UESPWiki:Patrollers/Nominations/Completed/2010a

Ninja Hinder
I've been wanting to be a patroller for the past year now. To prepare myself I've been making minor edits on many pages and looking at Recent Changes several times a day to see if anything needs to be fixed. I am certain that I've fulfilled all of the unofficial criteria, and I'd really love to finally become a patroller. Ninja Hinder 19:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose: I only see nine contributions in the last two months, all of which are roleplaying suggestions or user talk comments. Before that there are a few patroller-like edits, but I don't think there are nearly enough. Much more evidence of watching Recent Changes would be needed before I could vote Yay in this case. I don't watch RC as closely as I used to, but I don't think Ninja meets the "I don't need to patrol his edits" criterion yet. rpeh  20:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose: Per rpeh. These things need more than "I've been here for a year"; these things needs commitment. Try contributing more time and effort here. --Michaeldsuarez   01:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose: Most of your edits have been to the roleplaying pages or other pages that can't really be considered content pages. I also haven't seen that many edits involving the recent changes, so this is an oppose for now.           10:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose: Sorry, but nine edits in two months are not enough activity to become a patroller. --Krusty 11:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose: You may officially meet the requirements, but I fail to see how your gaining patroller rights would benefit the wiki.  You've made less than 150 edits to gamespaces, and about half of them were made to "Roleplaying" articles.  The majority of your edits are to userspace, which I'm not vehemently against, but once again; how would your becoming a patroller help you contribute to the wiki?  Finally, I'm simply not comfortable having your edits automatically marked as patrolled.  Of the four gamespace edits you've made in the last two months, one was an undo and three were "roleplaying" edits, and two of them contained typos.  I can't support you as a patroller at this time.  --GK  01:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose: I'm sorry, while it is appreciated that you monitor the Recent Changes and make fixes where you deem them necessary, I think you have too few edits in that context for me to make a good evaluation on what kind of patroller you are going to be. I haven't seen enough of your recent edits that can persuade me that your edits no longer need checking. --Timenn-  15:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
:* Comment: Inexperienced. Also, before I can give a more in-depth view is there any way I can see all of the user's contributions? --ModderElGrande 00:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
::Yeah, whenever you look at any contribs (yours, for instance), there's a box at the top that has the username...  just change it.  --GK  03:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Consensus
:Oppose --GK  03:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

S'drassa
I'd like to nominate S'drassa for patrollership.  His edits, especially recently, have all been of good-faith and helpful to other editors.  He's shown he knows his way around the wiki and can answer questions competently and politely.  He's also shown that he knows what's worthy of staying on the wiki and what needs to be adjusted, which is what we need in a patroller.  Plus, we wouldn't have to patrol his edits!  ;)  --GK  06:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I officially accept the nomination.--  •     •   15:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Votes
Support: As nominator.  --GK  06:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Support: Assuming S'drassa accepts, of course. Clearly a good editor who checks facts and spends time on each edit. –rpeh  10:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Support: I've got nothing else to add, really. He seems more than capable of handling the resposibilities of being a Patoller. Dlarsh  20:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose: A good editor, but I am not convinced that he has enough experience to be a patroller. He hast only been here for a very short time and doesn't really have enough to edits to vouch for the description of "experienced" (the current set-up/requirements are nigh ridiculous in my opinion). Spending time on each edit is nice and all, but I don't believe he is ready at the current moment. I would most likely support in a few months, but, as from my own experience, two months is not enough time (regardless of who you are). Keep up the good work, S'drassa, as you are definitely the "front-runner" for the next patroller. –Elliot   20:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Support: S'drassa is already checking on recent changes and performing many of the responsibilities of a patroller. We might as well make it official.