UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard/Archive 15

This is an archive of past UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page, except for maintenance such as updating links.

Semi Unprotected

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

Looks like the protection was temporary - it ran out on 6 Feb. In any case, it should use {{TemProtect}} rather than {{Protection}}. rpeh •T•C•E• 16:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder, this still needs to be fixed. ‒ Robin Hood↝Talk 15:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ban For 98.126.56.178

He/She has made multiple personal attacks on Nephele.

And me and Timenn. Timenn just logged off so It'll be a while, we can make it for now.--^Corevette₇₈₉ 00:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Done --Nephele^Talk 02:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Virus found on site

Discussion moved from User talk:GuildKnight#Virus found on site

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

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

I just wanted you to know ASAP! and I have no idea wehat to do or what this means. Love your work eid_broughton@yahoo.com

GK will be gone for a while and that seems unlikely, are you sure it was from that page?--^Corevette₇₈₉ 01:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

According to a forum where a user had a similar experience:

It means YOUR computer is infected with a virus (malware specifically). You'll get this error message regardless of what site you're on. It seems to only affect Firefox users.

Which definitely sounds more likely than UESP being the source of the virus. --Nephele^Talk 02:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Updates to Archived Discussions

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

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

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

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

I'm tentatively (cross my fingers) concluding that the bug creating all the wanted categories/pages has been fixed. It's been five hours since a buggy entry was created, and I've been throwing everything I can at the bug during that time. Nevertheless, it's still going to probably take a day for the wanted lists to get cleaned out. I'm also running a script that will make sure, eventually, to refresh any pages that have been processed strangely at any point in the last couple days. Again, it'll be about a day before it's done so in the meantime reports like the following might continue to trickle in.

One other point: some of you may have noticed the site not responding a few minutes ago (specifically content2 not responding). That was my fault, triggered by another bit of database updating I was taking care of. Basically I needed to monopolize the database for a couple of minutes for some reorganization, the upside of which is that now every time someone does a full-text search that search won't monopolize the database for a couple of seconds. In other words, 120 seconds of work now to fix a constant stream of little 2 second jobs. That should clear out one of the most common reasons why the database can be slow to respond to a request.

Other than the above-mentioned cleanup scripts that will still be running for a while, that should be the last of my server disruptions for now. --Nephele^Talk 22:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

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

TheAlbinoOrc: Yes. One of the servers became completely overloaded, to the point where I couldn't even force it to restart.

One hopefully final update: all changes have now been made live on all servers, and all the update scripts have finished running. So no more restrictions on making use of the new features. --Nephele^Talk 19:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Quest links not displaying correctly

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

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

Skingrad isn't the only page like this. — Unsigned comment by 99.175.93.246 (talk) on 2 June 2010

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

I just checked OB:Skingrad also, it looked fine... except that the people were too far down in their section.--TheAlbinoOrc 20:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought, I was getting lots of things like this with IE8. Whats your browser?.--^Corevette₇₈₉ 20:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Firefox.--TheAlbinoOrc 20:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I meant the anon, but it looks fine for me on that page.--^Corevette₇₈₉ 21:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Policy: Abuse of Anonymous Editing

We've clearly had a problem, for far too long now, with editors abusing the wiki's open editing system so they can be disruptive and generally waste the community's time. Second Opinion Please is the latest example; the talk page shows it's not a new problem. Therefore, I propose adding the following section to the Vandalism policy, under UESPWiki:Vandalism#Types of Vandalism:

Abuse of Anonymous Editing

Deliberately hiding or falsifying your identity in order to make unwanted, controversial, or inappropriate comments is not tolerated. Regular UESP contributors are expected to contribute using their own account whenever participating in any community discussions. Therefore, an edit can be treated as vandalism if a site editor judges that it meets all three of the following criteria:

• The edit is made by an anonymous IP or newly created account (one with no significant contribution history).
• There is reason to believe that the person making the edit is familiar with UESP (e.g., person refers to community members or site policy).
• The edit has no constructive value and/or is likely to be disruptive.

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

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

Votes

* Support as proposer. --Nephele^Talk 05:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Firstly, this would directly contradict the Etiquette policy (esp. 7th point in the General section). Secondly, point 2 of the new policy involves excessive supposition on the part of editors. Thirdly, so does point 3 - "constructive" is in the eye of the beholder to a large extent. Fourthly, I agree that "hiding or falsifying your identity" is wrong, but the remedies suggested here use a far too-broad brush and will catch plenty of other people. Fifthly, I have said before, and still believe, that established, named editors have caused far more trouble in the past than all the anons put together. Finally, I managed to track down the relevant quote that I'm sure you've all heard without source. It's from William Blackstone, in Commentaries on the Laws of England (1769): "the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer." Similarly, it is better that we have to put up with the trouble caused by one rogue IP user than place unnecessary sanctions on all of them. rpeh •T•C•E• 05:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support Though, we could just punish all people who make edits that have no constructive value and/or is likely to be disruptive. As for Rpeh's points: Laws may paint a large area and hit unwanted people, however people on the wiki should have enough judgment to know when to punish and when not to punish. As such, as long as I think that at least half the admins on the wiki have a lick of sense, this rule shouldn't hit anyone that it isn't supposed to hit. --Tim ^Talk 06:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support Although not an admin, just wanted to say that this is a great idea :P Mikeyboy52 06:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support - We've had far too many troll-like edits made by Tor users and the like who are obviously just trying to conceal their identity and disrupt the site. We already revert non-constructive edits to old discussions, regardless of who they're by, and I think it's a step in the right direction to revert blatantly disruptive edits, particularly when there's reason to believe that it's an abuse situation. Productive or well-meaning users would still be entitled to all the same rights as everyone else, but those who are here solely to disrupt will no longer have a place here. ‒ Robin Hood↝Talk 06:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support per nomination. Elliot (talk) 09:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Now, I like the proposition, and I would really like reality to be like this; unfortunately, it is not, and my motivation for opposing comes from the fact that we have numerous “established” members, who, and I’m sorry to say this, is really not capable of judging these things. I have seen numerous examples where anon users accidentally blanked a page and received vandalism warnings almost immediately, even if the edit was clearly an accident. I will not mention any names, nor will I give any examples but I fear that these new rules will hit several people who do not deserve it and make the Wiki a warning zone where we, as patrollers, will have to change warnings into “welcome and advice” all the time – wasting even more time than we do now. --Krusty 10:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

