment. But a good 95% of that he can continue to do as a regular user and, indeed, ultimately chose to do so the last time his Administrator privileges were removed. Just doing good work does not automatically grant the right to Administratorship, however. Being an Administrator on just about any wiki that isn't the size of Wikipedia means that you're in the spotlight more than almost any other user, and as such, I've always felt that an Administrator should be a paragon of acceptable wiki behaviour, and of trustworthiness, both on their own wiki as well as on other wikis. Looking around, not only has rpeh gotten into numerous altercations here and on TESWiki, he's had issues on RationalWiki, and he's been [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&page=User%3ARpeh indefinitely blocked on Wikipedia] as well. These are not the signs of someone who works well with others and follows acceptable wiki behaviour. We all have our bad days, but a bad day here and there does not account for rpeh's current and historical behaviour here and elsewhere.

::::One of the things I find telling in this is the lead of [[Project:Administrators|the Administrators page]] which says, "These editors are recommended by the community and then promoted at the discretion of Daveh." Clearly, there are people in this discussion who would see rpeh back as an Administrator. But just as clearly, there are a good number of people who wouldn't. That, to me, says that he has lost the recommendation of the community. The page then goes on to talk about how they have the right to "block malicious users". At least two users that I'm aware of, Eric and Aliana, have been threatened with blocking. They were ''not'' being malicious by any stretch of the imagination—their only crime was that they disagreed with rpeh and didn't automatically defer to his will. Rpeh has readily proven that he can't be trusted in this regard.

::::To my mind, Daveh did not only what was right, but the only thing he could do given rpeh's recent actions: he exercised his right of discretion as the site owner and withdrew rpeh's rights. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 19:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

:::::Whilst de-adminshipping rpeh is most probably the right course of action, I can't see what harm leaving ''some'' of his rights would do. The point of de-admining him is to make him a 'lesser threat' to any who feel intimidated by him, for whatever reason. I don't see how he can't, say, keep his Patroller rights. He can still contribute fully without impeding the rest of us patrollers, I can't even see the harm in the Blockers rights. A 4 hour block on a spammer really does no harm, and I don't think as a Blocker you could really go round threatening people with a 4-hour block. I can't condone what rpeh did elsewhere, and whilst it reflects badly on the site, I can't say that he was acting in the name of UESP, even he was acting with it (and his own) best interests at heart. I also, don't honestly see how his behavior elsewhere affects his standing here. What if i'm offensive violently in real-life, does that affect here now as well? We can all have two 'modes', this can happen without having a split personality. Some of us are just better behaved in some places than others. Whilst his actions last night certainly weren't among his finest, we all have bad nights. I can't think of a more hard-working, and finer content editor than rpeh. Even in my few months here he has always been willing to help, and has always been on the top of my 'help list'. Thats my first thoughts on the matter. --[[User:Kiz|kiz]] '''[[User_Talk:Kiz|talk]]''''''[[Special:EmailUser/Kiz|email]]''' 20:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

::::::The way I look at it is this: if I pick a fight with someone on one street, and I pick a fight with someone again on a different street, it's hardly unreasonable for them to assume that I would do so on any other street. The venue may have changed, but the behaviour remains the same. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 21:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

{{od}} I was wanting to sit on this for the obvious reasons, but I feel compelled now. First, I must say that I agree with Daveh's actions and support them 100%.

Rpeh, I would have surely voted support in the proposal, but it was removed multiple times while I was at work. Multiple members of the wiki weren't even given the opportunity to contribute to the discussion. So, not only did you edit war, you threatened to block members involved (which you have done multiple times, including to myself in email), and you tried to quell a discussion that criticized you. Also, I wish you would stop flaunting your edit count as if it were a "Get out of Jail Free" card. While it is impressive, you are still bound by rules, all of which are under the supervision and discretion of Daveh. The fact that you continue to view yourself as doing no wrong is probably the most troublesome fact about this whole ordeal.

Once I was notified by you of the issues going on over at TESWiki, I must say I was absolutely ''floored'' by your treatment of members over there. I was actually so shocked, I took it upon myself to clean up the massive mess you had made. I first spoke with Wikia staff to see what could be done in terms of removal. They just confirmed the fact that both sites are bound by the same license (aka removing any UESP content from their wiki would essentially be considered vandalism because there is no legitimate reason to remove the info). When I had that information in hand, I joined TESWiki's chat and spoke to many of the senior members there. They treated me with nothing but ''kindness''. I simply went in there seeking to compromise, and they were more than willing. The administration verified that they ''could'' use the info, but that they ''preferred'' not to. And as I said [[#Stolen Content|above]], any concerns could be emailed to me. I would then speak with Timeoin about the issues and they would be addressed and corrected. Since then, I have received no emails.

I have actually fostered a mutual friendship and understanding with the members over there. I have even advised them on some templates. I actually managed to get an agreement made by discussion, not by threats or intimidation. Multiple users have had t apologize for your actions on their site. And considering the comment Daveh made about your emails, I have absolutely no reason to doubt that you will continue such behavior.

Timenn, I can't really say I am shocked that you support rpeh in this matter. You have continuously turned a blind eye when it comes to anything negative regarding rpeh. You are saying that it is okay to harass or intimidate other users, which is definitely ''not'' the case. Also, your comment has yet to really provide any reason to ''keep'' rpeh as an administrator. The only thing I can pick up is his edit count and longevity on the site, and as I have said before, such actions are inexcusable for ''any member'' of the site, regardless of what the user has done for the site. We can no longer overlook such continued behavior. So, if you wish to have your rights as well, I have no other option but to support your wish.

Dwarfmp, he doesn't need to be an administrator in order to continue editing the wiki. For some reason, people think that he has to be an administrator. If you think that this behavior should actually be "''rewarded''", then perhaps I should reconsider my place on this wiki. And it really isn't about your intent, it's more about the destruction that is left behind. And trust me, is it worth having to continuously clean up messes made by rpeh just so he can have the rights that someone else could easily fulfill? I know that if he can't block, he will no longer throw those baseless and intimidating block threats around, which is why he should neither be a patroller nor a blocker. The community must keep its eye on rpeh; we can no longer afford to let this slip.

Now, Aliana's comment proves just how bad it has gotten. People are holding their tongues in regards to things they should be saying, but rpeh's antics have literally scared users to keep shut. And as RobinHood pointed out, this behavior has stretched to wikis beyond this one. This is another reason I believe his behavior would continue if given the chance (we've been through this multiple times before). The troubles we are sure to encounter in the future outweigh any possible benefit we could gain by keeping him as an administrator. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 09:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

:Let me say that my initial reaction was directly towards the sudden removal of two administrators and how quick there was yet again a "vote to remove admins (rpeh and Krusty)" post on the admin noticeboard (and I believe that's the reason Krusty also removed it from the noticeboard). The latter being inspired by just a latest event of an ongoing dispute that has been going on for more than three years.
:I'm happy to now the see the discussion has progressed, reading good and insightful replies now, rather than just the vote.

:So, as I see it, there are two issues here that might be related, but are rarely addressed separately here. The first is the question on how to deal with other wiki's using our content and images (without attribution) and the second is the concern of an (admittedly) significant userbase over rpeh's treatment of other UESP users. Both are issues that are not new or simple, so a vote like this left me quite skeptical.

:These past years we have all nodded and agreed while rpeh pursued the other wiki's to stop using our content/images without attribution. He posted updates on this quite frequently, so it's not like we never knew what was going on. Elliot, you say you've had polite chats with the editors of the other wiki's; I've seen that done before years ago, and we still arrive at the current situation. But if more users start to get actually involved we need to setup a policy/strategy for it, and not use it to punish past actions.

:As for the second issue, and for me turning a blind eye. Yea, I do turn a blind eye when I see a demand for rights removal right after a user conflict. Especially if other users immediately jump in who I know have a dark reputation themselves. So far I've seen only a few genuine complaints about rpeh (and not a demand for public stoning) over the years. Can't speak for the other editors involved there, but I do believe my own actions (and dealings with rpeh) have changed since those complaints.
:I understand that others think differently on it. So if we would split that from the copyright dispute then we can have a proper discussion on whether to the community still supports rpeh or not. I do think we need to be fair in that case, and raise the general question whether administrators are elected for live or not. --[[User:Timenn|Timenn]]-<[[User talk:Timenn|talk]]> 11:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

::I am not aware of any wiki in which Administrators are elected for life in the sense that those privileges can never be revoked no matter what. That certainly hasn't been the case in our history (e.g., Aristeo, Rpeh's first semi-voluntary de-adminning), and Wikipedia, whom we usually turn to in the absence of specific rules for our site, has had any number of de-adminnings.

::As for turning a blind eye, I think that has long been a problem, and I certainly don't direct that at any one person...we've all done it at one time or another, regardless of our roles on the site. To some extent, this is appropriate in any community—people have bad days, and turning a blind eye to those bad days fosters better relations in the long run. Nevertheless, the rules are there for a reason, and the occasional minor infraction is one thing, but we should not be turning a blind eye to repeated infractions, regardless of whether they come during or after conflicts, and regardless of whether the people involved are the worst trolls or the best editors on the site. Whatever happens with rpeh specifically, something I'd like to see come out of this issue is that we get a little bit less lax in this regard. If that means issuing warnings or temporary blocks to long-standing editors, so be it. If they're mature, responsible editors, they will understand the reasons, even if they disagree with them. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 16:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

:::I would be happy if we were to turn to notices and warnings before actual "remove rights" vote took place. Part of the reason I believe such votes would never help is because it would immediately polarize the community (and thus no consensus is reached).
:::For now I think we will have to wait what rpeh's response will be. --[[User:Timenn|Timenn]]-<[[User talk:Timenn|talk]]> 11:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

::::Yes, some alternate possibilities for conflict resolving and addressing problems would be good. Perhaps contacting an uninvolved and neutral admin about the matter. But it may be hard for a "small" wiki to find someone neutral. --[[User:Alfwyn|Alfwyn]] 15:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

:::::Actually, contacting a neutral Admin was more or less what I did. Since two Admins were involved and several editors disagreed with their actions, I bumped it up to Dave as is outlined by our [[Project:Administrator#Administrative Conflicts|policy]]. As for warnings on rpeh's talk page before proceeding to other resolutions, we've tried that in the past. They were almost invariably removed by rpeh or admins that were friendly to him as being "unconstructive". Even the two that stayed only stayed after a protracted edit war and community discussion, as I recall, not to mention the incident where he tried to quietly remove them later on, from RoBoT's page I think, without permission. True, Eric might have tried a warning, since he's unaware of those issues, I assume, or he could have asked another Admin to, but as Alfwyn points out, figuring out which Admins are neutral in any given situation can be tricky on a small website where senior users are often close friends with one another. Community discussion of the issue wasn't entirely inappropriate, though I'll agree that it didn't have to go directly to a call for resignation/removal of rights. (Don't misread that, however—I maintain that the removal of rpeh's rights due to his subsequent actions in this matter was entirely correct.)

:::::Now, having said all that, I think alternative means of handling issues are a good idea overall. It ''can'' come across strongly to post official warnings on someone's page, after all. My only concern there is that those who get involved in arbitrating disputes or whatever we set up may well be those that already monitor the Admin Noticeboard and other such areas of the site anyway, so even though the mechanism changes a bit, the result may be the same as just posting here in the first place. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 20:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

== Restoring krusty's adminship ==

'''Support''': Dave: I think you should return Krusty's adminship to him. In all fairness, he had an exceptionally minor role in it, and between wiki stress and real world stress, I may have pulled the trigger too fast. Krusty: Like I said to Dave, between various stresses, I threw unwarranted attention onto you, and I apologize. I believe you are an amazing editor, and I treated you badly. I am deeply sorry. [[User:Eric Snowmane|ES]][[User_talk:Eric Snowmane|Question?]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|Email]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric_Snowmane|Contribs]] 06:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

'''Support''':I must weigh in and say that it looks like Krusty has been involved only minimally and should not be suspended as an admin. Furthermore I am disappointed that rpeh had to have his privileges revoked, but I accept it as a necessary measure. ''EDIT:'' While I accept it, I still don't agree with the ruling. If we want to reevaluate rpeh's adminship AFTER March, say, I'm all for that but at the moment we're ridiculously bogged down. Either way Daveh decides, but I would prefer to keep him around. –[[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] 01:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

'''Support''':I also support the reinstatement of Krusty as an admin. I do not believe that it was his intent to undermine due process or anything else of a malicious nature. [[User:Thuraya Salaris|Thuraya Salaris]] 03:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

'''Support''':Honestly, I'm assuming good faith on this one. I believe that Krusty was doing what he though was right (as was rpeh). Sorry rpeh. • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 04:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

