UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard/Archive 14

ModderElGrande

So, I ran an IP check on him after his recent edits to , and found that he's 78.147.79.254 who has been blocked for personal attacks. The fact that he did the vandalism using an anonymous IP in an attempt to cover his tracks is also troubling. Now he did apologize for something, so I'm hesitant to perma-block him. Personally, I don't have a problem with just a week block, mainly since he apologized, but I wanted to make sure nobody wanted a longer one.--Ratwar 17:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
:For interested parties, he's also begun an appeal to the block. Edit: He has now owned up to the incident in question and has made what seems to be a sincere appology. With the exception of his recent edits to DUMG's talk page, his edits do seem to be in good faith. I'm okay with just the temporary block. Dlarsh  18:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
::I am not opposed to either a week block or an indefinite block (not too big on the remorse=leniency). But if the week block holds, we should obviously have him on a "probation", so to speak. –Elliot   20:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

benefitting from your collective wisdom. . .maybe.

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

 

 

A little addition
(moved to )

Vandalism?

Hey, I've just been scanning the recent changes log and I noticed this. Do you think this is vandalism or just a strange edit? --ModderElGrande 23:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
:No, it's not vandalism. --   / talk'' 23:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
::On a side note I thought the edit was in good faith but I posted it here just for confirmation purposes. I don't want to give out a warning for an edit in good faith. --ModderElGrande 23:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
:::Should I give a notice to him/her for adding false info or would that be unnecessary? I'm hesitant to give him/her or warning because I'm kinda 50% thinking it's in good faith, but I'm also 50% thinking it could be delibrate vandalism too, so I don't know. --ModderElGrande 23:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
::::What makes you think it's vandalism? The edit made is definitely not vandalism if you read the article; it's talking about possible drug addict ideas for roleplaying. It seems that the edit is not only 100% in good faith, but also 100% thoughtful, creative, and not false. You shouldn't give a warning or notice. -- Jplatinum16 01:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::Alright then. I don't want to take action if the edit's in good faith.  --ModderElGrande 10:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

 

Files/Images Server

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

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

Squid Server Issue

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

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

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

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

:I'm now getting frequent errors and redirects to EQWiki when looking at uesp.net. Is this just the DNS propagation issue? I wouldn't have thought that would change between requests for the same page. ?     20:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
::I getting the same stuff as what Joram is getting. At first I thought we got hacked and I can't access any of Daveh's user pages, not even his talk page. I was going to ask him why it was redirecting but it seems he already knows and has posted it here. What I don't get is why it redirects to EQWiki rather than just showing "can't find server." Very odd. --ModderElGrande 20:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
:::I'm getting Can't find server.--Corevette789 20:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Update --  I received the squid1 with a new hard drive sooner than expected and got it setup/tested and the DNS entries were just switched back. It should slowly come back into service as the DNS changes propagate. As usual, if you notice anything amiss just let me know. -- Daveh 02:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
:Will do Daveh! --ModderElGrande 21:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Lookie what I got

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

    (SQL query hidden)

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

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

:More details are needed, like:
::* What page were you on?
::* What were you doing (saving a page, editing a page, uploading a file, etc...)?
::* Other relevant factors...
: -- Daveh 01:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Patrolling CSS/JS pages

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

Elliot - Abuse of Power

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

This is a clear case of power abuse. Wikipedia policy contains clear restrictions intended to stop administrators or other "senior" editors from using their extra powers to "win" arguments. Please can an administrator rule on this matter? 204.45.58.234 17:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
:This happened exactly as I predicted and I want nothing to do with this argument. I tried under the best of my power, without breaking policy, to stop things like this from happening, but to no avail. I am sorry to Elliot and Rpeh for getting involved.--Corevette789 17:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
::Well this is intriguing. 
::#You did edit war. Three reverts of my edit is edit warring. 
::#What I stated was not a personal attack, so learn the difference before you tear through a tantrum. Calling me a troll, though, is a personal attack. Ouch, how does that feel?
::#Your warning on my page, therefore, constitutes vandalism. (You have no grounds for a warning.)
::# IPs seem t always magically complain about me... I wonder why? Yeah, you know who you are. 
::# I have always held the position that IPs should not be allowed to edit, and this is precisely the reason. You first edit, reverting my edit, reveals your blatant intentions. 
::#People use section protection on warnings all the time, as that is their purpose. It's nice to see you word rules to enhance your weak argument. –Elliot   17:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