  Well, that is applicable to nearly every situation. You shouldn't avoid something because of ignorance; you should try to change that ignorance and push forward an intelligent community. The best way would be to lead by example. Inform users when they are doing something incorrectly. Some people need direct instructions; however, that shouldn't be reason enough to stop something. At a minimum, it would be best to at least try it out. Elliot (talk) 11:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

  I'm not sure this is the best approach myself, but would you be more comfortable if we limited reverting questionable IP contributions to patrollers and admins? ‒ Robin Hood↝Talk 15:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

  Problem is, that is exactly what we have been doing all along. While patrollers can’s block people, they tend to be very quick to alert an admin if they notice a proxy or TOR-user making unconstructive edits to the site. This proposal will allow each and every registered member on the entire Wiki to hand out quick warnings in anger or nervousness, something that way too many editors suffer from. For the time being, I think we’re doing fine. --Krusty 09:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I find point 2 too vague in my opinion. How can we know if an anon is familiar with UESP? They could just as easily referred to Wikipedia or another Wiki. I don't see why knowledge of UESPWiki's policies points directly to a vandal. It's the edit itself that matters, not one's supposed knowledge of policies or one's status (status as in: anon, newly-created account, established editor etc.) I think these points are unfavourable to anon editors while not giving anything in return. ^Talk Wolok gro-Barok _{Contributions} 12:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I would tend to be Opposed to the second guideline as I fit it at one time since I'd been using the Wiki for several years without creating an account and then for several months as Mhira (until I forgot my password and created this account) therefore I had no significant contribution history but knew some of the Wiki's policy and knew of some of the community members.--TheAlbinoOrc 14:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

  Responding to the above two points on the second requirement: That one also concerned me a bit. Would removing that point altogether be a better choice, do you think? ‒ Robin Hood↝Talk 15:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• I think that would work. I also think that there should be at least two people that agree on removing the edit.--TheAlbinoOrc 15:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Oppose: Too vague and it allows Patrollers, sysops, and other editors to disregard Assume Good Faith. --Michaeldsuarez ^{(Talk) (Deeds)} 01:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

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

• Oppose per Krusty Arny 09:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Consensus: None. Votes were roughly equal. In the absence of consensus, existing policy stands. ‒ Robin Hood↝talk 03:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Policy: Prohibiting Interactions

Please note that the proposed policy has now been enacted. It can be found at UESPWiki:Interaction Ban.

I'd like to propose officially prohibiting Elliot and rpeh from interacting with each other, in any way, on the wiki. Both have been told as much, unofficially, many times. Given that past requests have failed to resolve the situation, a new approach is clearly needed. There is wikipedia precedent for the proposed restrictions, for example this motion or this finding from their arbitration committee.

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

Restriction Enforcement

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

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

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

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

Restriction Details

Prohibited actions under the proposed restrictions would include:

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

Furthermore:

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

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

Discussion of Proposal

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

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

Votes

* Support as proposer. --Nephele^Talk 05:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm not prepared to put up with this kind of restriction on my editing. I edit widely and this proposal means Elliot can stop me editing anything in which I have an interest by editing it himself. Quite simply, it's about time Elliot got the block he so richly deserves. He has a history of grossly-insulting comments both on- and off-wiki. To me, has has made comments such as "I'm sorry your mother is such a fucking failure" (I apologise for the language, but it's necessary to highlight what an obnoxious person Elliot is). To Corevette, he made threats like "Until then, I will follow you. Not like a cat following you. like a wasp". To Michaeldsuarez, we have "MDS, go back to your shitty ED and go fuck one of those dumbasses over there."

Any or all of these comments are grounds for a block yet no such action has been taken. With no Elliot threatening and abusing other editors, the problem goes away. He has been repeatedly blocked at Wikipedia for the same kind of behavior he has shown here (edit warring and insulting other users) and UESP is simply lagging behind the times.

Furthermore, the topic that seems to have spawned this proposal has been quiescent for a week. This entire discussion is therefore moot. rpeh •T•C•E• 06:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest if rpeh or Elliot wish to respond to this discussion, that they limit themselves to constructive comments that are strictly on the topic of this proposal. Way to miss a point... And what you state is hearsay in terms of logs, which is why it is a policy to prohibit such posts. As well, e-mails have no grounds for punishment, especially since there is no way to validate them, barring someone else logging into your email account. And we shouldn't forget you part in that email skirmish, rpeh. Plus, it was quite some time ago. I've moved on. You should as well. However, it is funny that you consider yourself immune from criticism when it comes to personal attacks. This page itself is a shrine to those attacks you have made. Elliot (talk) 09:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It was a "suggestion". I chose not to follow it for the reason that Nephele has been away and probably doesn't know the kind of vitriol to which several editors have been subjected during that time.

But let's get down to cases here. During, and after, the last discussion, one of the two editors was doing research and adding information to Lore articles to back them up with facts and add new details that create a big improvement. The same editor has spent time checking edits, tweaking, adding and removing where necessary to make sure the site is as accurate as possible. The same editor has spent time answering the questions of a large number of people experiencing difficulty with the game and asking for help. The other editor has done nothing until another piece of controversy started.

Timenn has asked me not to use the "T" word so I won't, but I don't know what other word is suitable for somebody whose only contributions take place in moments of controversy.

The reason I object so strenuously to this proposal is that it gives the same sanction to both editors. One has always been, and continues to be, a huge help to this site. The other... isn't. Treating both editors the same is a gross, unforgivable injustice.

Lastly, the emails, IRC logs and other communications are admissible under WP:HARASS, which states "off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking". Indeed it can.

I am not going to be taking any further part in this debate. rpeh •T•C•E• 10:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

And yet you fail to quote WP:NPA. It doesn't matter who has done what. I have had some pretty big issues come up lately, and I have decided to cut my activity down to a bare minimum (including other reasons on the wiki). Also, my choice of participation is not under your jurisdiction of appropriate judgment. Furthermore, it truly isn't harassment when the other person (claiming harassment) returns comments with equal vigor. Lastly, you oppose the equal sanction because you believe you have done no wrong in this entire situation, which is gross in and of itself. The rules apply to everyone. Even you. Elliot (talk) 11:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If you do not have time to edit the site then how is it you have time to monitor and contribute to debates such as this and the other two that are currently active? It seems you are being economical with the truth, Elliot. 80.239.242.95 05:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I can make time (about 10 minutes or so in a day) to respond to far reaching proposals, especially one about me. I don't have time to plan and constantly work on a wiki. Is that okay with you? Elliot (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose This isn't really a solution though. This situation can and will happen again with other users. I suggest we find a more permanent policy for ongoing conflicts between users. --Tim ^Talk 07:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