'''Support''': Things got real around here fast, didn't they? I don't know about anyone else, but I'm face-palming. I think ''everyone'' involved in this has only done what they thought was right, and ''everyone'' had a substantive reason for believing or acting as they have. Mistakes have been made, but penalizing anyone with anything more than a warning seems unwise to me, and I don't think Krusty deserves even that. Unless I'm missing something, the extent of his involvement which may be deemed questionable is that he removed a discussion from this page and he told Snowmane "don't be a moron". I'm thoroughly convinced that the removal of the discussion was based on Krusty's good faith belief that the request for de-adminship lacked merit. The worst that can be said is that he let his opinion on the underlying issue (the recurrent concern of inter-wiki "theft"), his opinion of rpeh, and his opinion on the vote's odds of success influence his impartiality. I think it's very hard not to let those kinds of things cloud one's judgment, and I won't fault an admin for an occasional misstep. I'm not convinced it can be called a misstep, anyways. As for the "don't be a moron" comment, which I'm not entirely sure is even at issue here, it was made on his own talk page, and historically, if a person is going to speak bluntly, that's where he or she does it. I love civility, and I think all users should go the extra mile to respect each other, but when civility becomes irreconcilable with honesty, I prefer users be allowed to express themselves honestly, admin or otherwise. Not that I think Snowmane was acting like "a moron", but I think we can all commiserate with the fact that frustration and maybe a time crunch can influence a person to say something rude and/or not explain themselves properly. Part of being civil is forgiving occasional incivility. Krusty is one of the most courteous people here, and it's safe to say his comment does not follow a pattern. Removing his adminship over this would be akin to requiring perfection of our admins, and I don't think anyone can satisfy that standard. If Daveh really insists that rpeh's conduct has made him definitively, categorically unfit for adminship, to the point where a vote on the matter is irrelevant as a matter of policy (and I don't believe a person's moral compass should be called into question for doubting that conclusion), then Krusty is all the more invaluable. [[User:Minor Edits|Minor Edits]] 04:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
:'''Comment''': User talk pages are still part of the site, and personal attacks are still personal attacks regardless of where they take place. Implying that the policy doesn't apply just because of the location is as wrong as saying it doesn't apply just because it's an admin making them. That this particular case was just incivility rather than a "serious" PA does not in any way mean that Talk pages should be considered "lawless" zones where anything goes. [[User:Aliana|Aliana]] 07:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
::'''Comment''': Agreed, just noting the context, not arguing for a more lenient policy. It's the nature of the forum; admin talk pages are usually where people bring matters that the admins have no desire to discuss, meaning a response that could be considered discourteous in some way is more probable. I think that when judging whether some remark was an "attack", though, it can often matter whether the admin's opinion was solicited or whether the admin was offering the remark on his or her own initiative. If Krusty had butted in to a discussion on Snowmane's talk page to say "don't be a moron", that would be significantly different than the reality, which is that Snowmane came to him to on his talk page discussing a number of things Krusty obviously did not wish to discuss. In one scenario, he's an antagonist, pure and simple, in another, he's just a frustrated, fed up, but thoroughly competent administrator. [[User:Minor Edits|Minor Edits]] 08:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

'''Support''' (for what it's worth as "just a regular editor"): Two minor lapses is not sufficient cause for permanent loss of rights for someone for whom such things are extremely rare rather than a habitual/recurring pattern. Both issues have already been resolved to the satisfaction of those they impacted: "everyone" by a simple restore of the topic preceding this one; and ES personally by his own comments at the start of this topic. [[User:Aliana|Aliana]] 07:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

'''Support''': Krusty is one the most non-confrontational people I've ever had the pleasure of speaking to, both on the wiki and on IRC. Calling Eric a "moron" and TESwiki "annoying" was wrong, but not enough to merit a removal of adminship in any case. Krusty is (or was) an excellent administrator, and it would be a terrible shame to let one bad day ruin a history of good. [[User:Kitkat1749|Kitkat]] •[[User talk:Kitkat1749|Talk]]•[[Special:Contributions/Kitkat1749|Contrib]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Kitkat1749|E-mail]] 10:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

<hr>
'''Update''' -- I've readmined Krusty. I should note that a more appropriate response on my part would have been a warning instead of a ban given Krusty's pretty much spotless record on the site. Just to be clear on the reasons of the ban/warning: deleting an important and site relevant AN discussion and a unnecessary comment/insult. If the site's policies aren't clear on these matters I'll update them over the next few days so they are clear. The whole reason this AN exists is to bring up and discuss issues like this so we can come to a conclusion on them as a group. Deleting something without discussion, that involves you directly/indirectly, and that is not obviously troll material is not something that should be done. I would even expect that if I did something like everyone would call me out on it too. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 13:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
:Maybe I ought to read the site's policies very thoroughly, but it's good that I know now that these situations are relevant and shouldn't be dismissed as disrupting the site. It's just that I normally trust rpeh's and Krusty's judgement. Seems I was too late to support Krusty's adminship restoration. Not that I knew for sure, but I correctly assumed that Krusty's record on the site was pretty much spotless, and he wasn't involved with that TESWiki thing in the first place ~ [[User:Dwarfmp|Dwarfmp]] 16:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

== Admins as of March 1 ==
When we temporarily promoted several Patrollers to Admins, we set a deadline of February 29 for their temporary Adminship. That date is now three weeks away, so I thought it would be appropriate to bring up what we intend to do after that. As it stands now, we have three active Admins (with one possibly stepping down), and one semi-active who pops in every now and then. I certainly think we're going to want more than that come March 1.

My question is: are any of the temporary Admins interested in becoming permanent Admins, and if most or all of them are, how do we want to handle this? Do we mass promote them, or do we let each of them run through the standard procedure and vote for each on their own merits? My thinking here is that if we're going to have each of them run on their own merits, then we need to decide that now so that they can do so and have that decision made before the end of the month. Thoughts? – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 20:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

:I'd say let them elect themselves in the normal manner if they would like to stand, unless we want to vote to mass promote them? Otherwise just let the rights run out? --[[User:Kiz|kiz]] '''[[User_Talk:Kiz|talk]]''''''[[Special:EmailUser/Kiz|email]]''' 20:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
:: I definitely think that the standard RfA procedure is appropriate for each and every member of the “Temporary Admin Team” – they were all promoted due to the increased traffic after SR, and everyone agreed for it to be temporary. It would be incredibly odd if we suddenly added four new administrators without a single nomination. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 21:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

:::Is there a reason ''not'' to have a total of as many as eight permanent admins moving forward? Is there any limiting factor which would make less than eight more desirable? [[User:Minor Edits|Minor Edits]] 22:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

::::There's probably a "too many cooks in the kitchen" argument there somewhere, but the concern with mass promotion is that it could be seen as "less valid" than a full-fledged RfA, or there could be concerns about one editor that don't get voiced in favour of just agreeing to mass promote. Another option, should we feel the need, is just to delay the issue and set the date to the end of March.

::::Now having said that, my personal preference would be for those interested to go through a standard RfA, but I wanted to at least open discussion on alternatives, because potentially five RfAs at once would be a little unusual in itself. (Though SerCenKing appears to be busy with university, as previously noted, so I suspect at most it'll be four.) – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 22:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

:::::Oh, yeah, I forgot about his resignation. I totally agree that they should each have an RfA, but I guess I am concerned with whether an overabundance of cooks will be a problem and how that may impact voting. Judging each candidate on the merits seems fine, but I worried that perhaps there are some more serious consequences to having so many admins that I don't know about. [[User:Minor Edits|Minor Edits]] 22:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is that the temporary admins who wish to be promoted go through the standard nomination procedure. I think it would be a huge mistake politically not to hold them to the same standards as everyone else. If we start breaking policy, where do we draw the line? To be clear, I am not at all against some promotions, but those promotions need to be done with our existing policy in mind: "At the recommendation of the community and promoted at the discretion of [[User:Daveh|Daveh]]." –[[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] 22:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

:I made an outline for the temp admins [[User:Minor Edits/RfA|here]]. The various questions are derived from past RfAs; most are optional, thought some variant of Q1 at least should be answered. Get on it so we can vote, you lazy bums! [[User:Minor Edits|Minor Edits]][[User_talk:Minor Edits|Threats]]•[[Special:Contributions/Minor Edits|Evidence]] 22:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

::A question came up earlier today, and I was a little surprised I couldn't find the info: do we ever actually tell Admins how to do an RfA, or is this one of those qualifying tests to see if they know how to scan through AN page histories/archives? ;) I couldn't find anything on [[Project:Administrators|the Administrators page]]. Is there somewhere else I'm not thinking of? – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 05:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

:::I think it's one of those areas where we fall back on wikipedia practices, which are mostly outlined [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship|here]] and [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Guide_to_requests_for_adminship|here]]. [[User:Minor Edits|Minor Edits]][[User_talk:Minor Edits|Threats]]•[[Special:Contributions/Minor Edits|Evidence]] 05:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

::::Yeah, failing all else, that's what I would've expected. I'm thinking we should probably create our own section, though, since WP's structure is at least a little different than ours...if nothing else because they have a dedicated page for RfAs, where we don't. Other differences have probably crept in over time too. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 06:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

== Numbering is a bit off... ==

Look [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Special:FewestRevisions&limit=500&offset=18000 here]. Does anyoone else see the numbers going way off the left side of the page? • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 01:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

:Yep, the "18" is off the page and the next "0" is almost off for each of the numbers. Looks like it happens with every number past 99. --[[User:Velyanthe|Velyanthe]] 01:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
::Is off the page here as well. [[User:Thuraya Salaris|Thuraya Salaris]] 01:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
:::What black magic is this?! [[User:Minor Edits|Minor Edits]] 02:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
::::I would guess it's related to this problem (which we run into on a few pages):
::::[[File:Example.jpg|left]]
::::# One
::::# Two
::::# Three
{{NewLine}}
::::Doesn't look too bad (at least in Chrome) until you realize those are supposed to be numbered, but that the number is hiding under the image. To my knowledge, they still haven't resolved that even in 1.18. You can sorta get around it by altering the CSS files, but in my limited experimentation, it required changes to multiple elements, and not knowing what all might be affected by broad changes, I didn't play around much. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 02:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

:::::It's formatted that way to keep the beginning of each line aligned (beginning being the actual link). It would be hard to sift through the information if it was aligned by the numbers. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 02:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

::::::There are ways around that that would keep the numbers aligned (tables come to mind), but at this point, it's not really an AN type of issue...we're drifting off into technicalities. :) – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 03:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

:::::::There's sort of an visible column between the numbers and the words. The words start from the column and go right, while the numbers start from the column and go to the left. The column is far enough away from the edge that three digit numbers look fine, but 5-digit numbers run out to places they shouldn't be. This fix for this isn't as simple as moving the column over - that would leave ugly empty spaces on one- and two-digit numbers. I would likely be a mess of tabs and spacing that would be a lot of work. [[User:Chris3145|Chris3145]] 00:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

== Patroller Nomination Guidelines ==

Does anybody have any objections to my changing the disqualifications for a Patroller nomination to read "Recent nomination- If a user has been nominated with their consent and that nomination was either rejected or withdrawn '''after votes have been cast'''"?

I ask because we have someone interested, but he applied previously without realizing that he didn't meet the qualifications and withdrew his nomination not long after it was put up with no votes cast. I saw that as "not counting" and didn't even archive it because I believe the intent of the original was to cover those who withdrew their nomination when it became obvious that the vote was opposing. But the user has pointed out that as it stands now, the wording covers all withdrawals, and he's worried that he can't apply at the moment. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 19:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
:Fine by me. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 19:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
::Despite the short notice, I've gone ahead and made the change since it affects a nomination that's now underway. I'm not sure I'm thrilled with the wording on second reading...it's a little awkward...but I couldn't come up with anything that worked better. If anyone has better wording that captures the intent, go nuts! – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 00:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
:::''Recent nomination- If a previously qualified user was nominated with their consent and that nomination was either rejected or withdrawn, they are not eligible to be nominated again for three months from the date of the rejection or a withdrawal.'' Would that work? [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 01:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
::::The "a" before withdrawal seems superfluous. [[User:Minor Edits|Minor Edits]][[User_talk:Minor Edits|Threats]]•[[Special:Contributions/Minor Edits|Evidence]] 01:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::That was part of my attempt to make it sound better...apparently it didn't help. :) I like Elliot's suggestion, but if I'm just obsessing about something trivial, feel free to say so. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 01:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

== Request for Adminship ==

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.
=== Alpha Kenny Buddy - Request for Permanent Adminship ===
{{Userlinks|Alpha Kenny Buddy}}
I'm not one who generally enjoys commenting on myself, so I'll try to be brief; I believe that the UESP will run more smoothly if I retain my administrative rights going forward. I have a considerable amount of experience when it comes to Oblivion and Skyrim, I can assist with Morrowind if no one else is available, and I do believe that I'm one of the few who actually had the patience to get through the starting dungeons for Arena and Daggerfall. As for lore, I believe I've been fairly successful in my efforts to improve our coverage of it. Besides that, I've recently taken up file editing, and I do believe I've more or less assisted in adding new images and organizing existing ones for the site. While I know I'm not impartial when it comes to judging my own actions on the site, I can't think of anything that I've done that didn't assist the site in one way or another. --[[User:Alpha Kenny Buddy|AKB]] [[User_talk:Alpha_Kenny_Buddy|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Cont]] [[Special:Emailuser/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Mail]] 06:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
====Questions====
Feel free to ask me anymore questions you wish for me to answer, these initial ones are just the ones ME suggested.