:::::# Read the rules. "3RR is a bright line where action now becomes almost certain if not already taken. It is not an "entitlement" to revert a page a specific number of times."
:::::# If that is what you consider a personal attack, the internet is no place for you.
:::::# Yes, it actually was.
:::::# Wow, all the IPs that seem to have a personal vendetta against me always mention that. Coincidence? I think not!
:::::# I really don't care if they do. It doesn't make them right. 
:::::# You know a lot for being a little IP. You obviously have past experience on this site and a personal issue with me.
:::::I warned you because you edit warred. –Elliot   18:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Username Question

Would MartinAndJauffreAreLovers count as an unacceptable username? The reason why I am asking this is because someone's recently joined up with that name. --ModderElGrande 01:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
:Okay, I've checked out MAJAL's userpage and it contains some pretty inappropriate content too, is he block-worthy? --ModderElGrande 01:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
::I checked the page and I didn't see too much "inappropriate content" other than the username and the "they have publicly declared their love for each other" part.--Corevette789 01:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
:::There is nothing really wrong with it, nor is it block worthy. –Elliot   01:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
::::  Even if you want to consider homosexuality to be an adult topic (which, for fairly obvious reasons, I would have a bias on), there's   on the wiki, so I don't think it's a problem...apart from the fact that "Juaffre" is misspelled. ;)  ?      01:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::As long as the nonsense doesn't spill into other namespaces, it's fine. He's only adding content to the user namespace, so I don't believe that there's a problem. --Michaeldsuarez   02:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

98.218.8.19

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

I'm convinced that 98.218.8.19 is ready for a temporary (if not permanent) block. His/her edits have been nothing but disruptive, obscene, and all of his/her contributions are nonsense edits. He/she has already been given a warning but he/she has ignored the warning and has continued making nonsense edits. I think the IP is more than ready for a block. --ModderElGrande 09:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
:They did not edit once the warning was issued; therefore, no block is needed. –Elliot   16:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
::Me and GK got all of those edits, and even before the warning was issued the vandalism stopped.--Corevette789 20:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

80.202.122.175

This anon has only made one edit after the warning I issued. I will wait for one more because I am going to assume he hasn't seen the warning yet.--Corevette789 23:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
:Yes that is another. I am requesting a block for the IP 80.202.122.175--Corevette789 23:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Redgaurd page protection

Moved from page: Redguard

I think some administrator should protect this page, or semi-protect it, because it has suffered many attacks in the past and, lets face it, there are alot of racist people out there who will continue to bash redguards untill stopped.--Arch-Mage Matt 01:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
:I second this, I looked at the history and it isn't as bad as the Journal page, but It is one of the worst I don't think it would hurt.--             01:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
::This is best brought up on the Administrator Noticeboard.  ?      02:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Superblood

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

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

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

De-Patrollership Request for Elliot

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:"having or showing good manners; polite."
:"mannerly, gracious, courtly. See civil." 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

: I agree with everything that has been said and I'm glad this has now been resolved. It's a pity that this debate was used to make snide remarks about GK and SerCenKing, both of whom have behaved perfectly throughout the process. rpeh  05:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Consensus: Remove Patroller Rights

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

Warnings for Elliot and 204.45.58.234

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

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

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

 

 

New Templates

Hi, I've created some new templates that can be placed on people's talk pages. The templates I've created are the "only warning template" and "final warning template" as seen on Wikipedia. If needed, admins can change them if they want. To find them, look in Sandbox 4 on my userpage. --       18:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
:These are unnecessary because we only give one warning. Wikipedia, on the other hand, gives four warnings. –  23:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
::I agree.  I don't foresee any circumstance that these would be used.  --GK  00:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocking Fury and friends