  Furthermore Taping their mouths shut doesn't solve the problem. They still hate each other. If Elliot is truly a troll, then he'll just find another target. If Rpeh is truly... a major ass?... then he'll just find someone else to be a major ass to. I've actually got something in mind for a counter-solution and I'll put it up in a little bit (I've got more to read, apparently). --Tim ^Talk 16:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support God am I gonna get flak for this. I say support, until they stop going nuts over each other. I do agree that a more permanent solution is needed, but... unless said soluton appears in the next few days, support. Sorry, rpeh. No appologies to Elliot, though. <3 •Atreus• 07:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support Oppose This is the first time the field as actually been even, so I will support this. I am willing to follow the restrictions if rpeh is as well. And: Elliot can stop me editing anything in which I have an interest by editing it himself; rpeh, this is a rather poor argument. I cannot read your mind to see what you will edit, and I have no intention of weaseling my way into such a position. And Timmeh, if you wish for something more solid, then precedence is the best way to go about that. Elliot (talk) 09:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC) I have changed my vote after careful consideration of the circumstances. Nephele's (and other's) lack of knowledge of the situation is most troubling. She can see what has been said, but there are things only rpeh and I know. This will do nothing to stop it. If anything, it will cause more tension. Elliot (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I’ll have to agree with Timmeh on this one. If any action should be taken, it is changing policy to include ongoing disputes between members. While I really like the stance Elliot shows on this matter, it is more than likely that it will happen between other members in the future. I think this proposal is a bit too “personal” for its own good and should be made more general. --Krusty 10:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

  This isn't a proposal of policy, per se. It is more of an arbitration represented and enforced by the community. You oppose for a merely semantic reason. I ask you to see it as arbitration and not policy and reconsider your vote. Elliot (talk) 11:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

  I know it is not a proposal of policy. I suggest it changes into that. Oppose it is. --Krusty 11:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

  It's not something that can be a policy since the enforcement would be made on a case by case basis. The policy would be so vague that it would not even be effective. All it would be is a center for resolving such conflicts; AN is enough to fill that role. Elliot (talk) 11:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

  I'd have to agree; the policy would end up being something like "If a dispute between two editors becomes disruptive to the Wiki as a whole, it is possible to block interaction between them" which is what is implied by precedent here.--TheAlbinoOrc 14:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support Per comment above.--TheAlbinoOrc 14:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support Clearly, there needs to be something done, as it seems like at least once every week or two, I open up my RC or Watchlist and sigh when I see it filled with edits between Elliot and rpeh, both antagonizing the other, whether they're doing it deliberately or not. To address some points above:
  • I don't think either rpeh or Elliot should feel significantly limited by the actions the other one might take in terms of editing. At the risk of sounding arrogant, I think I speak for everyone that if we saw tendentious behaviour directed towards disrupting the other one's contributions simply by contributing to a wide array of articles all of a sudden, it would be seen for what it is and appropriate sanctions would be taken. Elliot has already said he wouldn't do that, and I think at least at this point, it would be pretty obvious if he did (I don't mean that to be insulting in any way, just an observation that most of Elliot's recent contributions have been to the A/N so a change in pattern would stand out). It might be a bit harder to judge if rpeh were doing that, but if it became a major concern for Elliot, that could be discussed. If necessary, we could always re-word that to say something to the effect of "editing at cross-purposes" rather than having a strict time limit.
  • While I agree that many of the things that have been said offsite could qualify under harassment policies, this arbitration is geared strictly towards the onsite interactions.
  • I also agree that rpeh has been far more productive than Elliot in the past few months, but to be fair, Elliot has made a few productive edits such as the {{od}} template and being bold with fixing the superscript in the {{unsigned}} template. (He may have made others as well, but much of my recent work has been with templates.) Notwithstanding that, however, Wikipedia has a policy on bans that I think could reasonably be extended to an interaction ban, namely this one. This is not to say that I believe that this is what rpeh is doing, however I think the policy must nevertheless apply.
  • I agree that the specifics of this case should be seen an arbitration and not policy, however I also think that this could be turned into a more generic policy for how to handle users who clearly have repeated difficulties interacting civilly (perhaps with as little tweaking as replacing the user names by User A and User B). ‒ Robin Hood↝Talk 15:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Elliot steals from Wikipedia and posts on UESP, and even admits it. How does copying the work of other people compare to what Rpeh has been doing? And yeah he is a friend of mine but I don't care. Elliot is a troll and Rpeh is a useful user. To punish Rpeh because of Elliot's trolling is totally unfair. 80.239.242.95 02:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

"Friend"? Lol. And in case you missed it, a bunch of things on this wiki and plenty of others use WP as a backbone. And it really isn't stealing if I give them credit, now is it? (Also, everything is licensed under CC, so that is another hole in your theory.) Oh, and thanks for the personal attack. Elliot (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No, wiki sites use MediaWiki as a backbone, not Wikipedia. Taking material from Wikipedia and causing strife is all you do, and that was my point. I tried to find a contribution of yours that wasn't part of an argument, something taken from Wikipedia or a removal of other editors' work but gave up after the third page. I say again... compare that to rpeh and learn from the difference. 80.239.242.95 19:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You sure do know a lot for being a "friend of rpeh's". I have no intentions or need to answer to an IP. Elliot (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: I agree with Timmeh: Censorship will only cover up the problem; it won't resolve the issue. --Michaeldsuarez ^{(Talk) (Deeds)} 01:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

  It won't be truly resolved. Ever. Elliot (talk) 05:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose: I think you should just let them do anything they want as long as it is just between the two of them. And as Michaeldsuarez says abouve censorship wont do anything Arny 09:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Consensus: Oppose. There was, however, general support for a permanent change in policy rather than a one-time interaction ban. ‒ Robin Hood↝talk 03:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Timmeh's Alternative Proposal

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

Votes

* Neutral. The bottom line, is that at this point I'm in favor of just about anything that changes the status quo. So, if the rest of the community supports Timmeh's proposal, I'll support it, too.