'''Q1''': ''What do you hope to accomplish as an administrator? What have you accomplished already? Have you made any notable mistakes, and if so, what did you learn from them?''

:'''A''': I primarily wish to continue what I've been doing, performing maintenance, resolving community discussions as necessary, assisting newcomers to the site, and dealing with vandals to the best of my abilities. As I've been already doing all of these things, I think that my actions speak for themselves. As for mistakes, I've made a number. In fact, I'd describe my early days, and many of the later ones, plagued with an often non-comedic series of errors. If I were to say I've learned anything in particular from my mistakes, it would be a sense of humility. While I admit that I don't act as humble or respectful as I should in all situations, I do try to be understanding of other peoples positions and actions.

'''Q2''': ''What do you see as the UESP's main challenges in the near future?''

:'''A''': Maintaining our community and improving the site are the main challenges I see facing our site in the future. Not that I'd say that is any different than any other entertainment-based website on the planet.

'''Q3''': ''How do you interpret the balance between enforcing policies and being innovative when policies prove to be problematic?''

:'''A''': I'm not sure I entirely understand the question, but from my comprehension of it, I would say that it depends on a situational basis. However, policies should primarily exist to make clearly outline how to run the site, and if policy is proving to directly conflict with maintaining the site, than the policies may need to be altered. Our site policies and guidelines aren't set in stone, and they should never impede the site.

'''Q4''': ''Under what circumstances do you block an editor who has never received a warning?''

:'''A''': I would say that I would block a user who spams links to external sites immeaditelly, but I wouldn't exactly describe them as users. The only times I'm willing to block an account without any warning is when it has been proven that the account has been compromised. Besides that, I can't think of any time when trying to discuss an issue wouldn't be more fruitful.

'''Q5''': ''What other wiki-related activities do you perform that people might not know about?''

:'''A''': Besides the very rare email, I try to keep an eye on our forums to answer wiki related questions. Though I do admit [[User:Kiz|Kiz]] and [[User:Mxk101|mxk101]] often beat me to the punch when it comes to the latter.

'''Q6''': ''What action will you take if you see another administrator perform an action that you completely disagree with? When you strongly oppose something, how do you plan to express it?''

:'''A''': If it is an administrative action, than there are [[UESPWiki:Administrators#Administrative Conflicts|clear guidelines]] as to what should be done. As for anything else, discussion boards exist for a reason.

====Votes====
All registered users are welcome to vote '''Support''', '''Neutral''', or '''Opposed'''. '''Comments''' are also welcome. ---[[User:Alpha Kenny Buddy|AKB]] [[User_talk:Alpha_Kenny_Buddy|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Cont]] [[Special:Emailuser/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Mail]] 06:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

* '''Support''': [Insert butt-kissing here]. Your activity really does speak for itself. [[User:Minor Edits|Minor Edits]][[User_talk:Minor Edits|Threats]]•[[Special:Contributions/Minor Edits|Evidence]] 06:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''': You've been doing a great job for the last 2½ months, and I don't doubt for a moment that you will continue to do so. Your answers to the questions above showed insight into your strengths and weaknesses, and are exactly what I'd hope for in an Admin. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 06:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''': As Minor Edits said, your request essentially speaks for itself, as do your contributions.--[[User:Kalis Agea|Kalis Agea]][[User talk:Kalis Agea|Yes?]] [[Special:Contributions/Kalis Agea|Contrib]] [[Special:EmailUser/Kalis Agea|E-mail]] 06:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''':Per the above, I think AKB would make an excellent administrator. [[User:Eric Snowmane|Snowmane]][[User talk:Eric Snowmane|T]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|E]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric Snowmane|C]] 07:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''': I agree with everything said above. You will make a great Administrator. ([[user:Eddie the head|Eddie The Head]] 07:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC))
*'''Support''': You and Dwarfmp were clearly the only ones who ever did any type of maintenance during the last few months. I have no problem seeing that continue. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 09:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''': As others have said, your contributions to the wiki really do speak for themselves. Your content, images, maintenance and administrative actions say more than I can. --[[User:Legoless|Legoless]] 15:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''': I think you are friendly and when I started editing the Skyrim pages before it was released you were very helpful and friendly towards me. You are a great editor and I don't see how removing you as an admin would do any good. [[User:RIM|RIM]] 22:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Supp<s>u</s>ort''': Clearly know what your doing, for reasons stated above. I can't see anyone opposing you really. Nothing more to add on top of everyone else. --[[User:Kiz|kiz]] '''[[User_Talk:Kiz|talk]]''''''[[Special:EmailUser/Kiz|email]]''' 22:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''': Your admin contributions over the last few months have been invaluable and prove that you're fully qualified to be given the rights permanently. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 22:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''': I can think of no reason you shouldn't be a permanent admin, and quite a few reasons you should. I'm going to go ahead and extrappalate from the above comments and preemptively say welcome aboard. –[[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] 23:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''': As a new member to the community, I took some time to think before voting because of my limited knowledge and perspective. However, I ''remain'' a member of the community so far because of a few special people who demonstrate a combination of knowledge, concern about quality, and most importantly of all, open-mindedness, friendliness, respect and encouragement. AKB is one of them. I support from the basis of that perspective, while admitting I know little about the specific resonsibilities of administrators. --[[User:Jreynolds2|Jreynolds2]][[User_talk:Jreynolds2|Talk]] [[Special:EmailUser/Jreynolds2|E-mail]] 03:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''': Your a great admin, especially for keeping a leveled head with a certain anon in the Shivering Isles Lore space.[[User:Br3admax|Br3admax]] 06:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''': Seeing your actions during your temporary adminship, it is easy to vote support here. --[[User:Alfwyn|Alfwyn]] 17:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
* '''Support''': I have spent an awful lot of time thinking about this, and after our little clash last night with the news story (me editing terribly and you doing the right thing), I decided to vote in your favor. While I lack a bit of the ’safe’ feeling I expect from an administrator - where you just know ''AKB'' will pop up within an hour and deal with all the spambots/problems (a bit exaggerated but that’s what is needed sometimes and I hope you know what I mean), you’re definitely evolved into a cool cat and one that can be trusted, even when things get heated. Welcome to the team. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 06:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
* '''Support''': As SkoomaManiac said, I can think of no reason you shouldn't be a permanent admin, and quite a few reasons you should. You've done excellent work and definitely deserve to be an admin. • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 06:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

=== Legoless - Request for Permanent Administratorship ===
{{Userlinks|Legoless}}

March draws near, and the [[UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard/Archive 21#Temporary Role Changes|temporary role changes]] discussed in October are almost up. Modesty is a poor quality to have when writing one's own RfA, so I'll try to make this brief lest I start to sound conceited. I've only been active on the wiki for over one and a half years, but in that time I've made edits to almost every namespace, wrote the majority of two new ones ([[Stormhold:Stormhold|Stormhold]] and [[Books:Books|Books]]), and participated in several major projects. I'm current #15 on the [[Special:ActiveUsers|list of active users]], although that accomplishment is largely superficial. I'm knowledgeable about most of the TES games, and I've helped to overhaul the [[Lore:Main Page|Lore]] namespace. As far as administratorship goes, I was a patroller and blocker before become a temporary admin, and since Skyrim's release I haven't deleted the main page, so I have the experience. My activity levels are constant, but not great. I prefer to stay neutral on most things; you can interpret that as being good or bad. That's about all I have to say, I think. --[[User:Legoless|Legoless]] 23:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

====Questions====
Obligatory questions section. Please post any you might have below.

'''Q1''': ''What do you hope to accomplish as an administrator that you can't accomplish as a patroller? How will it help the wiki? What have you accomplished already? Have you made any notable mistakes, and if so, what did you learn from them?''

:'''A''': Deleting pages, mostly, as well as the ability to deal out longer blocks. My accomplishments on the wiki can be seen in my request above, but if someone wants more detail then I'll (grudgingly) provide it. Many of my mistakes can be seen by flicking through my [[User talk:Legoless|talk page archives]]. I can't think of any specific examples, but I'll just say that I've learned to worship the "Show preview" button.

'''Q2''': ''What do you see as the UESP's main challenges in the near future?''

:'''A''': Recent controversies have shocked me, and the long-term effects remain to be seen. UESP's biggest challenge is slowly bringing our Skyrim content up to the standard of Oblivion's, but I wouldn't call that "the near future" by a long shot. The wiki's main challenge is probably going to be holding on to the title of the top Elder Scrolls site on the web, but again this isn't a major issue as our content and coverage are unparalleled.

'''Q3''': ''How do you interpret the balance between enforcing policies and being innovative when policies prove to be problematic?''

:'''A''': I don't view policy as law. When a policy hinders a particular situation, it should be ignored. That said, I'm a style Nazi and can't stand having a layout changed, so my views are slightly hypocritical. More serious policies (i.e., blocking policy) should be strictly obeyed but still open to change and overruling.

'''Q4''': ''Under what circumstances do you block an editor who has never received a warning?''

:'''A''': Spambots? Can't think of any other reason.

'''Q5''': ''What other wiki-related activities do you perform that people might not know about?''

:'''A''': I write terrible lore pages and then scrap them. I occasionally go on the IRC channel or the forums, and people can contact me by email from the wiki.

'''Q6''': ''What action will you take if you see another administrator perform an action that you completely disagree with? When you strongly oppose something, how do you plan to express it?''

:'''A''': Like AKB said above, there are guidelines laid out specifically for these sorts of conflicts which are worded much better than I could hope to do here. Discussing the matter will resolve most conflicts. If it doesn't, ask the community.

'''Q7''': ''Since Skyrim's release, you have used your administrative abilities sparingly ([http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=Legoless&page=&year=&month=-1 15 pages deleted], [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Legoless&page=&year=&month=-1 5 accounts blocked], [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=protect&user=Legoless&page=&year=&month=-1 0 pages protected]). Do you feel that these administrative abilities are necessary for your editing on the wiki? If so, why? And how to you plan on improving with these functions?'' [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 00:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

:'''A''': Most of my edits are content and grammar, so administrative powers aren't vital to my editing. I'm running for administratorship so that, when the need arises, I ''can'' use them. Eric Snowmane is correct in assuming (below) that I'm hesitant to use the powers brashly. I don't understand the last question.

====Votes====
All registered users are welcome to vote '''Support''', '''Neutral''', or '''Opposed'''. '''Comments''' are also welcome.

*'''Support''':I just wanted to say that I feel like the fact that he has seldom used his administrative powers is not necessarily a bad thing. To me, and granted I don't know his thinking on it, it seems like he is simply using them sparingly. In my eye, it is better if an administrator is careful and uses his rights less, than for him to go completely crazy with them and risk big errors. Again, that is simply my thoughts on your question, Elliot. All that aside, he is an excellent editor, and since there are only a few regularly active administrators right now, I believe that it would be beneficial to keep him on board full time. [[User:Eric Snowmane|Snowmane]][[User talk:Eric Snowmane|T]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Eric Snowmane|E]]•[[Special:Contributions/Eric Snowmane|C]] 01:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

*'''Neutral''': Your edit count recommends you abosolutely without a doubt. However, based on your answers above I am neither in favor of nor am I against you becoming an sysop. You seem ambivalent at this time. Sorry, brother. —[[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] 03:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
**'''Comment''': I was expecting this kind of response. I admit, "ambivalent" is the perfect word, as I was initially uncertain whether to run at all. --[[User:Legoless|Legoless]] 04:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
***'''Comment''': I don't mean to put you down at all, bro; I think you definitely have the aptitude to be an admin, and if your answers were more confident it would have been a definite yes, but unfortunately, at thus time I'm not convinced this is what you really want. —[[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] 04:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

*'''Support''': I give the exact same reasons as above (vote on AKB) for my support, as well as the same caveats (not out of laziness, but because my reasons really are the same: Legoless has been personally and directly helpful and welcoming to me, and I have seen the same in his interactions with others). Skooma, what do you see as ambivalence? I don't see that in what has been written or implied above. He took the initiative in actively making the request. Maybe based partly on his use of "grudgingly"? If so, I think that he means that he wants to be modest: He is pointing to his record and offering to provide more evidence of his contributions/qualifications without wanting to appear full of himself. Like I was lucky enough to get my masters from an Ivy League school, but it's not how I introduce myself. (Ooops!! Well, I can't erase that now, as doing so would constitute ''false'' modesty.) He has explained his purpose in wanting the designation very clearly. Again, I'm not positioned to make a comprehensively informed judgment, but as far as the "too many cooks" argument goes, I'd point out that most such nuggets of wisdom are deemed so precisely because reality is seldom so simple. We have "look before you leap," but also "he [sic] who hesitates is lost." Is "too many cooks" really useful to apply here, and more so than "two minds are better than one", etc?