Fury and his several names (Swisschease and Fireandwatercat, and I'm sure he'll make more) have attacked me in my userpage and his IP address should get a block--   20:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
:He also has another alt account or many.
:* Fury
:*Okoklol
:*Huhisthisit
:Please could someone block all of these? Thanks! --       20:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
::Now Horsey! and Heytherepies! as well--   20:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
:::C'mon Timenn and GK, come online! (Only mentioned those two seeing as they are the only active admins) --       20:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
::::Who are timen and gk?(just curious...) 
:::::They're the two only active admins on the wiki. --       20:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
::::::Are these user names(or whatever) for ppl who are gonna be blocked(wait these user names sounds like my cousins favorite words....) anyway nvm (ok ive just lost my mind.....lol!!!)  
:::::::Full list of names--   20:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)   
:::::::*Lichesarecool (he hasnt done anything but this was the userbox that was the first thing Fury edited on my page)   
:::::::*Horsey!    
:::::::*Huhisthisit   
:::::::*Okoklol ?    
:::::::*Heytherepies!?    
:::::::*Wtfhacks?   
:::::::*Fireandwatercat ?    
:::::::*Swisschease ?    
:::::::*Fury
::::::::(edit conflict) We could have another too. A user called Mmmcookies. --       20:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::And Marcus21.--   20:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::Definatly Mmmcookies--   21:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::But what can we do? None of us are admins so we can't block him. We need to wait for Timenn or GK to come online. --       21:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::::Well, we should keep adding the users here if they keep coming, so the admins could have easy access to all them. And its just reverting edits for us... good greif--   21:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

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

:GK you are a lifesaver! --       07:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

 

Restart
Sorry to bring this section back from the dead but it seems that there's another irritant determined to cause trouble. Has there been progress on the getting-admins-able-to-assign-the-group score, or is it worth asking Daveh to add the current group of active patrollers to the group for the moment? rpeh  19:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

 

Another Notice

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

 A user other than yourself has edited your userpage.

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

:Use  instead. --Michaeldsuarez   19:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

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

 

Make a book function

Wouldn't it be nice to add a 'make a book' function? Like on wikipedia?   17:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
:What exactly are you referring to? Could you provide a link?--             17:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
::I believe anon is talking about this:  --   / talk'' 18:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
:Sure, it's pediapress.com   18:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
::Yes, that uses the collection extension, which isn't installed at UESP. --   / talk'' 18:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
:::I only skimmed the functionality, but I don't see that being a huge benefit to UESP.  I think other than the Lore pages, this site is mostly used as a spot-reference, so I can't see how making a book out of certain pages would do all that much for most people.  ?      18:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
::::I think it would be nice to have some kind of a souvenir, and a book is, for me, an exelent choise. 

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

Forum problems

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

Tysonne

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

Spam block

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

request a block

requesting block for 68.96.46.16 


continued vandalism after a warning was given - attacking the same page with obscenities  

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

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

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

Krusty
: 
:archived to ; consensus: support

Request for Block of Rpeh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::::::

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

::::::::: Elliot's changing of this section's title - again without having done anything useful on the site in the interim - is more proof of his incessant trolling. rpeh  00:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

::I am not the one insulting other editors. I am not the one who sits there smugly because every single user on this site is blinded by your repeated reminding of your edit count. You continue to call me a troll (personal attacks), and based on all of the trouble you have caused (unlike you, I have never been blocked here), I believe it is in the best interest of the site to see you leave. I was not disrupting the channel, since I was asking you where exactly I attacked you. Your continued attacks are enough to block you, let alone all prior engagements. ''   ( )  00:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
::And the 3RR was a mistake by me; I mixed the AN and CP reverts together by mistake.    ( ) '' 00:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

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

::::If any other editors voice concerns, I'd be happy to hold a vote regarding to rpeh's eligibility for his position.  As it stands, it seems rather personal and irrelevant.
::::*Elliot:   could technically be considered where your trolling began.  You have a habit of swooping in and making rude comments - demands and orders even; you contribute nearly exclusively when you have something to complain about; you barge into a discussion and expect everyone to immediately accept your perspective as gospel.  As of  , you are undoubtedly trolling.  You are not attempting to amicably solve a disagreement, but making baseless accusations that have nothing to do with the template changes being discussed.  This is trolling.
::::*rpeh:  Perhaps your concerns about Elliot's methods would be better addressed on his talk page, rather than in the discussion he's attempting to disrupt.
::::Once again, unless there are other legitimate concerns voiced by other editors, I find holding a vote for rpeh's removal of rights/"indefinite block"ing pointless; it would also be another form of feeding the troll.  I look forward to hearing the opinions of other members of the community.  --GK  03:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

