UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard/Archive 23

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. elliot   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. rpeh  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----''Candc4, Also known as the Man Inside the Sexy Leather Pants CT 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 --       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?----Candc4, Also known as the Man Inside the Sexy Leather Pants CT'' 17:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::See this page, although I have just pointed an Admin this way via IRC --       17:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

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.      • •   16:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

:I see a single nonsense edit after being warned. If it continues, it'll be blocked. --AKB   16:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Trainer icons
Moved to UESPWiki:Community Portal#Trainer icons rpeh  20:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Dirty spamming spammer

IP:70.135.118.126. End him! 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. --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. Minor Edits 07:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
::Thanks, this should be useful. Like Minor Edits said, time to look over the blocking policy. 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? rpeh  19:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
:::: Haha, aye - let's get the Lu as a backup as well. --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: , 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. 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... ~ Dwarfmp 00:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::: How about now? --Krusty 00:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Ah, I see the new option now. That seems to have fixed it. Thanks. Wolok gro-Barok 00:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 Dwarfmp: Ha, just blocked myself, but I could immediately unblock myself. No lasting consequences it seems... 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 ;) ~ 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? --Amadeus 07:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

:Yep, i already warned him. (Eddie The Head 07:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC))

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

Merge Page Histories?

I just noticed that there's an orphaned talk page at   , where the content page has been moved to . 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?  &ndash; Robin Hood    03:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

:Thanks, AKB!  &ndash; Robin Hood    04:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

::I don't think I did that in the most efficient way possible, but that should do it. --AKB   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.  &ndash; Robin Hood    04:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

  Just for fun,    and    are similarly orphaned. Sorry, I forgot to check these yesterday.  &ndash; Robin Hood    21:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

:While I won't claim that the article is chronologically correct, they're now merged. --AKB   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.  &ndash; Robin Hood    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. :)  &ndash; Robin Hood    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, --SerCenKing   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.  &ndash; Robin Hood    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? ~ 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   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.  &ndash; Robin Hood    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 --SerCenKing   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 this edit that led me to investigate it, because the editor apparently wasn't seeing an edit I made about 5 hours earlier to . 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. --Alfwyn 19:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

:Another anonymous editor has just had this same problem, following an incorrect redirect for Charmed Necklace that was fixed two days ago! (See Bad Redirect.)  &ndash; Robin Hood    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. •          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 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 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 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  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.

--Nephele  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  since  ? 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.  &ndash; Robin Hood    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 . I basically marks the edit as patrolled without leaving the page. Just add the following code to .
 
I figured this would help out. elliot   05:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

:Whenever we upgrade to 1.18+ and we have the Vector skin available, 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? ;)  &ndash; Robin Hood    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 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. --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.  )  &ndash; Robin Hood    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. --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. rpeh  06:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Ads obstructing pages
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.      • •   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? --          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.      • •   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 ~ 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. --AKB   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.  --AKB   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 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 Deletion Policy page.  &ndash; Robin Hood    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 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. rpeh  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. elliot   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. rpeh  09:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
::::Yeah, I just realized that. I tried to fix it with    , 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. elliot   09:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

:::::Okay, I'll Prod them in future then.  &ndash; Robin Hood    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 --          20:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

2.14.20.76
This user should probably be blocked, at least temporarily. 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. --AKB   17:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
::Thanks Alpha.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 this page. rpeh  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.  -- 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. elliot   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  are in the wrong order. They should both read:   (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!  &ndash; Robin Hood    20:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

: I've made the change. Hope everything's fine. --Legoless 21:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

:: Our tables still look like tables, so everything's fine. :) Thank you!  &ndash; Robin Hood    23:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Need some help here

Can somebody please have a word with  about his habit of erasing other users' contributions to talk pages? 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. elliot   23:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
::Official warnings/block notices are the only things that HAVE to stay, Thuum, and he has none.      • •   23:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
:::Well, you learn something new every day... 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. ThuumofReason 23:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

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? --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.  &ndash; Robin Hood    20:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

January Traffic Numbers

Since I know some people like seeing big numbers as much as I do:
center|frame|   
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. -- Daveh 14:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Anti-spam/vandalism bot
(Copied from )
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 () 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.      • •   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 Nephele would be the one to talk to since she's done a lot more work on server-side utilities than either rpeh or I have; 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 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.  &ndash; Robin Hood    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.      • •   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 Weebam-Na on that white-list, with the rant about his powdered deer penis ~ Dwarfmp 04:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

IP 95.43.37.222

The IP address 95.43.37.222 has repeatedly vandalized the  page, continuing after a warning was given, the IP obviously needs a block. (Eddie The Head 13:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC))
:Done. --Nephele  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 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? --Kotekzot 17:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
:At the moment, the grammar bit resides in the notes section. --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 ~ 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   template to it to make it easy to find.  &ndash; Robin Hood    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. --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. 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. elliot   22:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  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.  &ndash; Robin Hood    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 ~ Dwarfmp 01:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)



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.      • •   02:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

:Temporary block in place pending Admin action.  &ndash; Robin Hood    02:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Posts disappear?