::OK. Now we have him affirming his ambivalence. So, why don't we, as a community, help him to evaluate if he wants to be one and to assess whether he would be valued as one. A reluctant leader is not always a bad one, and in fact the opposite is very often true. Is this like "Rocky" or something? He can't make extra contributions to the site without being voraciously hungry to enjoy additional privileges and wield them at every opportunity? --[[User:Jreynolds2|Jreynolds2]][[User_talk:Jreynolds2|Talk]] [[Special:EmailUser/Jreynolds2|E-mail]] 04:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

*'''Neutral (for now)''': (edit conflict) Unfortunately, we don't have a lengthy list of mostly uncontested administrative chores to rely on here like with AKB. I'm making Legoless a victim of his own restraint and timing at this moment, for which I apologize. Snowmane makes good points, but I'm just not knowledgeable about the finer points of the needs and best interests of the site when it comes to the administrative functions. He's no doubt an excellent editor and one who I often mimic when in doubt. As an admin, we know he would use the privileges relatively sparingly. Is that a bad thing? It means he's theoretically more available than most to act as an impartial arbitrator on any given conflict, and he's far less likely to get involved in a wheel war, the increased risk of which seems like the biggest downside to a proliferation of administrators. But ultimately, there are too many questions I can't answer, so I defer to the position taken by the majority of the non-temp admins who voice an opinion here. This is entirely because of my own ignorance, not because I have any substantive reason to doubt Legoless' qualifications. [[User:Minor Edits|Minor Edits]][[User_talk:Minor Edits|Threats]]•[[Special:Contributions/Minor Edits|Evidence]] 04:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''': Some of Legoless' responses are ambivalent, true enough, but the ones I consider important show the kind of person he is, and I have no qualms with that person being an Admin. As far as number of administrative actions goes, twenty administrative actions as of one's RfA is twenty administrative actions more than we have during most RfAs, so that's a non-issue for me. The important thing is that he's there when he's needed. As far as making the decision to run goes, though, the only thing I can say is that there's never a ''requirement'' for an Admin to use their privileges. In the end, though, the decision is his. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 05:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''': When I first started editing several months ago, as an ip address, I made a number of mistakes and somebody gave me a warning about nonsense but Legoless removed it and gave me advice on editing etc. I'm pretty certain that if Legoless didn't do that I never would have continued editing or have made an account. Legoless has, at least in my opinion, been very friendly, helpful and an excellent editor who has done a huge amount of work for this wiki. He has been here for over a year and a half but he is already the 15th most active user which further shows his level of work. For these reasons I think he would be a good admin to have on the team. In the time that he has already been an admin he hasn't caused any meltdowns and he has helped to manage the increased edits to the wiki. So I don't see how removing him would really benefit the wiki. I think he would make an excellent admin. [[User:RIM|RIM]] 16:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''': Legoless would be great support to have going forward, even if he only uses his powers sparingly. --[[User:Alpha Kenny Buddy|AKB]] [[User_talk:Alpha_Kenny_Buddy|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Cont]] [[Special:Emailuser/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Mail]] 19:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''': I've taken a little while to think about this. At first glance, I was inclined to agree with Minor Edits. Now, however, I've decided to cast my vote in favour of Legoless' Administratorship. Though several different things won me over, the main one is that of his contribution to the Books, Lore, and Stormhold namespaces. Additionally, having worked extensively with the user in question, I've always felt him to be exceptionally obliging fellow, continually supportive of editors new and old, and he has always proven to be an editor of an exceedingly amicable nature. Furthermore, Legoless continues to be this same prolific and helpful editor, and, as an editor who has always gotten along with him, I am of now definitely of a mind that Legoless will turn out to be an outstanding Administrator.--[[User:Kalis Agea|Kalis Agea]][[User talk:Kalis Agea|Yes?]] [[Special:Contributions/Kalis Agea|Contrib]] [[Special:EmailUser/Kalis Agea|E-mail]] 23:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''': Your a great editor and admin. I don;t want too repeat, so let me sum it up. You have a leveled head my friend.[[User:Br3admax|Br3admax]] 23:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Neutral''': I don't want to oppose, as a courtesy, but I can't bring myself to support this. I'm not sure that you want it, and I don't feel you are experienced enough with some of the finer things on the wiki, which I believe to be important as well. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 04:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
* '''Support''': There's absolutely nothing wrong with using your administrative powers sparingly; we could definitely use a few quiet admins. I'm not entirely sure you really need to be an admin, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. You've done excellent work, and you being an admin won't hurt. • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 06:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''': Sorry Lego, but I’m convinced that elliot is correct above. I don’t get the feeling you really want this and I’m not really impressed with the lack of usage of your administrative tools (which basically meant that the rest of us had to work harder when SR arrived). Quiet administrators can be fine, but know that this is not a patroller nomination, and the administrator job makes the UESP a duty, not just a hobby. I expect admins to participate (at least privately) in ongoing disputes, relevant discussions, ups and downs – I expect them to be around at all times (not literally, but, even is it sounds tacky, in spirit) - it can be incredibly funny and incredibly hard. I know you as a brilliant editor and good friend, but I also know this is the right decision – if you don’t want to be prolific, you should just stay a brilliant editor and patroller – it would be more beneficial for the site. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 07:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Legolas is a hard working editor of this site and deserves to have permanent adminship, he is absolutely brilliant in his skills, and unlike some people who would "hate" on him for not "wanting" it, well if he didn't want it, then why would he request it, just saying [[User:Honda1996|Honda1996]] 23:02 February 16th 2012

== Account Name Change Request ==

If there's no reason against it, I'd like to change my account name to "Jim". I just want to make it easier for my many admirers to refer to me by an easy name. If it's ok/better to just change the label in my signature, that's fine, too. JimR or JR also fine. Anything unimaginative, really. --[[User:Jreynolds2|Jreynolds2]][[User_talk:Jreynolds2|Talk]] [[Special:EmailUser/Jreynolds2|E-mail]] 06:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

:It looks like the account [[Special:Contributions/Jim|Jim]] has already been registered. JimR and JR are both available, though. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 06:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

::Hmm. Thanks. JR then. But I may also consider Robbin Hood. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. --[[User:Jreynolds2|Jreynolds2]][[User_talk:Jreynolds2|Talk]] [[Special:EmailUser/Jreynolds2|E-mail]] 08:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

::: JR it is. Consider it done. I'll leave the redirect behind, so you don't have to change all talk page posts. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 09:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

:::: Thank you. In the meantime, I mistakenly created an account with the name "Jr". Can you, or someone, delete it for me, tell me how to delete it, or point me to instructions on how to do so? --[[Special:Contributions/180.207.115.196|180.207.115.196]] 09:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

::::: Hmm, sorry. I can't delete accounts - but you can create a redirect (a so-called 'doppelganger account' like [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User:GK&redirect=no this] from that user to your new JR page. Otherwise, there's not really a problem with the account creation, just let it sit unused. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 09:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

::::::: Ok. Thanks. --[[User:Jreynolds2|Jreynolds2]][[User_talk:Jreynolds2|Talk]] [[Special:EmailUser/Jreynolds2|E-mail]] 09:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

== IP 99.137.211.49 ==

Ban him! Look at [[Special:Contributions/99.137.211.49|contributions]] if you want any proof. He's already been warned and has continued to abuse his editing privileges. • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 23:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

:I was specifically looking at [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Skyrim:The_Steed_Stone&oldid=887552 this edit]. I think it's evident what they added. • [[User:Jak Atackka|JA]][[User talk:Jak Atackka|Talk]] 23:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

::95.149.53.48 also--[[User:Br3admax|Br3admax]] 23:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

:::I'm not convinced that one's a vandal, merely a ... juvenile user. I left him another pseudo-warning. [[User:Minor Edits|Minor Edits]][[User_talk:Minor Edits|Threats]]•[[Special:Contributions/Minor Edits|Evidence]] 23:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
:::Apparently AKB disagreed. ;) [[User:Minor Edits|Minor Edits]][[User_talk:Minor Edits|Threats]]•[[Special:Contributions/Minor Edits|Evidence]] 23:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

::::They've both been blocked for a week. A note about the second one: I didn't see a single appropriate edit, so I had no qualm with blocking him. Also, a link to there contributions is all that is generally necessary for anonymous users, we can figure out what action is appropriate with just that. --[[User:Alpha Kenny Buddy|AKB]] [[User_talk:Alpha_Kenny_Buddy|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Cont]] [[Special:Emailuser/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Mail]] 23:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

== Change in Databases ==

Just FYI that I've switched to using db2 for most of the wiki reads. Last time this happened there were a few issues with pages saving/loading. If you see anything similar or other abnormal issues let me know. Thanks. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 00:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
:It's probably nothing, but I noticed one small oddity just a few minutes after you posted this: after [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Skyrim%3AKagrenzel&diff=887623&oldid=886234 this edit], I had to purge the page to get it to display the updated formatting. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 01:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

::I noticed something similar with [http://www.uesp.net/wiki/File:2012-02-12_00010.jpg this page] - the "prod" tag didn't show up, the image had disappeared but the licensing was still visible, and the name the image had been moved to didn't seem to exist. Purging the cache fixed the problem. [[User:Kitkat1749|Kitkat]] •[[User talk:Kitkat1749|Talk]]•[[Special:Contributions/Kitkat1749|Contrib]]•[[Special:EmailUser/Kitkat1749|E-mail]] 01:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

:::Recent changes, patrol log and User contributions don't seem to update anymore. My latest edit to [[UESPWiki:New_Page_Requests#Skyrim:Perk]] doesn't show in the page history or in my contributions, but the page content was changed. Similar case with [[User:Alfwyn/Sandbox]]. -[[User:Alfwyn|Alfwyn]] 23:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

::::There is a database query that reoccurs every evening around this time from the MetaTemplate code that breaks the slave replication on db2. Obviously not a good thing and I'm looking into it. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 23:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

== User talk:Br3admax/Archieve1 ==

In a failed attempt to archive, I made <nowiki>[[User talk:Br3admax/Archieve1|this]]</nowiki>. Please delete this; I have no use for it.--[[User:Br3admax|Br3admax]] 03:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

:Done, but you could of just marked it for deletion. --[[User:Alpha Kenny Buddy|AKB]] [[User_talk:Alpha_Kenny_Buddy|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Cont]] [[Special:Emailuser/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Mail]] 03:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

::To be specific, if it's an uncontroversial deletion (i.e., you created it yourself or it's spam), just add {{tl|Speedydeletion}} to the top of the page, and an Admin will take care of it. If it's not, then you can use {{tl|Proposeddeletion}}. See [[Project:Deletion Policy|Deletion Policy]] for more details on what falls into each area. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 04:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

== Request for an Immediate Block ==

Whereas [[UESPWiki:Etiquette#When_Conflict_Arises|"Personal attacks are grounds for an immediate block"]] and whereas the post here http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki_talk:Skyrim_Map_Design&diff=prev&oldid=886821 by rpeh glaringly includes such, I request an immediate block on his account and administrative contemplation of further action to enforce Etiquette and any additional relevant policies in the interest of the community, balanced with any concern for the rights and welfare of rpeh as may be appropriate.

Portions of the content of the post instant to this request, if not the post as a whole, were clearly calculated and designed to be personally injurious. I will focus on the attack on Robin Hood, since it is the most obviously mean-spirited and severe. While I think that the implication that Daveh has caused a mortal loss to the wiki because rpeh was de-administered can be seen, with extremely generous eyes, as ranging from simple immaturity to some kind of delusion, if it is not what it appears to be at its plainest: a spiteful, direct insult to Daveh's intelligence, the quotation of Robin Hood's remark (a friendly remark made in conducting wiki business) in an obviously caustically sarcastic and mocking context and the name-calling are absolutely intolerable to me. I'm new enough to the community to lack knowledge of much of the history here, but I've seen quite enough before this, and even if I arrived yesterday, I would be just as sickened and disgusted by this conduct as I am at this juncture. This is a hateful message, and I hope to be spared as much of such vileness as possible on the wiki here. I am injured and hurt as a result of reading this, and I am asking for help. I literally feel physically sickened as well as emotionally upset, and I do not at all consider myself as possessing a fragile constitution.