However, I'm not outright voting in support of the idea because I personally don't think the proposal is workable. In every one of these incidents each of the editors blames the other one for provoking the situation. For the sake of argument, let's say that rpeh is right and Elliot is provoking rpeh. Timmeh's proposal implies that if Elliot places another warning on rpeh's talk page, both Elliot and rpeh will end up being blocked for three months -- so the site loses a valuable contributor for three months solely because another editor provoked a situation. Someone might respond that in that situation it was obvious Elliot was in the wrong and therefore only Elliot should be blocked -- but none of the past situations have been obvious, so I don't think any future ones will be. In other words, we'll either end up with another confused mess and do nothing, or else we'll impose blocks on both and both will complain that they're the victim. --Nephele^Talk 20:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Being excessively blunt is not going to solve anything. Mediation is better than aggravation. Elliot (talk) 02:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose This is too harsh maybe a 3 day block? --Arny 09:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support: It's not worth much at this point, but I'm a strong supporter of the simple-but-effective approach. I find this satisfies that. ‒ Robin Hood↝talk 03:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Consensus: None. Votes were even (based on an assumption of support from Timmeh himself). In the absence of consensus, existing policy stands. ‒ Robin Hood↝talk 03:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Modification to Original Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

--Nephele^Talk 20:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of Modification

To help us make some forward progress, could contributors explicitly state their opinions on the following points:

1. Overall: Do you support/oppose the overall intent of the proposed policy?
2. Requirements: Do you support/oppose the specific requirements necessary before this policy can be enacted, in other words, is it enough for two administrators to agree that a pair of editors need this restriction? If not, what is the minimum requirement that you think should be necessary?
3. Apply now: Do you support/oppose applying this policy to rpeh and Elliot?

I think that increases the chances of being able to get this policy in place to handle our one current situation, after which we can spend more time refining the details of when/how it might next be needed.

Votes

* Overall: Support. Requirements: Support. Apply now: Support. As proposer --Nephele^Talk 20:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Overall: Support. Requirements: Support. Apply now: Support. It may need some tweaking over time, but it's a good base for a general proposal that will handle both the current and any future situations like this. ‒ Robin Hood↝Talk 20:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Comment I think that Elliot is more responsible for these fights than rpeh he seems to be always looking for a fight and is always fighting users (rpeh, half life) so I think a 1 week block for Elliot should settle things down Arny 09:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

  You clearly don't understand the situation. Please explain in great detail how I initiated any sort of fight (especially with HalfLife). If you cannot base your comments on facts and understanding of the situation or common sense, then you should keep out of such debates. Elliot (talk) 09:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

  This, this. Even though you dont always start the fight you always aggrevate it Arny 10:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

  Actually Elliot should already have been blocked as the UESPWiki Etiquette policy states Arny 10:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Overall: Support. Requirements: Support. Apply now: Strong Oppose. I think the new policy is well written and the requirements are fine. I know that I am sick and tired of waking up to yet another nights’ bickering, name-calling and fighting on the AN (and so is the entire community) and it feels good to be able to hand out the appropriate warning before it escalates. It saddens me a great deal that we have to make a policy like this, but it seems necessary these days. But I hate the very thought about applying this new rule to Rpeh and Elliot now. It feels forced, it feels half-baked and rushed and very unfair, especially to those of us who knows the background story and have followed the feud closely for months. Timmeh wrote earlier: "This is the warning. If it's gotten to the point where we have to invoke this rule, then they know already." That sums it up. We can’t invent spontaneous policies to stop an on-going problem without at least giving the editors in question a chance to change their behavior. It just feels wrong and I sincerely hope that this rushed decision gets the Oppose stamp. --Krusty 09:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

  Krusty (and Timmeh), could you possibly clarify what you do think is appropriate for rpeh and Elliot? (Although with Elliot's block it's possibly now somewhat moot, on the other hand, a week from now we're back to the status quo, and I still think it would be prudent to have some restrictions in place.) I'm particularly confused because I understood Timmeh's comment to mean that we should essentially accelerate the restrictions -- apply them, but skip straight to a block for the first violation. So I don't see how that leads to the conclusion that no restrictions should be applied. Therefore, do you think no restrictions should ever placed on rpeh and Elliot? Or else under what conditions do you think the restrictions might be appropriate (e.g., how long after the policy is put in place)? In other words, if the general policy is put in place, I think it would help the other admins to understand your concerns, so that we know whether two of us can decide restrictions are necessary (in particular, if you're not around at the time). --Nephele^Talk 19:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

  Can I just point out here that I've steered clear of Elliot since I was asked to do so by Timenn? There has been plenty of drama over the last couple of days, but it hasn't come from me. rpeh •T•C•E• 20:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

  I will try to clarify, even if recent events have made it somewhat unnecessary. I do not think it is fair to invent a policy in the middle of an existing feud and hand out spontaneous warnings. The editors in question should at least be given the chance to think about the policy and improve their behavior before we start to block them. I’m all for the new policy but it is simply wrong to activate it right away, with such short notice. Even if Elliot took a block today, I think we should calm down, get the policy written and see what happens. I do not think we should apply the new rules to Rpeh or Elliot before we are sure that they will continue fighting. I know these arguments may sound a bit meaningless with Elliot gone and all, but that is my stance – I’m fairly sure that Rpeh will remain silent and ignore Elliot in the future, mostly because the feud seems to be over after today – but also because of this new policy. So: Let’s take a deep breath, get the policy going without any further action taken against Elliot or Rpeh – and cross our fingers for a more peaceful and friendly environment around here in the future. --Krusty 21:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Overall: Neutral, Requirements: Neutral, Apply Now: Neutral – The intent of the policy, which is to put a halt to not-so-civil behavior created by personal disputes, is something that I support. I also know that blocks are sometimes necessary to such stop disputes. When I was in conflict with User:HMSVictory over 2 years ago, the dispute became so bad that both of us were blocked (by rpeh in a twist of fate). When we were blocked and couldn't edit any longer, we were given time to cool down and think. Nevertheless, the block that settled the conflict was only 15 minutes long. The proposal advocates a 1-week block, but an entire week may not be necessary, hence my neutrality on the Requirements. Of course, this is a special case. The dispute between rpeh and Elliot has disputed the community here (mostly in edit wars, edit summaries, and by derailing community discussions), and the dispute has been an extremely long one. rpeh was blocked for 2 weeks before, and Elliot was blocked for a week on Wikipedia, so a one-week block may not be that effective on them. It would have to be a month-long block. Since "helpful" blocks for cooling-down can range from 1 minute to a month, I believe that the block duration should be flexible rather than set in stone. As someone formerly blocked in order to end a conflict, I hope that you respect my opinion. --Michaeldsuarez ^{(Talk) (Deeds)} 13:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

  How does my WP behavior have any bearing on this matter? Elliot (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

  I'm just saying that you already know what a week-long block feels like, so it may not be effective in ending the arguing here. As Timmeh has stated, a block of a week is called a vacation. --Michaeldsuarez ^{(Talk) (Deeds)} 14:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