 Elliot, please remember that I was there when you came in, and you were spoiling for a fight.  Please recall how many times I have emphasized to you that the IRC channel is intended "to allow amicable, informal discussions about UESPWiki and the UESP site in general."  Please remind yourself that "channel operators have authority to enforce these guidelines as they see fit, in particular in cases where one channel user is disrupting other users of the channel."  In other words, when a user comes in trolling (intent on arguing, disrupting the channel, and refusing to drop the subject when told to do so) ops have the authority to kick them.  --GK'''  03:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
:That's a load of bull and you know it. ''   ( )  03:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
:: I was not around last night when the whole IRC incident took place – but I was logged in all night long and I have just read through the conversation in its entirety. I have also read through the topics on both the AN and CP (the CP one was not new to me, though) and I’ll have to agree with GK all the way; your very first comment to the CP was both demanding and commanding and had very little to do with a friendly suggestion. We have been over this before, but here we go again – you might type posts like that with a big grin on your face but you come off as better knowing and a bit patronizing, which is bound to net you a reaction. Rpeh pointed out that you were wrong and the rest is something we have seen way too many times. Last night, you entered the IRC clearly looking for trouble and – without a ’hello’ or anything just went into a fight with rpeh. Now, I have no idea why you keep doing this, why you are going through all the trouble and endless bickering – but I do know that rpeh blocked you (for 10 minutes only!) for all the right reasons. The discussion was going nowhere and the IRC is not the right place. Still, when you were unblocked you kept arguing and even posted an official complaint, reverted RH70’s attempt to get the Template discussion back on track (with the ES “Remove ridiculous hiding”), changed your original complaint to a perma-block request, kept bickering on the IRC and so on. That is trolling, that is unneeded drama and most importantly, it is a violation of the guidelines for the IRC and the Wiki. --Krusty 08:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
:::Indeed, I was foolish enough to believe that you would not also be blinded by whatever it is rpeh has over members. But alas, I am over this, and have no intention to return to such blindness.    ( ) '' 08:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
::::I'll tell you what rpeh "has over members": respect. Something that you've never gained with your actions. Goodbye then Elliot, we'll all be in tears and waving hankerchiefs as you depart. --SerCenKing   08:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::Who knew such behavior garners respect? Trust me, I will be in eternal tears for not having left this site sooner. ''   ( ) '' 09:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC) 
::::::Hmm. Well I'm perhaps not the best judge of what is/isn't a personal attack but raking up things from a year ago that have been settled already certainly seems to fit that to me. All together while I (and I'm sure everyone else) wish that no-one has to leave I'm glad that if one of you does it isn't Rpeh.--  20:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::::You just have no idea, do you? ''   ( ) '' 00:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
\=> Rather than rehash the same story again, I would like to express a few points, so we can avoid these events in the future. 
Elliot, when you have issues with another editor, next time contact a third editor or ask the community's help without making demands. 
This is not the right place to start discussions about IRC. There is a special project page for that, please notify us of issues there.
The banning of Elliot only took 10 minutes. It should be noted that Elliot had been kicked before in that same session, but since he has auto-join on kick enabled he immediately joined the channel again. That renders kicking useless, so a short ban is quite logical (and common practice in such situations). 
rpeh, when you see a discussion get out of hand like this, try to involve other editors sooner, or hold back replying for a while so it slows down a bit. Even when the other party is quick to respond and seems intent upon escalation it will do less harm to stall for time.
Elliot, make up your mind. Either say you resign and stay true to your word, or be honest in your intention that you prefer staying around to contribute to the wiki.
And finally, Elliot if I see you making one more comment like the above reply to TheAlbinoOrc, an editor not involved in the current issue, I'll issue a warning to you. I don't want to see you making such dismissive comments to editors again. 
--Timenn-  13:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
:Timmen: I admit that I may have been unclear as to my meaning, if it had been brought up in a different context, and not as (to quote Elliot) "Who knew such behavior garners respect? Trust me, I will be in eternal tears for not having left this site sooner." I wouldn't have had a problem with it, however the way I worded my post it sounded like no matter how or where it had been brought up I would have objected to it. Elliot: I actually do know what I'm talking about, I've gone through the archives of Rpeh's talk page and the Administrator Noticeboard for the relevant time period so I have both sides of the story.--  18:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
:Timmen, is it okay to call other users trolls? ''   ( ) '' 23:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