Hi... my Discussion page message on 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.  

: 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. rpeh  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? 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.  &ndash; Robin Hood    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. --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?  &ndash; Robin Hood    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.,   always shows a "Newer edit" link). Also, it reverts to the older version (roughly Jan 29) on a refresh.  &ndash; Robin Hood    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! 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:  . Notice that there is no "Newer edit" on that one, despite the fact that the history shows additional edits afterwards.  &ndash; Robin Hood    00:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

: It probably has something to do with us switching back to using db2 for reads this afternoon. The 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. -- 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 [ has the same problem as CP did (still does, actually) - no "Newer edit" when there should be.  &ndash; Robin Hood    02:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

:::I saw this as well on 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.  --TheRealLurlock   04:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

::::Yeah, we're getting some really weird behaviour all over the place. I just tried to edit  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.  &ndash; Robin Hood    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. 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 Thuraya Salaris 05:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

:::::::Should we be making this more public? •          06:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 New Symptom: Naturally,  doesn't work, however transcluding from the page works. On  it shows that I've made 912 edits, but if I transclude it it (accurately) displays that I've made   edits. •          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. -- Daveh 13:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

:Not sure is this is related, but someone recently replaced a bunch of images for  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? --TheRealLurlock   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. [ but purging the image description page before did nothing. --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? 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. --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? 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.  &ndash; Robin Hood    19:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Not quite all fixed, theres still something wrong somewhere, i've just done a hard refresh of Active Users page twice, but it still disagrees with my edit count. I presume this is a similar issue? --          19:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

  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.  &ndash; Robin Hood    20:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

:Yup, confirmed. If you look at a recent spammer, DonnaHildwatere31, you will see she has no edits, nor does she show anything on her edit count page. In Active Users, however, she currently appears at 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.  &ndash; Robin Hood    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? --          20:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Archive Protection

Can an Admin please semi-protect  . They were archived and the template put on them, but never actually semi-protected. Thanks!  &ndash; Robin Hood    03:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
:Oops. Sorry. Thought the template autoprotected automatically. Sorry. Thanks, RobinHood... —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. :)  &ndash; Robin Hood    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. —SkoomaManiac 03:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
::::It's really not necessary. Looking at  , there are so few protections done, it wouldn't be worth having that many who could protect pages.  &ndash; Robin Hood    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. --AKB   04:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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

If you look over 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 pagesan agreement he apparently calls invalid since he wasn't in it. And then he was harassing and attacking them [ here and here. Rpeh then 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.      • •   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.      • •   06:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Votes
Support: as proposer.      • •   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) 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. —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. elliot   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. ~ 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.      • •   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. rpeh  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.      • •   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. 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   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.  &ndash; Robin Hood    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. Kitkat   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. -- 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. -- 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. rpeh  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. -- 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 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.      • •   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. --Timenn-  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. 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. 

-- 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. 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. -- 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. --Nephele  16:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
::  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. ~ 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. --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 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 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.  &ndash; Robin Hood    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. --          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.  &ndash; Robin Hood    21:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

  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 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. elliot   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. --Timenn-  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.  &ndash; Robin Hood    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. --Timenn-  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. --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 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.  &ndash; Robin Hood    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.      • •   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. –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. 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. •          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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Kitkat   10:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

 
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. -- 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 ~ 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?  &ndash; Robin Hood    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? --          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. --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? 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.)  &ndash; Robin Hood    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. 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 Daveh." –SkoomaManiac 22:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

:I made an outline for the temp admins 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!      •   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 the Administrators page. Is there somewhere else I'm not thinking of?  &ndash; Robin Hood    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 here and here.      •   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.  &ndash; Robin Hood    06:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

:::::Hey guys, sorry for not seeing this before. As RH has stated before, I'm got my hands well full with uni work so, I'm afraid I won't be able to contribute to the site much in the next few months. I'd therefore just like to clarify that I'm not intending to stand or be nominated for permanent adminship. I would like to compliment all of you for the great strides UESP has taken in the past few months and wish you all the best. --SerCenKing   14:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Numbering is a bit off...

Look here. Does anyoone else see the numbers going way off the left side of the page? •          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. --Velyanthe 01:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
::Is off the page here as well. Thuraya Salaris 01:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
:::What black magic is this?! 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):
::::left
::::# One
::::# Two
::::# Three
 
::::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.  &ndash; Robin Hood    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. elliot   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. :)  &ndash; Robin Hood    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. 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.  &ndash; Robin Hood    19:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
:Fine by me. --Nephele  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!  &ndash; Robin Hood    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? elliot   01:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
::::The "a" before withdrawal seems superfluous.      •   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.  &ndash; Robin Hood    01:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)