  MDS makes a very good point here: I think a flexible block time based on the admin's judgement of what would be effective in a given situation is probably the better way to go. ‒ Robin Hood↝Talk 15:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

  I'm fine with a flexible block time. The one-week was primarily inspired by Wikipedia. But I also wanted to make it clear that, unlike vandalism blocks, I don't think a second block should automatically be a permanent block. In the case of vandals, we're blocking people who have shown no potential to contribute productively to the site (and even if they did have a change of heart, they'd be better off starting with a new account). In this case, we're blocking editors who have made constructive edits, and therefore shouldn't necessarily be blocked permanently because of a disagreement with another editor. But leaving it up to the admin's judgement is probably the best way to figure out what is right in the specific circumstances. --Nephele^Talk 19:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

*Overall: Support, Requirements: Oppose, Apply Now: Oppose There should definitely be a flexible block time; also if Editor A edits User B's talk page constructively that shouldn't cause problems. As for Apply Now I Oppose per Krusty.--TheAlbinoOrc 18:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, if the block time is made to be flexible, does that satisfy your concerns about the requirements?
  As for Editor A editing Editor B's talk page, I'm sorry, but I don't agree that it should be allowed in this particular situation. The restriction is for unusual situations, where I don't think it's safe to assume that Editor B will agree that the edit is constructive. In the case of vandalism or some other problem on Editor B's talk page, there are numerous people other than Editor A who can deal with the situation, without the risk of the edit being misinterpreted. --Nephele^Talk 19:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Overall: Support, Requirements: Support, Apply Now: Support Oppose In light of relevant recent events (specifically me responding to Elliot and his response) I support this. Please see my response to Elliot below.--TheAlbinoOrc^{Got_a_question?} 18:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

  You do realize that I can ask for a user to stay off of my page right? Your change of vote in retaliation to that and my own change of vote, should be removed. Elliot (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

  I accept that you can ask for any user or group of users to stay off your page. However you asked for users to learn what was going on. I responded that I did know what was going on. I felt that you overreacted. But you're right (at least about the apply now part of my change of vote. I haven't seen your vote change yet though so I'm not sure about it ). Also I left the rest because I support the principle of being evenhanded and feel that for resolving other disputes (or any continuation of this one) the proposal is useful.--TheAlbinoOrc^{Got_a_question?} 19:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

  Elliot - Albino can change his vote if he so pleases, and you are in no position to tell him his vote should be deleted. There is absolutely no reason to remove either of your votes, unless you wish to remove your own and abstain from further helpful comments. --SerCenKing ^Talk 21:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Overall:	Consensus: Support.
Requirements:	Consensus: Support.
Apply Now:	Consensus: None. In the end, this weighed slightly in favor of Oppose, but not enough to call it a clear Oppose consensus.

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

Proposed Policy: Administrator Re-elections

This discussion has been closed by rpeh - see WP:SNOWBALL. Please do not modify it.