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

::AlbinoOrc, I used the reply to you as example for the tendency Elliot has shown to dismiss editors like that. Editors are encouraged to participate in discussions, so Elliot cannot dismiss people like that. --Timenn-  09:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
:::A tendency to dismiss editors who were not in the private conversations. Yes, I have that right. But it is good to no you don't care when a patroller calls another member a troll (you still haven't told him to avoid personal attacks). Anywho, this will be my last edit. ''   ( ) '' 13:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

24.8.19.11

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

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

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

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

help

 

Request to remove warning

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

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

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

::I agreed with RobinHood. Both of you shouldn't let Internet grudges wreck UESP. --Michaeldsuarez   21:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
:::I would like more people to address this. I received a warning to for stating that rpeh was trolling, yet rpeh has continued to call me a troll without any backlash. I placed a warning lately since he felt like continuing it, yet he reverted it by insulting me again. Something must be done because he is out of control. ''   ( )  03:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

:::: Okay, this has got to stop. You might have noticed that neither of the administrators have removed the warning, nor did any of us bother to react to this request. The warning was put there for a reason and that is because you are showing trolling behavior. You ONLY pop in to cause trouble when you see the chance, which was clearly evident in the rpeh vs RobinHood70 conversation from last night. You can’t convince me that you were really interested in the discussion at all – your goal was clearly to push rpeh in the wrong direction, keeping up the ”you didn’t answer my question”-routine and generally being unconstructive. The ”unconstructive” part is what really makes you deserve the warning. A lot of editors are held back from constructive work because of your constant interruptions, bickering, warnings, accusations and so on. So: Stay true to your word and stay away from the site – or come back and make good and constructive work, because right now you are wasting our time. --Krusty 09:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::Good to know that you allow certain users to break rules but not others. Can he do no wrong?    ( )  09:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
: I wasn’t really trying to debate anything here. I was telling you that the warning is official and that you really should consider your behavior. And please stop using edit summaries like that. --Krusty 10:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
::It isn't yours'' to call or decide. It is the community's decision, not yours.  And two members have expressed the illogical behavior brought on by the warning. ''   ( ) '' 15:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
:::Let's recall he is an Admin, he has talked about the topic with a lot of the Community and he is an unaffected third party. Plus, he was not deciding anything. Take that as his vote for it to stay.--             16:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
::::I am not retarded. Saying "I wasn’t really trying to debate anything  here. I was telling you that the warning is official..." is definitely and authoritative push. ''   ( )  16:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

: Yes, I'm familiar with that document but nobody on Wikipedia would dream of applying it in a situation where somebody was deleting content according to personal whims rather than policy and then refusing to admit the mistake. I note that you have still failed to fulfill the simple request I made of you, so I'm going to assume you take the second of the two choices. rpeh  22:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

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

:::This conversation is about removing comments made by somebody editing through a proxy for the sole reason that they were editing through a proxy. Persistent trolling is an entirely different matter. rpeh  23:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
::::We [are supposed to] block proxies on sight. So why is removing their contributions such a big deal?    ( ) '' 00:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