If rpeh needs some kind of help or support, I sincerely hope he gets it. If a consideration of all the relevant circumstances reasonably concludes that he may be able to remain active on the wiki without causing substantial harm, I am all for giving him the benefit of the doubt—once appropriate deliberations have been made and immediate protective action taken. However, if I am part of a community here, I am willing to do my best to adhere to its standards, and with respect to this kind of reprehensible conduct, I feel trespassed upon and I plead for help in being able to remain here, and spared from further exposure to it or its kind. --[[User:JR|JR]][[User_talk:JR|Talk]] [[Special:EmailUser/JR|E-mail]] 18:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
:I certainly can't see any attack upon RobinHood, and I can't see the post having been altered since. Whilst he is understandably a bit pee-ed off with being de-adminned for I am sure he view as a non-problem. I can't see any really personal attack on daveh either, alright rpeh's post was made in spite but I can't see it attacks anyone like your said he has. --[[User:Kiz|kiz]] '''[[User_Talk:Kiz|talk]]''''''[[Special:EmailUser/Kiz|email]]''' 18:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
:: What are you talking about? If you can’t stomach messages like that you should obviously not spend any time on the internet. In fact, I find your message and reaction to be so exaggerated, it borders on a personal attack on rpeh. Immediate block? Not a chance! I’m pretty sure Daveh knows how to handle this – if he, unlike me, can see any insults towards his persona. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 18:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
:::I'm also going to highlight the following line: ''If rpeh needs some kind of help or support, I sincerely hope he gets it.''
:::What is this trying to imply? Are you suggest something very subtly about rpehs health? Because, that would be one way to read it. Attacking someone in your report of a personal attack seems a very odd way to get your point across. --[[User:Kiz|kiz]] '''[[User_Talk:Kiz|talk]]''''''[[Special:EmailUser/Kiz|email]]''' 18:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
::::To accuse someone of sycophancy and incompetence are most certainly personal attacks, and I'm surprised that either of you could have missed, or worse, dismissed that. That said, however, a review of the logs will show that I patrolled that edit myself and chose to do nothing about it precisely to avoid the kind of drama it would bring up. Barring any repeat performances, let's just move on. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 21:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

:::::I've always been known to usually be on rpeh's side in such affairs. And, be it for better or worse, I've chosen to do so again. First, JR, you yourself made a personal attack on rpeh, however subtle (i.e. "If rpeh needs some kind of help, I sincerely hope he gets it"). However, I do acknowledge that you may not have meant it to come across that way. To be honest, the real thing that makes me not like this request for a block is just exactly what Krusty said; if you're going to use the internet, get used to venomous posts (though rpeh's was only slightly so, in my opinion). By your standard, you could be blocked immediately as well for the aforementioned comment, JR. I really don't see anything to suggest that an AN post was required in any way, never mind an actual block. It's these types of things that led to the recent events and rpeh's de-adminning, as far as I'm concerned.--[[User:Kalis Agea|Kalis Agea]][[User talk:Kalis Agea|Yes?]] [[Special:Contributions/Kalis Agea|Contrib]] [[Special:EmailUser/Kalis Agea|E-mail]] 23:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

::::::This whole debate is quite amusing. I find it particularly amusing that a post (and '''''thank you''''' for linking that in there RH - you're '''such''' a helpful fellow!) in which I criticised ''Daveh'' for being subject to "sycophancy" and "lack of talent" is being used by RH70 as a personal attack on himself. Did you recognise yourself as possessing those two attributes, RH? That's the only way in which it could be construed as a "personal attack". Of course, that's entirely '''your''' view. Just as I imagine you expected [http://uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=881336 this post] to mean that admins "friendly to [me]" wasn't a personal attack against several other admins.
::::::As for the claim about competence: I've got a TESV map up and running. It works well, and I've played around with things like gamma correction and contrast so that it doesn't look too bad. Tell me, RobinHood70, how does '''your''' map look? [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 00:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

UESPWiki talk:Skyrim Map Design

2012-02-14T22:29:50Z

Rpeh: /* Exterior Maps */ your choice, Dave

== Interior Maps ==

A bit of past discussion can be found in the [[UESPWiki:Community_Portal/Archive_27#Skyrim_Map|CP Archive]] and at [[Skyrim talk:Maps]].
I tried out a scheme for local maps [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User:Alfwyn/Sandbox4&oldid=886624 here]. It's basically a map exported from the CK, with door symbols added. The result looks similar to the local maps ingame. The background is blackish there, so I think the black background is appropriate (it was paper colored for Oblivion ingame). Adding doors to the image directly will make them resize with the image automatically. The legend was added with {{tl|Image Mark}}, not resizing them with the image assures that they will be legible on the article. Adding them with the template makes later additions and changes a bit easier. The example I created is more a proof of concept, so we can see whether we want to use that approach. It will be easy to add colored dots for traps or other things. I would like to name the maps images after the EDID, this is guaranteed to be a unique name, matches the image name created by the CK and isn't visible on the article anyway.

If we want to use this, things to consider beside map creation would be:
*A map specific version of the {{tl|Perk Tree}} template
*A way to make finding the needed coordinates on the image easier (by pointing at a location on the image). Some javascript may help here.
*Several decisions as how and what to mark/display on the maps on an article, but this is largely independent of the map creation, if we use Image Mark.
--[[User:Alfwyn|Alfwyn]] 17:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

== Exterior Maps ==
I've exported all of Tamriel to 256x256 exterior maps using the CK but the issue is the images are grayscale. I haven't generated LOD images yet but this is relatively easy to do. I suppose a grayscale map may be better than nothing for the moment. I've played with a few settings but nothing appears to give any color to the map. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 18:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
:Oh, good! I was also looking into this and noticing the same, but it sounds like you're a step ahead of me (both in doing the process and understanding it <g>...image processing isn't my forté). Like Oblivion, all the CK is doing is dumping the local maps that you'd see in-game, and the local maps in-game are also greyscale. I'm hoping there's some way around that, but I'm not counting on it. One thing I noticed in testing is that they seem to not have the overlap that the Oblivion maps did. If I'm right about that, that may reduce the number of steps required a little bit. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 22:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
::Well if only you hadn't de-adminned me you'd already have a fully-zoomed, water-aware set of map tiles. I've been using my own local server to give me a perfect set of (monochrome) tiles since 24-hours after the CK was released. Unfortunately, you decided to go for "Oh, good!" and sycophancy instead of actual competence. Too bad. UESP would have had a full set of maps a week ago. Your choice, Dave. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 22:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard

2012-02-07T01:31:57Z

Rpeh: /* rpeh's attacks on TESWiki, request for resignation of admin privilages. */ reply

User talk:Daveh

2012-02-06T19:57:32Z

Rpeh: /* Community Discussion About rpeh */ reply

'''Note:''' Feel free to leave me a message here or e-mail me at [mailto:uesp@sympatico.ca uesp@sympatico.ca].
{{Archive Table
|Archive 2007|Archive 1|2007
|Archive 2008|Archive 2|2008
|Archive 2009|Archive 3|2009
|Archive 2010|Archive 4|2010
}}

== Email delivery problem from uesp.net ==

Hi there.

Your outgoing SMTP server (174.142.196.114) identifies itself as "content1.localdomain", causing email delivery to fail at my mail provider since the helo string does not resolv to the connecting IP address. In essence, your mail server is lying when it connects and introduces itself.

The relevant SMTP log line from my end:

NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from unknown[174.142.196.114]: 450 4.7.1 <content1.localdomain>: Helo command rejected: Host not found; from=<apache@content1.uesp.net> to=<uesp.net@XXX.YYY> proto=ESMTP helo=<content1.localdomain>

It's an anti-spam thing, most spambots fail helo checks so it really cuts down on spam. Not sure how widespread this helo-restiction is, but all SMTP-servers using it will refuse mail from content1.uesp.net, it's not just my provider.

I see content1.uesp.net resolves to 174.142.196.114, so updating your SMTP server configuration should fix this. If you're running postfix, setting "myhostname = content1.uesp.net" should do the trick.

:I think I solved it by correcting the hostname on content1/2 to be the FQDN (content1.uesp.net) instead of just content1. If this issue still occurs, however, just let me know. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 01:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

== Two new Namespaces ==

It looks like we're starting to get content for Oblivion Mobile and Stormhold now, so please can you create namespaces for these last two mobile games? In [[UESPWiki:Community_Portal#Two_new_Namespaces|this thread]] we're going for "OBMobile" (OM) and "Stormhold" (SH) but any better name for the former would be gratefully accepted! [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 08:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

: *nudge* [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 01:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

::Thanks for the nudge...done! -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 01:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

== Lag ==

Hi Dave. I'm posting this just in case you're not aware of it, but there's been a significant lag to the site most of the day. Sometimes, seemingly randomly, there's no delay at all, but more often than not, pages are taking 30 seconds to a couple of minutes to load. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 09:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

: Thanks for the note. I had seen it yesterday a few times but thought it was just my local connection since it only happened once or twice. I've rebooted content1 which seems to have cleared the issue. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 14:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

:: Yup, looks good to me today. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 20:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

::: It might just be my imagination, but although everything was fine right after the restart, it's slowed down again now. It's not ''too'' bad yet, but it's worth watching. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 21:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

:::: I had a couple of slow page loads earlier in a cluster close together, but then it cleared up, so I assumed it was temporary and nothing to worry about. If I notice anything further, I'll post back, but I'm planning on play Diablo 2 for a bit, so I may not have the opportunity to notice anything at all. :) – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 21:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

:::: Previously it would be slow if you forced a page to reload while logged in. Both content1/2 seem fine now when reloading but I'll keep checking. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 00:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

:::::Just took 30+ seconds on this page (clicked to edit before it finished).--[[User:TheAlbinoOrc|'''Ghurhak gro-Demril''' or TAO]][[User_talk:TheAlbinoOrc|Yes?]] 01:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

== Image Upload Problem ==

I've had a few problems uploading images last night and this morning. Last night I thought it was because of the lag, but now I'm guessing it's more likely that content2 doesn't have the necessary permissions because it works roughly 50% of the time. This is what I'm getting:

:'''Internal error'''
:The upload directory (public) is not writable by the webserver.

[[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 12:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

:The Wiki images directory had become unmounted on content1 (or I didn't correctly mount it in the first place). It is now mounted and writable on content1/2. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 14:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

== Greetings ==

We have been trying to contact you regarding uesp.net. Can you please contact dduncan@curse.com at your earliest convenience. Thanks! --[[Special:Contributions/71.63.243.179|71.63.243.179]] 22:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

== Was this you? ==

Was [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Server_Setup/New_Servers_Feb2011&curid=91743&diff=643027&oldid=643018&rcid=667275 this] edit you? I've got no idea what it does, and it's probably not a good idea for random IPs to be able to add instructions for server config. Please could you patrol it if it's you, or delete it if it's not. Thanks. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 01:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

:Yah, it was me. I was logging in and out testing things and forgot to log back in to edit. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 01:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

::Thanks - better safe than sorry, though. It might be worth semi- or fully-protecting those pages since there really isn't anyone bar you that should be editing them. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 02:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

==Upgrade Issue==
Hi Daveh, we've run into some issues with the server upgrade on the forums. Some of the member's avatars have reverted, and uploading avatars is now disabled (though it is enabled in the forum software). Just wanted to let you know.--[[User:Ratwar|Ratwar]] 18:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
:Thanks....I'll look into it. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 18:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

:There was some file permission issues I corrected and I tried to update any missing avatar images from the old content1. Let me know if that fixes things or not. There may be a couple of images that were reverted to a version from a few days ago. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 18:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
::Image uploading is definitely a go again. Thanks!--[[User:Ratwar|Ratwar]] 21:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

== Trying to get in touch with you! ==

Hello Daveh!

I'm Lesley Ann Abernathy, content manager for Curse.com! I had a few questions for you but every time I try to send an e-mail it gets bounced back :( Would you please send me an email at labernathy@curse.com if you'd like to talk further? Thanks a lot! :)

[[User:Amira|Amira]] 16:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

== Blog Links ==

I just tried to save a new post about TES Music that included several links to YouTube for examples, but was told that my post contained "illegal content". Ever the hacker, I tried using bit.ly to get around the ban, but it turns out bit.ly is a banned site too.

Do we really need this kind of content filter on articles? Given that one must ask for permission to get post access in the first place, and that all comments are filtered... it seems unnecessary. Please can you remove the offending filters? I have an article waiting! Thanks. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 22:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

:This was just the default setting of the blog. I think posts from you now don't check the anti-spam list but let me know if you still can't post. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 22:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

:: It works now. Thanks! [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 23:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

== Forums ==

There seems to be a problem with the forums at the moment: I get a 404 error and "The requested URL / was not found on this server." Please could you take a look? [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 08:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
:Try now rpeh they are working for me again at least, while they weren't yesterday. --[[User:Alpha Kenny Buddy|AKB]] [[User_talk:Alpha_Kenny_Buddy|Talk]] 15:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

:I was cleaning up old files/links and mistakenly deleted the new forum link and kept the old one. Fixed this morning. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 15:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

== Bot Server ==

This is something that's been at the back of my mind for a while, but with the recent server upgrade it might be plausible: can we have a bot server? Several people have asked if we can have something like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SineBot SineBot], and the response has always been that the bandwidth would make it impossible. Now that all the servers are on the same rack, that shouldn't be an issue.

Once I started thinking about the new server configuration, other possible uses sprang to mind, such as keeping track of external links and flagging dead ones and maybe performing other tasks that would be bandwidth-intensive such as tracking broken anchors.

Speaking purely for myself, I'd need to be able to run .NET code to do this, and that might not be an option even with the [http://www.mono-project.com/Main_Page mono] project. I'm bringing this up now because we have an absolute max of 8 months less one day before things start getting ''really'' busy and now is the time to make big suggestions.