--Ratwar 22:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose: Per Elliot; she or he lacks experience. S'drassa should check the edit history when reverting, since she or he has missed bad-faith edits in the past. I also have to question whether S'drassa knows or cares about the edit history at all. Since this is a Creative Commons-''Attributions''-Share Alike wiki, the list of authors and their contributions (edit history) must be preserved. "Missplacing" the edit history in the matter that S'drassa did may be seen as a copyright violation. Since these issues occurred as recently as November and December, I would recommend waiting until S'drassa has more experience. --Michaeldsuarez   14:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Support: Not much to say. He is already doing a really good job as a patroller and we might as well make him one. --Krusty 19:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Support: Even though S'drassa is a relative new editor and has "weaknesses" (as I will call it), I think he's up for the job. We all have "weaknesses", and I don't think he's too inexperienced or too new either. We could definitely use another patroller, and frankly, I think he has done the most "patrolling" these days (or at least a great deal of it).           21:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Support: Like others have said, S'drassa is a little new, but I believe this proves that he can learn fast. He's already looking at the recent changes page and has been practicing templates, showing his dedication, though with winter break ending, I'm sure he'll be a little busier :) Plus, he does answer a lot of questions that others overlook. -- Jplatinum16 22:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose: I don't think S'drassa has enough experience at being a patroller, he/she has not made enough edits to become a patroller. Basically all what Elliot and Michaeldsuarez said. -- ModderElGrande
Support: I think S'drassa is fully capable of becoming a patroller, he's already more than proven it in the short amount of time he's been here. It seems like he genuinely wants to help aid the wiki's progress, and patrolling should help him accomplish that. --  -   -   22:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Support: Even though he may be new to UESP (I am too for that matter) he helps quite a bit, and if you look at talk pages alot, you see S'drassa's comments constantly helpful. Mikeyboy52 07:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Support: S'drassa has done a great job recently in patrolling recent changes and he works hard and well. Honestly I don't even check his edits anymore, 99% of the time I just patrol them. So it's definitely a yes. --SerCenKing   20:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Support: One fine editor. He's already doing the patrolling work by looking at what needs doing, and replying to editors' questions. Furthermore, to address the argument raised about experience. Citing a few mistakes doesn't really prove a point unless it strengthens a specific character attribute you wish to point out. We all make mistakes from time to time, but instead S'drassa has shown he intends to learn from them and listen to other editors. Thus I feel confident that any rough edges that might show up can easily be addressed, and in turn S'drassa can add something new to the community himself.  That is what I feel is more important than how many edits a person has. Spending a great deal of time on research and thought on a single edit can count for more than a small tweak done a great number of articles. You can't evaluate the work someone has done as an absolute. --Timenn-  19:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment: I find it troubling that you base some of your support on potential actions. All we have to go on is what he has done; and I have not been impressed. Yes, people learn, but it is better to learn before becoming a patroller. That is something I regret with myself. –Elliot   19:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment: I had to go to the IRC and tell  about the edit war in order to revolve the issue. S'drassa should've tried to contact an administrator. Instead, S'drassa kept on reverting a persistent user. The solution could've been handled better. Rather, I think that this nomination is more of a popularity contest at the moment at anything. Check the history of certain pages; look at S'drassa's talk page; make unbiased judgments based on what you see. We shouldn't rely on blind faith and assume that S'drassa is going to be better in the future. Really, this reminds me of how Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize without doing much to deserve it. In addition, answering questions isn't a task of a Patroller. --Michaeldsuarez   20:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment: It wasn't just an edit war. The anon editor repeatedly added other nonsense to the article and S'drassa was totally correct in removing it. There were only two cases where S'drassa removed only the note, and in between those two edits, another patroller also removed it as part of another undo. These were the actions that should be expected of a patroller and trying to characterize it as anything else is unfair and incorrect. I'm not making decisions based on what I expect, I'm making them based on what I've seen: an impressive editor making good decisions. Lastly, bringing the Nobel Peace Prize into it is totally irrelevant. –rpeh  20:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment: You don't get it. S'drassa should've did what I did: tell an admin. An admin can protect the page or block the user, either of which would've ended edit war earlier. S'drassa didn't tell anyone about it and allowed the edit war to continue. Obama won the Nobel Prize less than one year in office (too early). Both S'drassa and Obama needed more time before being nominated; it's a metaphor. --Michaeldsuarez   20:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment: Irrelevant but true, rpeh! Anyway, from what I've seen of S'Drassa I can't say I would oppose his nomination in any way, but I do agree that the situation is question could have been handled better. Nonetheless, I am tempted to agree with Timenn, and I think he could easily be a successful patroller given some time. -Itachi 21:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment: I know this may come as a surprise but I would like to clarify some points: First of all yes, I know I was wrong about that, but as I said to GK when she started a conversation in my talk page I thought that the vandal had stopped posting that note because of the lapse  in which he was doing it and besides I don't even think it qualifies as an edit war since the undoing was made in a lapse of 5 hours, and I have also known how to deal with these things in the past. Second of all, that comment about that I don't care about the copyrights is far away from the truth and the link that Michaeldsuarez gave is incomplete and I also learned from that mistake. Third, after that small incident of the vandalism confusion I have never repeated it again, and you can check my contribs from that point and forward to verify it. This is just for you to see that I can learn from my mistakes and that I've been contributing in other things. Thanks Rpeh and Itachi, for your comments earlier, but it seems that I'm already hated around here by some users and I do not know why. And FYI, Elliot also became a patroller "too soon", since he only joined the site in May and became a patroller in June so I don't see why I'm being treated differently.  --  •     •   21:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment: I'd like to point out that S'drassa did not engage in an edit war.  Two reverts does not an edit war make, and (as I noted in my discussion with S'drassa on his talk page) this is not the normal situation since the IP in question made clearly vandalous edits immediately prior to this situation.  S'drassa could have contacted an admin, but there's no reason he should have, because it was not an edit war.  Also, I'm disturbed by the amount of hostility displayed by a couple of the editors here, and I'm having a hard time determining how some of the comments left here could possibly be intended for the benefit of the wiki.  Please, everyone, step back and take a look at this situation logically.  --GK  21:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment: S'drassa, there isn't anyone here treating this nomination any differently than Elliot's. There are only three users opposing you. I wasn't active when Elliot was nominated, and I would've opposed his nomination if I were around at the time.  is a new user, so he wasn't around at the time as well.  has also stated that he regrets accepting the nomination. Accusing us of acting differently towards Elliot is wrong. In fact, this resembles Elliot's nomination greatly, especially since only a fringe minority is opposing you. In addition, I don't hate you; I just don't trust you with the rights available to a Patroller at the moment. Your talk page reinforces my opinion that you're not experienced enough yet. I'm just suggesting that we wait a little longer. Personally, I think claim that we're treating you differently than Elliot and the claim that we somehow "hate" you to be signs of inexperience and misjudgment. --Michaeldsuarez   22:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment: Okay, I think I overreacted with that claim. But still, basing on my talk page is simply wrong since that's not where it shows what I've been doing and how I improved my work. If you look at my sandbox (up in the first comment) you will see that I've been greatly contributing to the OBNPCRP aside of just been reverting some things and answering questions, and I did that claim because for the way you posted your comments above it would seem that you were trying to make me look bad. And I'm not the only one that thought so, it seems. Sorry if I misjudged it, sadly the internet doesn't display the emotions when replying :/ --  •     •   22:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment: I am basically saying you shouldn't grow through this based on my own personal experience as a new editor who became a patroller. Believe me, I like, and I would nominate you a few months down the road if no else had. It doesn't take patroller rights to continue what you are doing, and the longer you edit as a normal editor, the easier the transition becomes. I am not going to doubt my current abilities as an editor, but if I had gone into the nomination a tad more comfortable and skilled, some events that played out could have been different. Feel free to e-mail me if you have further inquiries about what happened once I became a patroller. Good luck. –Elliot   01:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment: Jeez Michaelduarez thanks for calling me out like that.  
Comment: All I did was to say that you weren't here when Elliot was nominated, since S'drassa claimed that we were somehow treating him differently than Elliot. Really, UESP is repeating the same mistakes again; neither Elliot nor S'drassa should've been nominated so early. --Michaeldsuarez   01:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Consensus
:Support --Ratwar 05:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Arch-Mage Matt
I feel a bit full of myself doing this, but here it goes. I've been here for a while and I'm getting a bit tired of being the Helper in the Shadows. So I'm nominating myself. I think I'm ready for the next step of responsibility to patroller. --Arch-Mage Matt 21:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Strengths
I'm really good at spelling, if I really am unsure of a word I actually pull up Microsoft Word and spellcheck it.
I already have been checking the recent changes frequently, to practice.
If you review my contributions I have been active in the last couple months and don't plan to leave.
I am as helpful as possible when replying to and answering questions on talk pages.
I have an eye for bad spelling and grammer.