:::::::And you're trolling again. I have answered every question posed to me. I have answered them fully, with references to the relevant policies. Please go back and re-read my answers, read the links and learn from the experience. Further correspondence on this matter will not be entered into. rpeh  01:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::::And you are attacking again. I don't care what the policies say about removing it. I am asking why it is such a big deal. You have no qualms with blocking them, but removing their statements is such a crime against them? I wish for you to address that. And just because I don't agree with you gives you no right to call it trolling. I thought you would have learned by now. 
::::::::But still, there is nothing wrong with removing the comments, RH. If some wish for it to be written in stone, then I suggest going through that process. If we are going to permit blocking of proxies (which should be seen as the be all end all of wiki retribution), then removing comments is no big deal. ''   ( )  01:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::Quite simply, if it looks like a troll, sounds like a troll, and acts like a troll, it's probably a troll. Me? I'm trying to get a definitive, referenced list of Septim emperors and it's bloody hard because there are lots of sources, lots of sources that need references to other sources and lots of sources that contradict other sources. Elliot is posting irrelevant nonsense designed to distract people. So tell me: what part of "troll" is inaccurate in this case? rpeh  02:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
::::And I'm sure a huge Do not feed the troll was not meant to aggrivate Elliot, when no one else was feeding the arguement besides you and Elliot. Another note- If it looks like a hamster, sounds like a hamster, and acts like a hamster, it could very well be a Guinea pig. Even if you think it's something, it could be another. Asking how can Elliot be anything else than a troll, I don't know, becuase I won't defend him. But if he stops acting like a kid, turns around and starts helping the site, what I said will be true.--   02:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::AMM, I hate to just shoot you down, but personal attacks + starting things in the public= trolling. That's just the end of it. As it turns out, he is much worse with attacks on IRC.--             03:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::I don't have IRC but from what I see here, Elliot reverting things of Rpeh's is just as bad as Rpeh reverting edits of Elliot's. What I have wanted to say for a long time, and I'm truly sorry for sounding offensive, but just get over it and ignore each other, both of you, and get back to actually doing good work for the site or leave- permenantly.--   03:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::::AMM, excuse me but I ''am doing good things for the site. The entire point of this is that Elliot is stopping''' people from doing good things for the site and not doing anything useful himself. This is a case where both sides of the dispute are not equal: Elliot is a troll - and again, I'll ask you for evidence of useful things he has done lately. rpeh  03:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  I see the 3rd of Febuary, I took a quick look that was the first thing I saw.--             03:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
:Since you seem so  fixated on Wikipedia, I will bring up  WP:NPA,  WP:NOSPADE, and  WP:Civility. Your constant calling me a troll breaks policies, and I  want you warned or blocked for doing it multiple times. ''   ( )  03:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::::(Rpeh) I say again that I will not defend him. Elliot is not stopping anyone from doing anything, as he is not reverting my edits to help the site, or anything similar. He is in a lone arguement with you, preventing you from putting any accusation on him. If you keep saying not to feed the troll, he will remove it, and start up a whole new argument on how that was bad. I see no point in a DNFTT sign, if you alone stop bickering, Elliot will have nothing better to do but to leave.. --   03:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::AMM, I even tried the "let me help you" line. It did't work. I tried the "ignore him and he'll go away" line, but it doesn't work because he's such a pathological troll that he keeps coming back. He spends his time disrupting UESP with trolling posts, insulting other users through email and IRC and generally getting in the way of anybody trying to do anything useful. I'm not going to link you to UESPWatch, but there are plenty of examples there. Until Elliot is blocked for good from this site, he will continue to troll, insult and disrupt other users. There is no longer any reason why this does not happen. rpeh  03:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

: I call you a troll because that's all you are. You started well here and I even supported you in your election to the post of patroller. Since then, you have demonstrated a total lack of respect for the site's editors and its staff. You call the admins "idiots" and "fools" and generally treat everybody with contempt. While other people seek to improve the site, you seek solely to gain power on, or disrupt it. That is why you are a troll. I stand my description, as there is simply no other description that fits you. rpeh  04:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
::What do you think would happen if I called you an ass and stated I said that because that is what fits you? What would happen then? Even if someone is something, calling them that is a violation of rules. And don't try to say But I am not one, so your argument is crap. ''   ( ) '' 04:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Finally, seeing Elliot's post here. This is my last unofficial warning, please stop making posts like that. Would you have replied to RobinHood's initial question in your first post it would have been a different matter, but I find this post too provocative to ignore. --Timenn-  12:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
:You find it easy to ignore that big ass banner up there that is beyond reprehensible, so excuse me if I find that–that is the single post of mine or rpeh's which you can't ignore–hard to believe. ''   ( )  15:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 

Characters, Fanfiction etc. Our (Nonexistent) Policy.
Discussion moved to the Community Portal.''

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

Thank you.

Account Information 
                                    
UserName: Team Xlink 
                                                     
Email: TeamXlinkSolitudeDev@gmail.com  

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

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