Please let me know what you think. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 21:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

:That should be possible though it depends on the details of course. SineBot looks straight forward enough and I would suggest using content3 as a bot server. It is currently our "misc" server and in the worst case of a bot taking a lot of CPU nothing else important would be affected. I'll have to look into .NET/Mono in more detail. I assume you were thinking of writing a bot in a .NET language? Note that I'll update your content1 password tomorrow as well as restore your home directory from backup. This weekend was a mess and I didn't have any time for the site at all. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 03:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

:: Yup, I'd be writing in C# if at all possible. It's obviously not a high priority task. If there are other things you have planned, such as upgrading the wiki software, they should definitely take precedence.
:: Don't worry about my home directory: there wasn't anything in there except a couple of links, which I can easily recreate. Everything got moved into the map directories long ago. I just wanted to make sure I had up to date versions of the map code so I could start looking at making any preparations for Skyrim that we might need - I doubt there'll be more than 24 hours between release and us being asked where our map is.
:: Thanks. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 07:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

== Search Data ==

I'm sure you'll be glad to know that I've got another request for you. After all, it's not like you've got anything else to do, what with RL job, server upgrades, MediaWiki upgrade, and all my other requests, so I hope you'll take care of this quickly ;-)

Can you get some information on what things people search for? We just had someone asking for information on how to close the Anvil Oblivion Gate, and my sarcastic reply died on my fingers when I found that the search for "Anvil Oblivion Gate" brought back precisely zero results. I've taken care of that with a redirect, but it made me wonder how many other queries could be pre-answered with the right redirects.

Obviously, it'd be ideal to get a list of searches that result in no results so that we can create the appropriate redirects, but even a simple dump of search terms would be useful. Whenever you've got a moment... [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 20:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

:There are a few ways we could do this:
::# Apache/Squid Access Logs -- Currently disabled to save space and we haven't used them anyways.
::# <s>MySQL Bin Logs -- We can parse the bin-logs for all search queries although this doesn't get us the number of results (I don't think anyways). This is currently the only way of retrieving past searches.</s> I forgot that the bin-log doesn't record SELECT statements, only write statements, so this option won't work.
::# MediaWiki Extension -- It would be nice to add logging of searches with result count directly into MediaWiki. There is [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:SearchLog Extension:SearchLog] which hasn't been worked on in years but may provide a starting point.

: I'll think about it some more while I'm on the road the next few weeks. Long term the best bet is probably #3 and we #2 can be done pretty easily if we want an overview of prior searches. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 15:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

:: Thanks for looking into it. Option #3 sounds great, although it's a bit of a worry that the extension hasn't been worked on in three years. Hope the road trip goes well and provides you with lots of ideas. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 15:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

::: I likely will only use the extension for ideas on how to implement it and then create a custom extension within the UESP extension framework that Nephele created (or as a standalone extension). The primary difficulty will be figuring out which MediaWiki hooks to use. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 15:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

'''Update:''' I've added the initial version of the [[Special:SearchLog]] extension which logs all searches and provides a (very) basic display of logs. I'll be adding basic features to the log display/navigation in the near future and for now you can just view the first 100 entries. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 23:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

: That looks like a great start - thank you! I doubt there's much we can do for whoever searched for "dust from getting glow o the the will wisp", but hopefully we can find some good redirects for other people. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 06:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

::I should note that the order of words has been sorted to make queries like "daggerfall vampire" and "vampire daggerfall" identical. There are also more searches than I thought there would be (one every few seconds) which changes how the data can be viewed...perhaps some sort of daily/weekly summary. The performance data also points towards the possible need of an alternate search engine. Another thing to note is that the searches are limited to 20 matches by default which is why 20 appears a lot. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 13:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

::: I'm not sure if this is a problem with my browser, but apparently the search function lacks a bit as of now; searches like "Corruption" and "Independent" now leads to a blank page instead of a list of pages related to the words. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 14:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

:::: You aren't alone here, searching for heavy armor led to nothing. To test this I typed in a bunch of nonsense characters to see what happened and I was sent to advanced search with no results. Whenever something would return a result it seems to lead to the blank page. --[[User:Alpha Kenny Buddy|AKB]] [[User_talk:Alpha_Kenny_Buddy|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Cont]] [[Special:Emailuser/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Mail]] 14:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

:::: By which I mean as long as it does not have a perfect match and automatically redirects you, it doesn't work. For example typing in Heavy Armor causes this problem as it as you could mean, say [[Morrowind:Heavy Armor]] or [[Oblivion:Heavy Armor]]. But if you type in Oblivion:Heavy Armor into the search engine it simply redirects you to the correct page. --[[User:Alpha Kenny Buddy|AKB]] [[User_talk:Alpha_Kenny_Buddy|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Cont]] [[Special:Emailuser/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Mail]] 15:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

:::::(e/c)It looks like there's a problem with searches at the moment. I just did a search for "guild mages" and got a blank, empty page with the url http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Special:Search?search=guild+mages&go=Go&nsnum=0&redirs=1&searchtitles=1 . I've had the same problem with one or two other searches too.
:::::I can't believe some searches are taking so long: 9s for "countess of skingrad" is insane. My guess is the site was slow for some other reason, because my own tests show that result coming back (empty) almost instantly. Slow pages like that, though, can be created as redirects, which should speed things up. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 15:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

::::::I assume this was a temporary issue as all the example searches appear to work fine now. If you find any terms that duplicate the issue just let me know. It "shouldn't" be the new search log as all it does is use the existing MediaWiki hooks to record all search terms. Part of the reason for implementing the search log was to try and track down periodic issues like this. Looking at the logs it appears this issue was caused by someone spamming a search request for "dragon of order the" (20 times in about 20 seconds) which temporarily overloaded the database for a minute. Part the solution will be get a better search system and part better limits to prevent users from being able to perform DoS like this (whether accidental or not). -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 15:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

:::::::I'm still getting the problem here. It's not a caching thing because I've tried two different browsers. The page is completely empty, although Firefox reports it's 26 bytes long. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 15:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

::::::::I assume you mean the above "mages guild" link? Can you try the link with content1/2/3 instead of www? Sometimes the Squid cache decides to cache a "bad" page request. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 15:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

:::::::::I get the same result on all three, I'm afraid. It seems like it's a problem with the namespace-guessing code. If I search for "Notes" while on Recent Changes, I get the blank page. If I search for OB:Notes, Oblivion:Notes appears. If I search for "Books" while on Recent Changes, blank page. If I search for "Books" while looking at OB:Notes, I get OB:Books. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 15:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

::::::::::Ahh...I see. The issue was that I had the "search titles only" preference unchecked. When it is checked I can duplicate the behavior you see. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 16:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

'''Update:''' I've fixed the search bug as described above by a few people. Let me know if anyone still sees the same issue or other search issues. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 19:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

: That seems to have done the trick! Other people who got the problem may need to hard-refresh, but it's working fine now. Thank you. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 20:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

::On the subject of searching: When you search from the namespace, it first looks for that title from the current space. But searching from Userspace seems to first look in Skyrim. For example, when you search for "rpeh" in mainspace you get [http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Special:Search?search=Rpeh&go=Go&nsnum=0&redirs=1&searchtitles=1 a normal response]. Same with other spaces. But from Userspace (even from his actual userpage) you get [http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Special:Search?search=rpeh&go=Go&nsnum=2&redirs=1&searchtitles=1 this]. It searches for Skyrim:Rpeh rather than User. --{{FC|#800000|[[User:DKong27|DKong27]] [[User_talk:DKong27|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/DKong27|Cont]]}} 20:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

::: Shhh! Nobody's supposed to know that I play a role in the new game! [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 21:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

== Full YouTube walkthrough ==

I'm planning on doing a Let's Play on YouTube for Oblivion sometime soon. I'm almost done with my first project, and I'm going to do two more games before I do Oblivion, according to my current schedule. When I get to Oblivion, I'd like to use this Wiki as my source of enemy stats, including strengths, weaknesses, attack, defense, health and levels. I'd also have a map image onscreen from the dungeon pages for when I first enter, covering the doors, containers and spawnpoints. I'll be covering all the quests I can do with the main game and Shivering Isles, maybe more if I can get my PC version to work.
The reason for this post is that I'm asking for permission to use the content on this website to create a video walkthrough of the game.
[[User:BubbaYoshi117|BubbaYoshi117]] 23:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

: All UESP content is available under the Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License as described [[UESPWiki:Copyright and Ownership|here]]. A YouTube video won't be copy/pasting bits of text, so a lot of what that page says isn't relevant. I imagine a brief "Thank you" to the Unofficial Elder Scrolls Pages would be enough. I look forward to seeing the walkthroughs! [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 09:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

== Another Request ==

Hopefully this won't take too long. Re [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard#Protecting_Archives|this discussion]], please can you add the <code>protect</code> right to the bots user group? Hopefully that should allow RoBot to carry out the task. Thanks. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 22:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

:Done...sorry it took so long but I've been on the road for a while now. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 00:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

:: Thank you for that. I hope your extended road trip has been productive. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 06:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

== New Admin ==

[[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] has been [[UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard#Request for Adminship|approved by the community]] and it's been about a week, so if you have no objections can you please give him the usual rights? Thanks! --'''[[User:GuildKnight|GK]]'''[[User_talk:GuildKnight|talk2me]] 22:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
:Done. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 23:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

== New Namespace ==

Per the community discussion [[UESPWiki:Community Portal#Lord of Souls|here]], can you please create the new namespace "Books:"? Thanks! --'''[[User:GuildKnight|GK]]'''[[User_talk:GuildKnight|talk2me]] 19:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

:Done...I haven't added any namespace aliases for it yet. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 19:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

:: It looks like "BK" is the choice for alias. Please could you add that? [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 20:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

== Donations? ==

Hey, I was wondering how I would go about donating a small amount of money for the upkeep of UESP? Just a little way of contributing and giving something back for all the times that I have relied on the site :)

Also, I tried using the email address in the Contact Us page, but I got mailer-daemoned x] [[User:Jaden|Jaden]] 16:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

:Many thanks for the offer but the site's costs are currently covered by the advertising at the bottom of each page. If that money is still burning a hole in your pocket feel free to donate it to a worthy charity. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 01:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

== Cached Warnings ==

We're getting a '''lot''' of IP editors complaining of being warned for vandalism when they haven't been. What seems to have happened is that a couple of vandals ([[User talk:96.4.127.21|96.4.127.21]] and [[User talk:96.4.127.20|96.4.127.20]] especially) viewed several pages after having been warned, which means those pages have been cached with the "New Messages" banner on them. When another IP editor views the page, they see the banner, click the link, and get taken straight to a warning page.

I'm putting prominent messages on user talk pages that we know are affected (the two above, so far) and we're looking at some changes in the warnings we use to make it clearer that people might not be the target of a warning. Obviously, none of these solutions are ideal, so I wonder what changes can be made to the caching so it doesn't happen. I know absolutely nothing about the options you can tweak to change what pages are cached and what criteria can be used to exclude them. If there's anything you can do on that score, great. If not, would it be possible to have a page that generates a list of pages that were cached because of the action of one IP? That way, we could try to ensure that pages with warning messages were purged.

Basically, any help or advice you can give on this one would be very welcome, because there ain't much we can do. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 22:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

:Yah...that's an interesting problem. I'll try to do some tests to see how it is working to better understand the problem. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 14:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

:: I know you're busy, but is there any update on this? The lists ([[User talk:207.191.187.21|1]] [[User talk:96.4.127.20|2]] [[User talk:96.4.127.21|3]]) are getting longer, and it seems like purging doesn't always work. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 17:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

::: I haven't looked into it in any great detail. There appears to be no obvious solution though I wonder how Wikipedia handles it. Their overall setup is pretty much the same as ours so it would be easiest if we can figure out their solution. I'll spend some time on it this weekend. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 00:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

::: The next time it happens can you check the page on content1/2 directly to see if the issue is the Squid or the MediaWiki caching layer. I assume that since you mention that purging sometimes doesn't work that it may be with both layers. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 00:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

== Possible relation to above problem ==

I just today got a notification whilst viewing the Bloodmoon:Creatures page of a new message, which led me to this page: http://www.uesp.net/wiki/User_talk:82.45.146.195

Im fairly certain I made no edits to that page, especially vandalism or obscenities, so I'm a little confused why I'm suddenly getting a notification of a warning and subsequent blocking from back in July.

== Walk Throughs ==
Hey: Daveh

My twin bro got me playing Oblivion about a year ago and its been the only other game I've really liked since Halo. But trying to find things in this game, is hard for me, which I why I love your site and the walk-throughs; it made playing this game doable and exciting. Thanks.
I wanted to ask when do you suppose the walk-throughs will be completed at this site for Skyrim for the main quests: Main quest, Mages, Fighters?

Also, I wonder if Bethesda would give you guys at this site the game early for that reason?