My edits have really gotten better from the beginning of my account.

Weaknesses
I'm a slow learner, but a fast adapter, meaning it'll take me a while to get used to and learn the new responsibilities, but I'll do good as soon as I get the ropes.
Even though this shouldn't matter, I do not have full access to the computer version of the elder scroll games, meaning no contruction set confirmations and no factions, schedule, ect. can be added by be to NPCs pages by me.
I may, occasionaly, try to help but ending up adding a useless not to the page.
I still will ask questions once and a while.

Votes
Oppose: When I saw this nomination I went back through Arch-Mage Matt's contributions to find his significant contributions so I could form an opinion on whether or not he is ready to be a patroller. The trouble is... there aren't any large contributions. There are dozens and dozens of helpful edits both in content- and talk-space, but they are all small edits and tend to be fairly obvious things like link tweaks and spelling fixes. The key test for patroller-ship has always been "Can I trust this person's edits implicitly?" and at the moment, there are not enough posts of substance to allow a Support vote for Matt. Having said that, the quality of his edits has improved noticeably since he first started posting, and I'm sure that given time he will become good patroller material. rpeh  02:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment: Well, the problem is I don't have a computer, so edits like statistics, schedules, respawning, pictures, ect. isn't available to me. But that is not an excuse, (its hard to find and we-word/re-do something no one has noticed for 15 years.) But I'm open to suggestions.--Arch-Mage Matt 02:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Oppose per rpeh. You don't need to play on the computer to become a patroller, look at Krusty and myself (well, kind of myself). You have good intentions, which is a great thing to have. Just keep working at editing the wiki.   03:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Oppose: Per rpeh. I don't have much to add to what has already been said. Nevertheless, don't let this vote discourage you from doing a great job at UESP. Good luck in any future pursuits. --Michaeldsuarez   15:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Oppose: Per what everyone else said but you'd definitely be the front runner if you are to a candidate another time. --ModderElGrande  18:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Oppose: I'm opposing for now. I think you're on your way to becoming a Patroller, but there are still some grammar improvements to be made and I'd like to see more evidence that you know your way around the more complex formatting like tables (which I see from your user page, you're getting a start on) and the more common templates (e.g., NewLine, as I just mentioned on your talk page). In a couple of months, when you have more experience, I expect I'll be happy to support a nomination.  ‒      00:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC), edit: 07:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Oppose: I'm running the risk of sounding like I'm repeating everyone else, but I also think "not right now".  Watch some of the pages you edit, see what changes are made, and take those as lessons.  Pick a project, and do something that you feel like you're actually making progress with.  These things will help prepare you for your next nomination.  Good luck!  --GK  15:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Consensus
:Oppose --GK  16:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

rpeh
Reasons to become a Patroller
Welcome to June 2007. As I said in my first nomination, I had hoped to avoid doing this, and I'd hoped to avoid it again but c'est la via, n'est ce pas? I'm an active editor who has contributed to almost every aspect of the site, including the interactive maps.

My main reason for applying is that our current active patrollers are obviously feeling the strain and, given that my edits are part of the problem, I think it's time I aim to be part of the solution instead. I can definitely help with the outstanding work: my knowledge of SK, MW, TR, BM, OB and SI is extensive, and I'm no slouch on the first 2/3 of BS and the first, say, fifth of RG too.