I think the time has come to put into effect a mechanism that ensures administrators continue to enjoy the support of the community. Currently, UESP has ten administrators. Of these, three (Endareth, Garrett and Wrye) were never elected. One (Nephele) was elected with the votes of only two users, neither of whom are active any more. Two (Ratwar and TheRealLurlock) had only one vote from a currently-active member - somebody who just returned after a nine month break. The other four are more recent, but even in these cases, Eshe's support only contains three still-active users out of eight votes; less than 50% is not impressive. Since the mandate for an administrator role is given by users, it is essential to ensure that the mandate is kept up to date and renewed when necessary. This offers both an easy way for an admin to step down, and for the community to remove them where necessary. It's clearly not acceptable that somebody retains the extra powers and responsibilities if the community no longer supports them. To this end, I propose that each admin be automatically re-nominated on the anniversary of his or her election and a re-election vote is held using the same rules as for new admins. If he or she is no longer interested in holding the role, simply declining the renomination would be enough to close the election. Votes *Support: as proposer. rpeh •T•C•E• 08:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Comment: Not a terrible idea, but they need to be forewarned (as in, they know it's coming, and we know they know.). Also, I think Nephele and Wyre are exempt; Nephele's proven invaluable to the wiki, and Wrye.... well, okay, have no excuse there. but he's Wyre! I also think that a lot of the current admins will see this in a bad light, particularily Ratwar. Sorry, Ratwar, but it's true, you probably will. Can't really blame you, though. •Atreus• 08:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Nobody would be exempt. I doubt Nephele would have a problem being reelected, and although Wrye might not be interested in the light of his last few posts, I doubt he would either. That doesn't mean that we should just assume the result. rpeh •T•C•E• 13:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Question How is keeping their status detrimental to the wiki? Elliot (talk) 09:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC) I didn't say it was detrimental. I'm saying that an admin who no longer has the support of the community shouldn't be an admin. It's exactly the same idea behind elections all over the world. Nothing in this new policy would stop somebody standing again if they decided they wanted the job back. rpeh •T•C•E• 13:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC) It was a simple question, not an implication. Elliot (talk) 19:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC) And I gave a simple answer. rpeh •T•C•E• 06:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Support I think most of these shouldn't have any problem getting re-elected,and if they do... well that's what the community wants. I would add though that if there is a concesus to alter this by one vote (at least in the case of Nephele) since this is a re-election and we really need admins that they be left with their current status for at least a week or two and then have a new re-election.--TheAlbinoOrc 14:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC) (Edit Conflict) All I meant was that there needs to be some margin; if one or two peoples votes tip it then we need to wait for a bit before doing anything because that isn't a significant majority. (As far as Nephele being exempt she does a lot of the server things that are necessary to keep the site running)--TheAlbinoOrc 16:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose for now: I think the idea is sound in principle, but there are some details I'd like to see worked out first. If they can be, I would support the proposal. For example, if an administrator is up for reelection but happens to be away on vacation at that time, the vote should be delayed. Similarly, if an administrator has left, I don't feel a vote should occur in absentia since they may not be aware of, or wish to respond to, anything said about them. I realize that may not fit with the original proposal, though. Assuming that admins weren't voted on in absentia, I would want to see some kind of re-acclimation period before an administrator is voted on. For example, supposing that a clear-cut vandal came along today and coincidentally, someone like TheRealLurlock or Endareth returned to block the vandal, I'd have no qualms with that. If they stayed around, then we could give them a month or two before voting so that all users could get a feel for the returning admin. I certainly couldn't speak to Endareth's suitability as an administrator, for example, since he (she?) hasn't been significantly active since the end of 2006. If he was considered suitable as an admin at one point, though, I'd be willing to give him a couple of months "on trust" and see how he did. Finally, I also agree that this should apply across the board. Even though I doubt Nephele would have any difficulties, it's not fair to say that some admins are exempt (except Daveh, of course...it'd be kinda hard to vote him off the island <g>). (Point of clarification: I'm equally fine with the status quo as I am with voting once a year; the above comments were made from the POV of the proposal going through.) Question: If we do this for admins, should we also do it for patrollers? ‒ Robin Hood↝Talk 16:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC) I don't think an absence of a couple of weeks would make a difference. An admin who doesn't realise he or she isn't going to be around during their re-election can't be a very good admin, but I'm sure some scope for variation should be allowed - eg, during the launch of TESV I'd rather concentrate on getting the content in place than having elections. For the moment, let's concentrate on the basics then we can work out the details. Second, patrollers are less important but yes, I don't see why the same rules shouldn't apply there too. rpeh •T•C•E• 06:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Okay, that seems fair. I'm still not big on voting inactive admins out, but let's see how the overall vote goes before we worry about the specifics. ‒ Robin Hood↝Talk 14:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose Simply enough, I do not think it will benefit the wiki in any way. We can call for a vote of confidence anytime to get rid of admins, and that's bound to stir up plenty of debate. But forcing a vote when there's really no need for removing the admin? Unnecessary. Furthermore, of the admins now, I believe all of them all still capable of administration, even if they've been inactive for quite a while. --Tim Talk 16:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose A vote once a year for each administrator? It seems it would get rather busy and undoubtedly controversial. I don't think removing admins is really a good policy, and neither does Wikipedia. Elliot (talk) 19:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose I don't see why this would be necessary. Something like this can be handled perfectly fine on a case-by-case basis. To echo Timmeh a little, a vote can be called for if an admin's suitability for the role comes into question. --GKtalk2me 21:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC) 75%opposse admins can be denouced any time but still...if someone who has a problem with a admin might be afraid to say something but wiht this they may report there problem--GUM!!! 23:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Comment I don't think some of the people voting so far realise the state of the problem. Forty Percent of our admins have never received the vote of an active member of the site. A month ago, that figure would have been an astonishing SIXTY PERCENT! This is clearly not acceptable in a community that claims to be governed by consensus. The site's administrators need to be able to demonstrate that they have the support of the community. At the moment, this is clearly not the case. A simple re-election would remove the need for an embarrassing de-admin vote: in 4 cases, admins would simply be removed due to inactivity. Other cases would be decided on merit as and when they became eligible for renewal. rpeh •T•C•E• 05:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC) So since the voting age in America is 18, the President has to be reelected each year to include the newly eligible voters? (Not a perfect analogy, but still.) Elliot (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC) That's a terrible analogy. Presidents are re-elected, every four years. Part of the reason for that is the changing electorate, so it sounds like you're now supporting rpeh's proposal. 80.239.242.95 18:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Which is why I said every year. Elliot (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose. This has been discussed a couple previous times on UESP (Things That Need to Happen; De-adminship for inactive admins). However, I refused to participate in either of those discussions because I had many reasons to suspect the discussions were primarily intended to disrupt the community. I'm responding this time because the proposal was initiated by a respected member of the community and therefore deserves a full response. The length is because I'd like to summarize my opinion for once and for all, and also probably because there's some amount of accumulated back log from my past non-contributions. On Wikipedia, this is tagged as a perennial proposal -- two, in fact Demote inactive admins and Reconfirm administrators -- which they've discussed and rejected multiple times. There are links at WP leading to several very long discussions covering nearly every possible opinion; FWIW, this poll seems to provide the most complete list of arguments and counterarguments. WP's summary of the counterargument basically describes my main reactions: In general, this policy has been opposed both by administrators who themselves tend to go through periods of inactivity and do not wish to be forced to maintain token levels of activity to maintain adminship, and by people who believe that there is no substantive security concern. The developers have pointed out that an active account is in far greater danger of becoming compromised than an inactive account. A side effect is that this may raise a barrier for inactive admins to become active again. I'd be tempted to leave my response at that, except that UESP is not Wikipedia. I also think my recent experiences provide useful examples of this policy's implications -- examples that have more direct relevance to UESP than Wikipedia's examples. While mandatory re-elections might be a bad idea on Wikipedia, I think the specifics of UESP mean that they would be even worse here. Two specific reasons are: On UESP there are constantly comments / complaints about the shortage of available admins. At UESP's size, we'll probably always be at risk of gaps in admin coverage. A policy to arbitrarily remove admins will inevitably lead to a situation where a vandal cannot be blocked because the only available person is a recently-returned admin who has lost his/her privileges for no reason other than being absent from the site at the wrong time. Therefore, I'm certain this policy will harm the site, while also seeing no apparent benefit. Perhaps I'm an optimist, but I'm convinced TESV is going to be released -- and then be followed by one, maybe two, expansions. Which means UESP policies can't ignore the implications of the instant chaos produced by the release of a new game/expansion. It's obvious that the number of UESP editors will go up dramatically -- not just new editors, but also many old editors and admins are likely to return. Furthermore, my experience with SI's release says that a significant fraction of the previously active editors are likely to leave, scale back their contributions, or avoid the new game's namespace -- after all, we all want to play the game before learning spoilers from UESP. Which is a long-winded lead-in to the main point: a very likely time for inactive admins to reappear is after the release of a new game. At which point, UESP is likely to be desperate for experienced editors, in particular admins. Furthermore, any nomination under such conditions is likely to be nearly superficial -- a ton of new members; no time for anyone to properly research/evaluate the nomination -- or at least far less meaningful than their original nomination. In which case, how does a new nomination accomplish anything useful? I don't want our hands to be tied by policy written under