[[Special:Contributions/98.71.246.226|98.71.246.226]] 23:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Oshea
osheadavis14@hotmail.com
[[Special:Contributions/98.71.246.226|98.71.246.226]] 23:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

As been as this is the unnofficial elder scrolls pages I doubt we will have access to information before the game comes out. When it does come out, it may take a month or so to document quest walkthroughs, especially as the quests are more randomly generated. Hope this helps. --[[User:Manic|Manic]] 22:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

:While we have asked nicely Bethesda is (rightly) very stingy about giving out pre-release information and beta/early versions of the game. So, while its not completely impossible its unlikely (though we'll still try anyways). -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 12:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

== For your attention ==

[[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard#Request_for_new_right_for_blockers]] Thanks again Dave. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 04:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

:Thanks. I'm on vacation but if its just a simple change I can review it and do it quickly in the next few days in my spare time. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 13:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

:I took a quick look and cannot find any built-in setting that would permit this. The only relevant is a global parameter to permit/deny blocked users from editing their talk pages. You can, however, protect a user's talk page which should prevent a blocked user from editing it. Currently only site admins can protect pages but this can be extended to patrollers if needed. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 19:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

== Two requests ==

There's been a big outbreak of vandalism on the site and the usual methods aren't helping much. Please can you:
* Install the Oversight extension (unless installing MW 1.16 is quicker!) per [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard#Oversight_Extension|this discussion]], and
* Remove "move" rights from "users" to "autoconfirmed users" per [[http://www.uesp.net/wiki/UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard#Move_Rights|this discussion]].
I know you're on vacation, but I really hope you can do something quickly. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 22:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

: Both done, let me know of any issues. Note that I do plan on upgrading MediaWiki sometime before Skyrim since we're a few versions back. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 19:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

:: Welcome back, and I hope you had a great holiday! Thanks for making those changes. The oversight seems to work perfectly. [[User:Elliot]] made a great suggestion about using the TitleBlacklist extension to block page moves, and I [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki%3ATitleblacklist&diff=690177&oldid=689544 that change] has been working pretty well. I've undone it now, so let's see if the new permissions work... [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 23:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

== Sections Problem ==

Currently having a problem viewing [[Oblivion:Oblivion|Oblivions Page]] and [[Skyrim:Skyrim|Skyrims Page]]. When I attempted to view the Skyrim page it instead came up with a slightly glitched version of the Main Page. Glitch is as described - Instead of the block of the main page starting immediately under the Top navigation bar (containing 'Page' and 'Discussion') the block of the main page starts level with the search box. This was the same when I tried Oblivions page. The rest of the pages seem to be working correctly. Don't know if this a problem specific to me or whether it affects anyone else. It affects me whether I am logged in or not. Thanks [[User:KizC|KizC]] 13:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
: It's not just you. It's a problem that occurs almost every day, at the same time. You get a glitchy main page (sometimes with the words "UESPwiki has a problem") and no access to any of the namespaces. The problem typically goes away within 15 minutes, but it's still worth looking into. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 15:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

: I just got back from vacation and will look into the issue. Thanks! -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 19:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

:Thanks, just thought it was worth a note to see if it was just me or if it was a general problem. And it seems to not go away for me regardless of time. [[User:KizC|KizC]] 20:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

== Few inquiries ==

I was wondering if you had any plans for [[Special:UespSiteStats]] anymore. Also, I was wondering if it would be possible to get a skipcaptcha for blockers. Thanks again Daveh. '''''[[User:Elliot|Elliot]] [[User_talk:Elliot|(talk)]]''''' 04:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

: I could probably get the UespSiteStats working again by updating the server keys but since the Zabbix monitoring is up and running on monitor.uesp.net I didn't see the need after the last server migration. If this page is useful, however, it isn't too much work to keep up. I'll look into the blocker skipcaptcha (should be easy but sometimes isn't). -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 17:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

== Outage ==

We just had a brief (~5-10 mins) outage. Trying to access the site produced the "UESP has a problem" page, and even the server-status pages on content1 and content2 wouldn't load, although content3 was fine (and almost empty). Eventually I managed to load the pages and both servers were showing completely full process lists, full of "W" requests. I've got the pages saved if you need me to email them. I couldn't load anything else to check any other status pages.

I've seen something similar happen at around this time before, although not lasting as long. Since it seemed a minor problem, I put it down to "stuff happens" and moved on. It begins to look like a more serious problem though. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 12:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

:The same thing has been happening at around 8:15 EST almost every day for a few weeks. There is no obvious internal issue so I'm looking at trying to determine if it has an external cause. Part of the issue is that I'm almost always on the road or otherwise unavailable at this time so I'm setting up some basic logging to try and track the source. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 16:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

== Name Change Request ==

Just Rigas. Plain Rigas. --[[User:Rigas Papadopoulos|Rigas]] • [[User_Talk:Rigas Papadopoulos|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Rigas Papadopoulos|Deeds]] • 10:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

: Done! [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 10:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

:: Thanks a lot.

:: I thought only Daveh could change names... Did that change or was I wrong from the start? --[[User:Rigas Papadopoulos|Rigas]] • [[User_Talk:Rigas Papadopoulos|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Rigas Papadopoulos|Deeds]] • 15:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

::: Admins got the ability to do it a couple of years ago. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 15:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

:::: Couple of YEARS ago???

:::: Hell, I only left for a few MONTHS. I really need to update my database.

:::: Anyways, thanks again. --[[User:Rigas Papadopoulos|Rigas]] • [[User_Talk:Rigas Papadopoulos|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Rigas Papadopoulos|Deeds]] • 17:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

== ESM/ESP Format ==

[[User:Krusty]] just pointed out to me that even if we can't get a copy of the files in advance, we might be able to get some kind of "Yes, the format is similar to TES3/TES4 file formats" or "No, it's totally different" statement. If you can pass this question down the Twin Lamps railroad, I'd be grateful. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 00:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

: I didn't get an actual answer (no modding information being released yet) but a hint that the formats are similar to the previous ESM/ESP/BSA which is probably a good enough indication it is the same format just extended for Skyrim's content. I've tried to find information on the FallOut 3 ESM/ESP format but it seems to be either scarce or non-existent for some reason. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 17:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

::I've put some basic information that I've collected about Fallout3 at [[Tes5Mod talk:Mod File Format]]. I've also been tinkering some with the Fallout3.esm gathering some extra details -- for example, I've got a complete list of the Fallout3 records and subrecords; I've identified all the subrecords that contain refids pointing to other items. I'm happy to share that information if it's of interest to others. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 17:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

::: If the formats are "similar" we should be in business. If the only things that need changing to read the files are the same sort of changes I had to make for Fallout then we should be hot to trot after a few minutes, at least with straightforward things like names. Hacking the more intricate details out will obviously take a little longer, but being able to get basic info quickly will be a huge relief. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 05:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I have decoded Oblivion and Fallout 3 formats in my esptools (google).
Started updating Oblivion format at TREE record. Fallout 3 decodings
will be useful for Skyrim. Let me know if you need a help somewhere.
[[User:Juhana|Juhana]] 23:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

:Always could use help documenting the formats. There is [[Tes5Mod:File Formats]] page which links to the various specific formats. The ESP/ESM is slowly being filled in. You can either help fill in entries yourself or whatever documentation/code you have would be helpful as a reference as well. I'm actually about to paste a large section of raw text output from some processing of the Skyrim.esm file for helping document that format. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 00:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

::The relevant data I was mentioning is at [[Tes5Mod:Mod_File_Format/Raw_Data]]. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]]

== Registration ==

I don't know what I keep doing wrong, but whenever I try to register I never get the activation e-mail. I am not sure why this keeps happening, I have went through two e-mails, made a new account and tried another e-mail. I fill out all the boxes and I would like to be able to register. [[User:Imperialkhajiit|Imperialkhajiit]] 21:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
:Have you checked your junkmail? Sometimes the activation e-mail goes in there.--[[User:Kalis Agea|Kalis Agea]][[User talk:Kalis Agea|Yes?]] [[Special:Contributions/Kalis Agea|Contrib]] [[Special:EmailUser/Kalis Agea|E-mail]] 22:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

::Imperialkhajiit: Are you using an aol email address? AOL's spam filters block emails from UESP (truly block, not just put into a spam folder). Also, FYI, the activation email is only necessary for enabling email-related features.
::Daveh: If I understand AOL's email spam rules correctly, the easiest way to fix this problem is to change the address used for UESP email -- make sure all outgoing emails use an '@uesp.net' email address instead of an '@sympatico.ca' address. It's probably worth doing for the forums as well as the wiki. And it might be good to see if we can fix this before Skyrim's rush of new accounts. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 22:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

:::I've changed all the wiki and forum outgoing e-mails to be from ''uesp.net''. Is there any way to test if this works with AOL? -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 23:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

::::Thanks, Daveh! I've [[UESPWiki:Community_Portal#Looking_for_AOL_users|asked on the CP]] for volunteers to test it, so hopefully we should be able to find out. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 01:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but what can I do to register? I used all of my e-mail accounts, is there another way?[[User:Imperialkhajiit|Imperialkhajiit]] 21:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

:I don't think you need an email to register. You just need it to receive emails - either automated for changes to pages on your watchlist. Or from other editors through the email function. And are they all AOL accounts? An alternative would be a Gmail account or an equivalent? --[[User:Kiz|Kiz]] ·•· [[User_Talk:Kiz|Talk]] ·•· [[Special:Contributions/Kiz|Contribs]] ·•· [[Special:EmailUser/Kiz|Mail]] ·•· 18:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

::If you still need help with registering, we really need more information:
::# Are you trying to create an account on the wiki or the forums?
::# What is the final part of your email address (the part after the '@' symbol)?
::# When was the most recent time that you requested a confirmation email?
::# Have you added 'uesp.net' to your email whitelist?
::# Have you checked your junk email folders?
::Basically, there's something different going on with your registration than with the hundreds of other people who have set up accounts on UESP, so we need feedback from you on what is different if we're going to be able to help. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 20:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

:::Thanks for breaking it down for me. Here are my answers.
:::# I am trying to register on the forums
:::# @comcast.net
:::# About a week ago
:::# I don't know what that is or how to do that but I added it to the safe senders list
:::# Yes
:::Thank you for helping me.[[User:Imperialkhajiit|Imperialkhajiit]] 21:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

::::Aha: #1 is a critical piece of information that wasn't obvious ;) <s>Which leads me to realize that I left out an important followup question: what is the name of the forum account you tried to create (or if you've done it a few times, which account would you prefer to use)?</s>

::::After remembering how to get to the right page on the forums, I found a newly-created account for ImperialKhajiit which I assumed was you. I've activated the account, so I think you should now be able to login without worrying about the confirmation email. I also (I think) asked the system to send you another confirmation email -- mainly to see whether some changes Daveh made during the last week fixed your problem. Let me know if either of those actions worked. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 21:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

::::Thank you so much I sucessfully was registered. I don't have a chance to check my e-mail at the moment, but once I can I will tell you. Thank you so much again.[[Special:Contributions/67.186.157.34|67.186.157.34]] 22:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

About the e-mail, I didn't get one, I just checked now.[[Special:Contributions/67.186.157.34|67.186.157.34]] 00:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

== Politics of Skyrim ==

Hey, what can you tell me about the politics of Skyrim. I've search everywhere and all I can get is that there is a civil war and some king died. I want to know because I want to be able to immerse myself into the game immediately as if I were a Nord and knew the politics of the time before my arrest. I know I want to be a rebel and fight for independence, but where are these people mostly located? What cities are disloyal to the Empire? What are the organizations? {{uns|66.255.16.50|02:25, 7 October 2011 (GMT)}}

: A good question but everything we currently know is listed on the [[Skyrim:Skyrim|Skyrim]] article. Unfortunately, I don't have access to any "secret" information about the game. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 11:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

:: One of the joinable factions the "Stormcloacks" are a rebel group fighting for the independence of Skyrim, their leader is Ulfric Stormcloack the Jarl of Windhelm. So your best bet is probably the city of Windhelm. [[User:Fin Dova Feyn|Fin Dova Feyn]] 13:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

:::See [[Skyrim:Factions]] for everything the wiki currently has written on the political groups of Skyrim. --[[User:Alpha Kenny Buddy|AKB]] [[User_talk:Alpha_Kenny_Buddy|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Cont]] [[Special:Emailuser/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Mail]] 13:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

::::200 years after the Oblivion Crisis the Empire is falling apart and Skyrim is on the verge of civil war as the Elven provinces and Black Marsh have left the Empire. As tensions rise in Skyrim, the High King is assassinated. A civil war starts between the minority who want to stay in the Empire and the majority who want to leave. The last of the Blades are in the minority as they swore to uphold the Empire. At the same time, it is revealed that this civil war is just the final part of a prophecy, which included the Oblivion Crisis, that predicts the return of Alduin. As Alduin returns, the Dragons appear and cause more damage.You are the last dragonborn and have the power to defeat the dragons and Alduin. [[User:RIM|RIM]] 15:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

== New Promotions ==

Do you want the honour of making the six promotions discussed under [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard#Temporary_Role_Changes|Temporary Role Changes]]? If you're too busy, I can take care of it instead. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 00:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

: I would but I'm just about to step out for the day so feel free to do it yourself. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 13:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

::There is another addition based on [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard#Votes_2|latest discussion]]. Thanks Dave. [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 07:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

:::It's your decision as always, Daveh, but there's no consensus on this one. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 07:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

== Getting logged out ==

There have been a lot of comments recently about people being logged out while editing the site. I've not had the exact problem myself, but I've had the wiki tell me it's lost my session data several times, once after only a couple of seconds. Can you think of anything that might have changed to cause this? We've got two topics on the Community Portal about this at the moment, so it's certainly not an isolated problem. ([[UESPWiki:Community_Portal#getting_logged_out|One]], [[UESPWiki:Community_Portal#Getting_logged_out_2|Two]]) [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 08:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

:Same as you rpeh. I've never been logged out but have gotten Loss of Session Data a few times. It doesn't usually affect anything, and saving page again has worked, but it is curious that it is happening. Oh the irony, I just got it as I tried to save this edit. --[[User:DKong27|DKong27]] '''[[User_talk:DKong27|Tk]] [[Special:Contributions/DKong27|Ctr]] [[User:DKong27/Email|Em]]''' 16:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

:Links for reference: [http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/mediawiki/253556] [https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32122]. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 17:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

== Quick Bards College Question ==

Hey Dave! Just noticed you added a few bugs to the [[Skyrim:Bards College|Bards College]] quests, and since I have a feeling something is wrong with this quest line, I just want to ask you, as a PC player; did you receive the three "find-the-instruments"-quests as objectives, or as "real quests"? I suspect they were meant as real quests, because we have them created as pages (meaning the Bots recognized them as quests) and they are listed as quests in the Guide Book. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 01:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

:I'm pretty sure they were just listed under the "Misc Quests" section rather than single quests. I actually found the drum before I got the quest and it didn't automatically update the quest log like it sometimes does when you find quest items before you get the actual quest. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 02:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

== how do i ==

How do I add my user page to categories, like "Users from Canada" and "PC users"?