I can't promise to be as active in patrolling as I used to be: last time around I ended up doing myself, and arguably the site, more harm than good, because I took it all too seriously. I'll do what I can, when I can. Who can promise more than that? rpeh  04:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Strong Support: Wow there is no need for explanations here I would love to have you back as a patroller--             04:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Support: Here's my two cents.  Ta be honest, I'd love you back on the team.  Let others call me what they will, but I still hold you in fairly high regard.  Sure, your relationships with.. well, most of the site took a turn for the worst a while back, for which even I can't condone the stuff that happened, but still.  I know you as a good man.  A bit fervent and stand-offish at times, and I do hope this whole fiasco doesn't happen again, ...and I know many people won't be too happy to see you again... but I support this. A•t•r•e•u•s 04:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, I still deny, and will always deny, the allegations made against me "a while back", for the simple reason that they were false. I know I could be a bit prickly at times, which is one reason I have been reluctant to stand again. As for stand-offish... I'll give you a big hug! rpeh  05:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Strong Oppose: You have mentioned multiple times that you didn't want it, after I even offered it to you. The patrollers will be fine for now. And despite what you say about prior events, I cannot ignore them. –  06:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
First, Tempora mutantur. Second, it was never your gift to offer. Third, don't make unsupportable insinuations. Fourth, this was the one vote I knew would be cast. rpeh  06:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
First, Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis applies to me as well. Second, I never said it was it was just mine. Third, let's go find Nephele. Fourth, good. –  06:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
First, this isn't about you - this is my nomination. Second, yes you did: "I even offered it to you". Third, please do. Fourth... nothing more to say - let's just say I value surprises and your responses have never been satisfying in that regard. rpeh  06:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
And this is why I voted the way I did. –  06:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Support: I had to think about this for a bit, and not for the reasons that may first come to some peoples' minds. Ultimately, the question of whether or not someone should be a Patroller is "Do I trust this person's edits?", and I have no concerns in that area. What gave me pause was addressed by rpeh himself: he took the job too seriously the last time, and allowed it to overwhelm him. As someone who's had a similar experience (Joram was who he was for more than one reason), I know the good that a break from the job, and re-evaluating how to go about it, can do. In that light, I support his self-nomination, and trust that having had the experience once, he will have a better understanding of when to back away should it be necessary in the future, as I know I do.  ‒      07:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Very Strong Support: Whether Rpeh has been notorious in the past (according to Ratwar's statement on Rpeh's userpage) or not I don't know and to be honest I don't care. If he has been a bit notorious in the past, he certainly has more than made up for it with barrel loads of edits and reverts. I whole-heartedly support this nomination. Good luck with your nomination Rpeh! --ModderElGrande  13:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Support: Rpeh is clearly one of the very best editors on the site and his knowledge on the games, wiki markup and countless other useful things are second to none. Also, his gigantic output costs a lot of time to patrol and I have spent hours ticking his 100+ edits every other day, time I would much rather have spent editing the site. Because of these two factors, I’ll wholeheartedly support this nomination, not only to get him auto-patrolled, but also because I know he can help out tremendously. --Krusty 13:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Strong Oppose: Rpeh is known to lie and bully other members. Giving him a position on the site would be a huge mistake. He already had his chance and he blew it attacking over members using a fake account. For the details, please see Rpeh, De-Admin Request. He has also received Warnings within the last six months. I feel it would be highly unacceptable to have him as a patroller on this site where he could make potentially flame edits as patrolled. It would be a huge mistake to give him another chance to abuse his power. I would also like to note that rpeh's harassment of administrators has caused at least three to leave (those being myself, Eshe, and TheRealLurlock).--Ratwar 01:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment: Ratwar, stop making personal attacks. None of those allegations were ever discussed at length or voted upon so cannot in any way be considered proven. Furthermore, the block given to me was bogus and made for personal reasons as already discussed elsewhere. As you should know, being a patroller isn't about the kudos associated with a role on the site, it's about having the ability to help it. Your own inaction in recent weeks shows you have stopped caring about UESP but you shouldn't use your own lack of interest as a reason to stop other people helping. rpeh  10:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Hilarity: So linking to a discussion where it was proven beyond any reasonable doubt that you used secondary accounts to attack other editors is now me making personal attacks? Or linking to a warning and a block given by two different administrators? That's personal attacks? Those are quite relevant to the current discussion, since it shows how you have attacked while in staff positions in the past and that you have had multiple battles with Administrators in the past. That is the truth, and there is no escaping that. You still take the wiki far too seriously, or you'd admit what's obvious to everyone else who understands the matter, you were de-admined for being guilty of running a bad account. Look, I left the wiki when it became clear that it wasn't a place where I could make relevant and factual contributions to discussions without being attacked. This discussion is once again proving this point. Rather than attempt to refute my arguments with any sense of logic rpeh has decided that they're personal attacks. Like I said before, 'hilarity'.