the assumption that there's always time to leisurely repeat an approval process. Beyond that, I personally think that my recent experiences provide a perfect example of why this is a bad idea. Basically, this proposal means that I would have had no admin powers when I returned to the wiki a few weeks ago. Suggesting I should be exempt, as in a previous comment, seems somewhat meaningless. First, my experience could just as easily happen to a regular admin -- I'm bringing this up as an example, after all. Second, I don't think I'd want to be exempt. Passing such a policy would be a statement that the majority of the community needs first-hand interaction with an admin before the admin can be trusted and, furthermore, that trust must be explicitly given. My additional user rights mean that the community's trust is even more important: because there is no log monitoring my server activities, I can't provide distrustful editors with evidence if questions arise. Yet somehow this supposedly critical need to review all admins doesn't apply to me? Therefore, during these last couple weeks I would have, for example, been unable to do any of the blocks listed in the logs. In many of those cases the vandals/spammers would have been left unblocked for hours, because there have been several occasions when I have been the only available admin, sometimes for half of the day. Furthermore, the practical reality is that this proposal would imply that I'd be unlikely to be restored as admin until about July (in my particular situation any renewal of my server access might not be possible until September, but I'll stick to what would apply to any admin). Why so long? First, it would be at least a month before I would even start a new admin request. A small factor is that I wouldn't want to waste anyone's time with the request until I felt confident I had really returned. Far more importantly is that the entire point of the proposal is for the admin to be approved by the currently active wiki members -- and the majority of those members know nothing about me. They would need a month to have a fair chance of participating in any admin nomination. Even now, the newer editors impression of me is probably based primarily on my admin-type activities. Without my admin privileges, they'd be forced to base their opinions largely on a series of edits to obscure Oblivion Mod:Save File Format subpages -- a year's worth of such edits might not even be enough ;) Second, in past cases it has taken as long as 47 days (for Timenn) from the time a nomination starts to the time it is made effective; a 20-day interval seems typical. Policies about UESP admins can't ignore the fact that UESP adminship requests do not, and probably never will, happen overnight. Daveh has never been involved in UESPWiki on a daily basis -- which I think is probably essential as part of Daveh's long-term commitment to ensure that UESP stays alive for years to come. Which is why I say it realistically will be two months from the time an ex-admin returns before that admin can return to helping with admin duties. Two months during which they could otherwise be helping out -- and providing new editors with direct evidence that they're trustworthy, which is far more meaningful as evidence than any nomination discussion. Furthermore, there's the real possibility that de-adminship would discourage an admin from returning to UESP -- and, no, not out of spite at losing their privileges. Two primary motivations for my return to the site were to (a) help cover any admin shortages and (b) help with issues that need server access. Take away my privileges, and I would have felt like there was little reason to return -- I'd feel more productive pursuing other projects/interests. Alternatively, ex-admins might find it easier to simply start a new account -- why go back to the old account with its inevitable baggage/dirty laundry if you have to effectively start over again no matter what? Either way, someone who was once considered to be one of the most valuable members of the community is effectively lost permanently instead of temporarily. For the record, I'm not the only example of an admin returning after a lengthy absence -- Eshe, for example, was active for several months last year after a year-plus absence. Her return, and her ability to act as an admin when she returned, unequivocally helped the site. Again, a case where this policy would have harmed the site without any justification. In general, if any of the people on the inactive admin list were to return tomorrow, I would welcome the help, unconditionally. Of course that's true of the admins with whom I've worked in the past. But it's also true of Garrett and Endareth, both of whom had basically left the site before I became actively involved. First and foremost, I trust Daveh, and therefore I'm willing to trust his selections. To some extent, insisting that I be given the right to reapprove decisions about Garrett and Endareth would be comparable to insisting that Krusty's nomination be redone just because I wasn't here when the vote was made. In both cases, I trust the people who made the decision, and therefore see no reason to question the decision unless I have some type of evidence to the contrary. Beyond that, their entire wiki contribution history can be reviewed by anyone who is interested -- not to mention their contributions to other wikis (e.g., is Garrett is an admin at Wikipedia and a bureaucrat at StrategyWiki). In every case, I trust the inactive admin's judgment to determine the best course of action upon returning: whether to simply step down; whether to voluntarily seek re-nomination; whether site policies need to be learned/re-learned; whether he/she is ready to just dive straight in; or any other possibility. As far as arguments comparing admin nominations to political elections, they're fallacious, besides the obvious Wikipedia is not a democracy guideline. There is no limit on the number of possible wiki admins. Since keeping inactive admins on the list does nothing to prevent new admins from being added, regular re-elections are not a necessary mechanism for guaranteeing turnover. Furthermore, politicians are elected based in large part on their agenda -- their opinions on specific issues and whether voters agree with those opinions. Issues change, politicians' opinions change, and voters' opinions change, so re-elections are necessary. On the other hand, admins are approved primarily based on their impartiality and whether they can be trusted to enforce wiki policy -- characteristics that don't change overnight. The basic facts in each year's re-election would be largely the same, with the potential for the "discussion" to be dominated by comments stating effectively "Support: see original nomination". I don't see any inherent value to periodically polling current site members about the admins, inactive or active. We don't put every policy on the site up for re-election periodically, or throw out old policies simply because the people who contributed to the original discussion are no longer active. Instead members are free to start discussions about any policy if they feel something needs to be changed, clarified, or revoked. I think the policy system works, and I think that same basic system also works for admins. Furthermore, based on Wikipedia is not a democracy, the purpose of nomination discussions is not to hold a vote. We don't insist that any fixed number or percentage of current members must state their opinion before closing the discussion. We don't tally the numbers and declare a winner; there have even been cases on Wikipedia where admin nominees received more opposing than supporting "votes" but yet were still give the adminship. Instead the discussion is about getting a representative range of opinions, and, ideally, reaching a unanimous community consensus. In other words, the specific names attached to the opinions aren't what matter, so a new set of names doesn't need to be added to the opinions. No arguments that have been presented demonstrating how or why re-elections would benefit the community. The primary visible effect of such re-elections would be the constant required discussions -- regardless of whether anyone in the community has anything to say or even has any interest in the discussion. And the only changes that I see coming out of such discussions have many potential ways of harming the site. So why keep bringing it up? --NepheleTalk 15:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I think the arguments are clear and that you are the one making fallacious arguments. Your point about Krusty's election misses the point impressively. Under this proposal, you would get a chance to vote on Krusty's role - in just under a year's time. You say that admins' characteristics that don't change overnight, so you are admitting that they can and do change. With no mechanism for renewal, there is no opportunity for people to decide if the changes are beneficial or not. 80.239.242.95 18:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC) If an administrator needs to be reevaluated, then a discussion can take place (which has happened before, such as rpeh's case). There is no reason to create problems where there are none. Elliot (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC) There are problems. Having unelected administrators and other administrators who have not received the support of current site members is an anomalous situation. Let's take your bad analogy and use it in a more sensible way. I don't have to put up with a president I never voted for because I get a chance to vote every four years. On UESP I have to put up with whatever administrators people I have never heard of decided to elect/appoint. And knock off this "suspiciously anonymous" crap in your edit summaries. I don't believe UESP has any policy that prevents me from expressing my opinions anonymously. If I was voting, I'd use my name, but I'm not. I'm commenting because I agree with rpeh's proposal. 80.239.242.95 19:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose I'm changing my vote because I hadn't realized that these would be periodic; I had thought that this was a one time thing limited to admins that had not received (widespread) concensus as such their elections had not had a representative cross-section of the wiki community. You would have kept your admin rights also; the proposer stated that inactive admins returning would keep their rights for a month or two to allow everyone to become comfortable with this persons editing style.--TheAlbinoOrc 16:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose My vote shouldn't matter here. I believe that my worth in this community has greatly diminished since I stopped (unofficially) patrolling and paying attention. I'm not unpopular, but the idea of giving someone with no time or invested effort any more responsibility is without reason. If we consider the efforts which many of our current and past admins have given freely to the community, we find that even with sufficient cause to demote them, they still hold a great influence on the community if not by their past deeds, then by their continuing contributions. Achieving authority in this group project shouldn't be by popularity. We contribute because we love to, and we take on responsibility when we need to. We work best as a culture of deeds. By proving that we can handle a job and fulfill its duties, we attain respect and trust. When the power structure is reversed, and we let the new recruits promote us rather than the boss, we have well respected contributers without the proportionate voice in proper decision making and people like me telling everyone what to do. There wouldn't be proper trust in authority. We would also have a bit more drive and possibly destructive activity from those seeking personal gain instead of site improvements. Now I'm just providing some (hopefully lucid) feedback. I can only imagine the horrors which an evil admin could incur upon this centralized project which has had random server problems in the past including the smoking backup server. Without piling elections on to the worry-plates of our currently underfunded admins, let's get some more bigshot patrollers who can be admins in a few bagillion good edits. As for when the trusted authority goes against the grain of the community, there really is only the respect of feats which gives them that power, if leadership goes where the community is not willing to follow, we simply loose the community which hasn't invested so much in the project and might take another project the way they want to go. I think there are enough policies about ranks of admins/patrollers already without elections. Lukish_ Tlk Cnt 19:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Scorpio