== Forum Issues ==

I've had it reported to me from the forum moderator Avron the S'wit that the forums are currently inaccessible for many users. While I'm not suffering from the issue personally, they say that the forums are missing all of the boards, instead replaced by a single sentence: "This board has no forums.". I'm not sure what's going on, but it seems to be effecting users at random. --[[User:Alpha Kenny Buddy|AKB]] [[User_talk:Alpha_Kenny_Buddy|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Cont]] [[Special:Emailuser/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Mail]] 21:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

: I noted this on rpeh's talk page but it looks like a simple permissions issue for normal members. —[[User:Rick|Rick]] 21:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

::That can't be it, as I can log in and access all of the boards (besides the moderator board, but that's hidden by default). As of now, the problem seems to effect random users, with no clear connection between them. --[[User:Alpha Kenny Buddy|AKB]] [[User_talk:Alpha_Kenny_Buddy|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Cont]] [[Special:Emailuser/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Mail]] 21:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

:::Are you [http://forums.uesp.net/ucp.php?i=167 in any group other than 'Registered Users'?] —[[User:Rick|Rick]] 21:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

:: It's also affecting more than just forum visibility, for example, when logged in I cannot view profiles, and the list of logged in users is completely unlinked. Search is also missing. —[[User:Rick|Rick]] 21:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

:::And I can access the Moderator Control Panel... [[User:Elliot|elliot]] ([[User_talk:Elliot|talk]]) 21:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
::::{{ec}} Same as Elliot. [[User:Mxk101|mxk101]][[User_talk:Mxk101|Talk]] 21:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

::::{{ec}}I'm in confirmed and registered. It doesn't seem to be linked to any specific group of user. Some mods can access the forums, others can't, some regular users can't access the forums, while others can't. --[[User:Alpha Kenny Buddy|AKB]] [[User_talk:Alpha_Kenny_Buddy|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Cont]] [[Special:Emailuser/Alpha Kenny Buddy|Mail]] 21:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

:::::I'm fairly certain it's an issue with user group permissions, since things are OK when you log out. I'm guessing the Registered users permissions were broken. —[[User:Rick|Rick]] 21:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

::::Yeah, well same thing for me, but I have been told everything is accessible if you are not logged into the forums. But, by doing this you can post nothing. [[User:Imperialkhajiit|Imperialkhajiit]] 21:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[[User:Imperialkhajiit|Imperialkhajiit]] 21:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

:One of the forum tables was corrupted on the database and needed to be repaired. It looks like you should be able to access the forum again but there may be more permission errors. If there are just let me know. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 22:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

::I am not able to reply to posts in the announcements forum, not sure if intentional or not. —[[User:Rick|Rick]] 08:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:::What forum group are you a member of? The "Tea Party Mods" had incorrect permissions which I fixed but the other moderator groups look fine. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 14:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

== I have a link for the UESPWiki:Daggerfall and don´t know how to implement it right. ==

Hello,

First i want to say i can not so good english, i´m from Germany.
But Daggerfall was ever my favorite game; i played it so often and so long and i must say the internet page you have make is amazing fantasic and helped me so much times, to have more fun in this game. It´s very great work you and the people done!!

I have a little link (of course in english ;) fond to make the informations better, but i don´t know if and how i may implement it to your page, so i thinked i send it to you.. i hope you find the time and a way to implement it.

I have found out if you have a Major, Minor or Misc. skill over 100 in Daggerfall, you are a master in it and all over skills can raise more than 95... that was very sad for me and i found no trick for that on UESPWiki, but on a other side.
The information can help more people on your page, because searching this other side was hard work, eventuelly there is a way to set a link in the hints or skill section.

Here is the link -> http://www.jceason.dircon.co.uk/dagger/dfbugs.htm (and thats the relevant information -> When you reach 100% in one of your primary, major or minor skills you will be declared a 'Master'of that skill. Once this happens, advancement in any other skill is halted at 95% as the game limits them to 5% below the mastered skill. This limitation can be overcome by creating an item to raise the mastered skill above 100%, which will allow the other skills to progress as normal.)

It will be nice if you answer me, if this reaches you and that i know if it´s makeabel. I hope my broken school english was not to bad to understand.

Yours faithfully
Thomas

== An addition to the Easter Eggs ==
During the "Campaign" in Skyrim Paarthurnax uses a phrase that is a reference to Star Wars. Paarthurnax says something like "The Dova blood is strong in you" which may be pointing to a number of times someone says "the Force is strong in you/this one".

I would have added it to the Easter egg section after double checking what Paarthurnax says but the Easter egg section is locked.
Thanks,
Danpapua.
: There's a reason the [[Skyrim:Easter Eggs|Easter Eggs]] page is locked - too many additions with the use of "says something like" and "which may be pointing". We simply had too many edits to the main article, so it was shut down. If you think your suggestion is valid, please use the article [[Skyrim_talk:Easter_Eggs|talk page]]. --[[User:Krusty|Krusty]] 19:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

== Registration 2 ==

Hi, I tried to register to the forums like imperialkhajiit and it has been about 2 days with no activation e_mail. I would really need it to be registerd before Christmas for private reasons. Help please. Oh! My email is evbe1@comcast.net[[User:Dragonsoul17|Dragonsoul17]] 23:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

==Hello!==
Hi Daveh my name is Cole and I'd like to bring to your attention a small problem I've been having with an administrator. I went through a small dspute with her/him over Skyrim:Elder Scroll, I eventually resolved the problem but I'd like to point out his/her arrogent bevavior through the matter, which you can see on the history and discussion. But here is an example

The information that I have put on the page revises the information from Olivion, which was just a redirect to the lore page. The Elder Scroll is compleatley different in Skyrim, please dont vandalize what I have been working on.I will change this one last time.— Unsigned comment by Cole1 (talk • contribs) on 29 December 2011
:"The information that you are deleting is all Skyrim specific the infobox, the item id, the notes about what happens you get the scroll or read the scroll. The page you are editing is a page specifically describing the item that is received in Skyrim, and should follow the same format as every other scroll and book on the site. That format should not be overwritten with quest-specific information or other information that does not belong on the item page. If you would like to discuss this further, you should use the Skyrim talk:Elder Scroll talk page, because that where the content of the article should be discussed. I am only one of several editors who has undone your edit, and therefore the discussion should not be on my talk page. Furthermore, adding the content to the page again will constitute edit-warring, which is not productive. You should start a discussion on the article talk page and wait for that discussion to be resolved instead of ignoring what several editors have now told you." NepheleTalk 04:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
It seems like he/she is threatining me, also he/she told me to (move to bottom and reply) like she didnt want others to see it. sorry for the box cant find out what caused that.{{unsigned|Cole1|29 December 2011}}

:New comments to talk pages should be added to the bottom of the page, which is why again moved this comment to the bottom of the page before replying. If you check the other comments on talk pages, you will see that they always are in chronological order from top to bottom. I didn't tell you to "move to bottom and reply" -- that was my edit summary to explain my edit, which consisted of exactly that -- moving your comment to the bottom and replying.
:As for threatening you, pointing out site policy is not threatening you -- it is telling you the facts of how this site operate. Edit-warring is against site policy, and that is exactly what you have done. You have violated now violated the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule#The_three-revert_rule three-revert rule], because you have now undone other editors' changes to [[Skyrim:Elder Scroll]] four times. Nevertheless I'm stepping away from the page and waiting for someone else to provide an opinion, because I'm following site policy and not doing a third revert on the page.
:I've explained every change that I've made to you, and I've responded to your questions. However, given that you find my responses so unacceptable, I will no longer be responding to any of your comments. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 05:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

:Nephele is one our most experienced admins and she explained the issue to you very clearly and politely. While I welcome and encourage new editors to contribute to the site you must keep in mind the overall site design, content and policies. Keep your edits smaller and only add existing information to pages until you get a better handle on things. For example, you could of just added your new image to the bottom of that page instead of rewriting the entire page. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 14:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

== Forums on Tapatalk ==

Hello Daveh. I'm new here on wiki (as user, but I know this wiki for quite some time) and I'm a little known on UESP forums. I have to thank you and all modders for you work on this site, it's really great.

To the point - I have started using Tapatalk app on my Android phone and I couldn't find UESP forums there. Would it be possible to add the forums there/to edit forums to appear there? I think I wouldn't be the only one to appreciate it, I suppose there are others too. It shouldn't be so hard, since Tapatalk has some kind of plugin for phpBB forum (better than write it from scratch... maybe :-) ).

Thanks for your time --[[User:Pavouk106|Pavouk106]] 09:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

== Not the most relevant ad ==

[http://support.google.com/adsense/bin/static.py?hl=en&gl=CA&client=ca-pub-3886949899853833&ts=1631343&page=ts.cs&adU=www.muslims4marriage.com%2Flp%2Fusgirls&rd=3&contact=abg_afc&url=http:%2F%2Fwww.uesp.net%2Fw%2Findex.php%3Ftitle%3DSkyrim_talk:Wabbajack%26action%3Dmarkpatrolled%26rcid%3D874015&adT=ImageAd This ad] came up while I was patrolling...not sure if you want to block it or not, but it really seemed out of place for UESP. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 06:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

:Actually, just browsing through 40 pages I had up, about half were ads for meeting singles (mostly female, sometimes male, often of a specific ethnic origin), another 1/3 just didn't show anything at all, and the few remaining were for other products. I can't imagine on a gaming wiki that those sorts of things would be getting a whole lot of hits...especially not compared to some of the ones we used to have where the content was mostly gaming-related. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 06:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

== Community Portal Broken ==

I'm just posting on your and Nephele's pages to draw attention to [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard#Odd_Community_Portal_Behaviour|this issue]]. This almost certainly requires some kind of server-side fix, as it looks like there's a bug/data corruption coming into play here. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 00:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

== Vandalism found ==

Hi Daveh,

while using the wiki I found someone recently (i.e. 1-2 days) vandalized the page:
http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Grimsever%27s_Return

Look into the "Notes" section. I found at least 3 sections:
* Snoop Dogg
* "*** DA POLICE" with that ***
* having *** a **

- Regards, Holger

== Community Discussion About rpeh ==

There is a community discussion about rpeh going on on the Administrator Noticeboard. Several active members have commented on the discussion, yet Krusty and rpeh are both trying to remove the discussion completely. Since it's against all wiki policy for an involved admin to remove a discussion about himself, I would ask that you step in and make a ruling on whether the discussion should stay or go (as distinct from a ruling on the proposition itself). – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 19:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

: It's a clear attempt at disruption removed by two different admins. I'm disappointed to see a senior editor like RobinHood adding to the disruption in this way. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 19:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

:: It should be noted that "two" administrators includes rpeh himself. I'm equally disappointed to see that he would feel he can violate policy in that manner. – [[User:RobinHood70|'''Robin Hood''']]↝[[User_talk:RobinHood70|'''talk''']] 19:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

:::Removing disruptive content is part of the admin job. Nothing I did violates policy as it was removed first by Krusty - I merely back his decision. Now please stop disrupting the site further. This is very poor behaviour. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 19:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

::::What exactly constitutes "disruptive behavior"? Who is it disrupting? To be clear, I voted against de-admining you, but you aren't helping your case. Verbally assaulting a group is not an appropriate way of dealing with content you believe to be stolen, and I would argue it is more disruptive than a petition for your removal under the circumstances. –[[User:SkoomaManiac|SkoomaManiac]] 19:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

:::::Repeatedly re-adding a pointless vote with no chance of passing that's only stirring up bad blood is incredibly disruptive. Being told this and then running off to a different venue to complain about it is even more disruptive. Certainly I had planned to spend this evening on the site, but discovering that a mass of utter nonsense has been vomited over the site and that various malcontents are intent on stirring up trouble has put me right off. Krusty, an uninvolved admin, removed the discussion because it served absolutely no purpose. The editors who put it back should all know better. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] •[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 19:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard

2012-02-06T19:28:17Z

Rpeh: Undo revision 878719 by SkoomaManiac (Talk); disruptive content removed by two different admins. Refrain from re-adding this material

User talk:Daveh

2012-02-06T19:27:34Z

Rpeh: /* Community Discussion About rpeh */ reply