--Ratwar 17:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment: You called me a liar and a bully, and that is a personal attack. There's no way around that. Further, I wasn't de-admined, I resigned. There was enough support for me that, if I had stayed, there would have been nothing even approaching a consensus to remove me, but I realised it would involve a long and divisive discussion in any event. Given that I was already feeling jaded about the site and my role on it, I left rather than put the site through it. If you don't feel you can make relevant and factual contributions, then leave permanently. Right now, you have come back after a two month absence to re-open old wounds and attack a productive member of the site simply trying to take on more work. If that's your idea of a useful contribution, you should resign. rpeh  17:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Follow Up Hilarity: There would have been consensus. You would have been gone. You resigned because of this. You can tell a different story now, but personally, I won't believe it. Look people, rpeh has not dealt with the problems he's caused in the past, he only seeks to deny them. To attack someone for inactivity rather than the strength of their argument. This is why he isn't ready to take on responsibility again. Look, I know rpeh has done a lot for the site over the years. I am not a fool, but I also fully believe that rpeh has driven people away from the site. I believe that their contributions to the site could have been much greater if they hadn't left. Yes, I will fully acknowledge that I'm opening a few old wounds, but I believe that making rpeh will cause more wounds in the future. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.--Ratwar 18:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment: I have already replied to your argument. I have always denied, and will always deny, the accusations that were made about me. I have already said that since nothing was ever proved or even fully discussed, you are being mendacious by claiming that it was. And I mentioned your inactivity because it's perfectly clear that you are only interested in this because you have a personal vendetta against me, as already demonstrated in the incorrect block you gave me against the wishes of the other active admins. None of your recent activities are compatible with the post you hold. You have even admitted that you suffer from adminitis. It is clearly time you consider standing down for both your own good and the sake of the site. rpeh  18:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment: This is precisely why I voted to oppose this nomination. Rpeh believes he is immune to accusation, punishment, or anything that would be applicable to his volitional bullying. I know because I was a part of it. And no rpeh, that is not ad hominem; it is merely stating fact. I believe I would have resigned if I was still a patroller, because people are still enamored with the 'aura of rpeh,' something I cannot even begin to fathom. I wish people would reconsider what they are doing, especially seeing this latest push by him. If it was anyone else, I have a feeling they would be instantly shot down. –  23:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment: I don't believe any of those things. I have made several apologies on site for various reasons. The one that stands out in my memory is this one, made to an editor who... to put it mildly, was never very constructive. Most recently, there was this discussion, where I accepted I had taken the wrong action and fixed the pages accordingly. I am always open to sensible, rational people making sensible, rational suggestions. Unfortunately for you, that does not include comments about my mother. rpeh  23:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment: See, you almost had a decent reply, but unfortunately for you, you cannot reply ever without making a remark about something: another reason I opposed. –  23:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::::"Comment": Uh.  Guys, recall for a second that this is the internet.  Elliot, you need to make more sense.  Seriously.  Rpeh, you need to realize that regardless of consensus, there was a lot of evidence against you, circumstantial or not.  Ratwar, you need to stop acting like rpeh is aiming to gain as much power as he can and bring UESP down.

:::::::Seriously.  Rpeh and Ratwar, I'm friends with you both.  You're really not that different, to be honest.  You're fighting and it's giving me a godd*mn headache to listen to you two bicker. A•t•r•e•u•s 23:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::::* Atreus, I would love to put all this behind me. I thought it had all been dealt with three months ago, but two editors seem intent on recapitulating events ad nauseam. I'm afraid that as long as people are going to attribute actions to me that I did not perform, or imply that I will perform future actions I have no intention of performing, I will respond. I am simply not going to allow people to traduce my name in such a fashion. rpeh  00:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
::::::::* Rpeh. Get over yourself. Nephele's evidence is as damning as you can get. Perhaps if you would actually own up to it, instead of constantly denying it like someone denying the earth is round; (Atreus, I am making more sense than I ever have) hell rpeh, if you finally admit it, I might even change my vote! However, we both no you will not, which is precisely why this conversation is taking place. It's pretty sad when you think about it. –  03:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC) 
:::::::::* Will you stop going on about it? It's pretty obvious that nobody cares! I know the truth, which is good enough for me, and everybody bar you and Ratwar either realise the truth too or are more interested in what I've done since I returned, which is what is relevant to this vote. rpeh  08:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Support: I support this nomination mainly because I fully trust the content of rpeh's edits, and that is what this is about.  He adds accurate info, is well-versed in our style guide, and improves the framework of our wiki.  He is active, uses proper spelling and grammar, and monitors the Recent Changes page.  He uses the talk pages properly, and respects community consensus.  Granting him patroller rights would only officially say what no one can deny; his edits are accurate, helpful, and benefit the wiki. I join RobinHood70 in saying that the only thing that gave me pause in this consideration is the fact that he undeniably took the entire thing too seriously the first time around.  I think rpeh has shown that his time spent away from the wiki, and then his time spent as a regular contributor, improved his outlook; he has obviously discovered the correct ratio of wiki:real-life.  I have no concerns knowing that his edits will be auto-patrolled. As a final, only-slightly-related note; if another admin was lying to me, bullying me, or harassing me, I can promise everyone here that it wouldn't be me that left.  --GK  15:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Support: For the same reasons GK states above. I feel that rpeh truly has the best intentions of the site in mind. Not just for the information contained herein, but also for the community as a whole. Despite dishearteningly frequent bickering with two members of the community, he has shown a willingness to support and encourage newer, less expeirenced editors to the site. While I fervently wish the current unpleasentness would be removed to less public channels, or better yet, ended entirely, I still feel that it would do more good than harm to the site as a whole if rpeh was given patroller rights once more. Dlarsh  18:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Support: I do not know what Rpeh has done in the past, nor do I care. I do not like judging people for their past. Right now, he is one of the best and most constructive editors on the site. He adds accurate, well researched information with proper spelling and grammar, keeps a good eye on the recent changes, and works very hard on improving the site in general. I would have full confidence in him as a patroller. Kalrot 19:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC) 
Support For the reasons stated above by GK, Dlarsh and Kalrot.--TheAlbinoOrc 21:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Strong Support: I don't have any reason to say no. --Michaeldsuarez   14:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment: I'm noticing that everyone is arguing with Elliot and Ratwar. Although you're free to express yourselves, I don't see any point arguing. Elliot and Ratwar are not going to turn this nomination around in their favor. It's best to use our time and energy in a productive manner instead of wasting our time on this page. --Michaeldsuarez   14:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Support: I think I can honestly say I pondered a while on this nomination, basically trying to figure whether to look at this a mere request for some patroller rights, or whether I should consider the implications that it brings for the site (rehashing 'the old discussion'). I think in the end I agree with GuildKnight. There's no doubt that rpeh will be a huge help in the patrolling work that needs to be done. Especially a patroller who knows his way around the CS so he can check the occasional dubious claims made too.  As for the implications that a patroller position would bring (a patroller should set the example), I think it's not relevant in the end. Even now, when rpeh isn't a patroller or an administrator, a good deal of (new) editors come to him with questions relating to the operation of this wiki. People already see him (even new people, who don't know he was an admin) as a form of authority. The one thing I would say to rpeh to take into consideration for his role as patroller is to caution him that it is required to restrain yourself more than usual in heated discussions. I know rpeh has commented that he was able to do a few more things outside the book because he isn't an administrator or patroller anymore, but I hope you feel that is one form of "freedom" you would need to give up. --Timenn-  17:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Support: The trouble with coming so late to this discussion is that pretty much everything has been discussed! With the risk of repeating what was already been stated, I feel that having rpeh as a Patroller will be beneficial for the site. First off, it's not like I actually check rpeh's edits - we all know they are high-quality and well researched; and there is really no more to do than click "Mark as patrolled". The time me and other patrollers have spent patrolling rpeh's edits could have been better spent by checking other edits and improving the site in general. Secondly, rpeh could give us a hand with really tricky questions which others have a hard time answering, for example complex scripting and the likes, thanks to his extensive knowledge of both the games and their CS. I'm also confident he will have learnt from his previous experience and will manage to pace himself accordingly. --SerCenKing   17:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I've not been active on the wiki these past months and so I'm not in a position to judge rpeh's nomination for patrollership adequately. However, based on his past edits and a browse through his current ones I have no reason to believe that rpeh will not once again become an excellent patroller. I am aware of the incident with the sockpuppetry, but regardless of whether rpeh was or was not guilty, I believe that he has learned since not to make similar mistakes and will do a good job as a patroller. - GL  23:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Consensus
:Support --GK  16:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)