What should be done with scorpio? Hes using bad language deleting pages removing warnings but I dont want to be hash so what else can be done to him other than a block (warnings have no effect on him) --Arny 19:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Just give things time to cool down. If he's willing to stop a block is not needed. Mike/|\ 19:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

search

Hey I just wanted to ask that when you search for something why does the search show you the script of the page? Why doesnt it show you the text that is on the page instead? Arny 10:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

By script, I'm assuming that you mean the page source and wikitext. How's how the MediaWiki search engine works. I personally prefer wikitext being used in the searches, since links tend to be piped (eg. [[link|text]]). This sort of search also makes it easier to find and view external links. --Michaeldsuarez ^{(Talk) (Deeds)} 13:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Adjustments to template subsections

After some experiments (and a few mistakes) I've found out that editing a section of a page with a template directly edits the template's original page. The effects can be described as followed: Lore:Places_A#Anvil is divided into a section (County Anvil} which is divided into a sub-section (The City of Anvil) which is further divided into sub sub-sections (the districts). Editing just regular Anvil brings up the template, while editing the section County Anvil brings up its section text. Editing the City of Anvil allows one to edit its section and sub-section. This causes obvious problems as if someone wanted to add namespace specific info to Oblivion, it will also affect the Lore Anvil and any page that uses template Anvil. Basically, it shouldn't be possible to edit a template's subsections besides on its template page, as this could lead to a big mess. Is it somewhat possible to integrate an almost __NOEDITSECTION__ into a template, so that only a temp's sections can be edited on the temp's page? Or, is it possible to merge all sections to a template, taking the option of editing it away? I probably sound confusing, so if anyone needs it I'll be happy to clarify -- Jplatinum16 03:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

That wouldn't fix the "problem". Even if you add __NOEDITSECTION__ to the article, users could still edit articles in the "Lore" namespaces (by simply editing the Lore namespace articles). In addition, we have RecentChanges patrollers who could find problems within the Lore namespace. Also, namespace-specific data and templates aren't really things new users know about, so I can't see inexperienced users causing such a problem. I don't see any reason to change anything. --Michaeldsuarez ^{(Talk) (Deeds)} 12:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is not allowing editors to edit the Lore section; the problem is that editing a template section on one page will edit the template's orginal page. If I make an edit on one page, save, and end up on another, that seems like a problem. This problem can affect inexperienced and experienced users, cause I doubt most (if any) users know this. True, our trusty patrollers are always on the lookout for namespace specific info, but this affects:

1. A template's page
2. A page's (with the template) info
3. A potentially useful namespace specific edit

Example: I want to add under the Oblivion Leyawiin Chapel District section that "the Best Goods and Guarantees general store can be found here, next to The Dividing Line". I click [edit] for that section, edit it accordingly, and then save. I am now on the Lore:Leyawiin page, instead of the Oblivion one. Now, Lore:Leyawiin has Oblivion specific info. A patroller sees this, and reverts it, saying it's not lore specific. Now, the Oblivion:Leyawiin page doesn't have that info. All of this could have been avoided if a template's sections weren't editable on other pages. May not be the biggest problem, but it's one nonetheless. -- Jplatinum16 00:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Vandal

Mike484 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

We currently appear to have a vandal at work. Would an administrator please block him as soon as possible. Thanks! ‒ Robin Hood↝talk 23:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, while undoing the vandalism, I accidentally patrolled this edit which makes major changes to a paragraph in a Morrowind article, and I have no ready way to confirm. Can someone double-check it and take appropriate action, please? Thanks! ‒ Robin Hood↝talk 23:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Thanks for the confirmation, TAO. ‒ Robin Hood↝talk 01:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if just adding the template works but I tried to full-protect the warning since he was vandalizing it.--TheAlbinoOrc^{Got_a_question?} 01:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that doesn't work (It'd be darn useful though) by the way thanks for blocking him Nephele.--Arch-Mage Matt^Talk 01:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Policy Discussions

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

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

Okay, all done, I think. There were two discussions that I simply archived as old, but the second one may need further action:

1. Request for Block of Rpeh lacked support, nor was it a formal vote. Since it's entirely an Admin decision in any event, I saw no point in providing a consensus to it.
2. Request to remove warning was slightly in favour of removing Corevette's warning from Elliot's talk page (the other warning and block would remain since they were from an unrelated incident), but there was very little input overall and it was implied that there may have been a behind-the-scenes discussion amongst some of the Admins to let it stand. Other comments in the various related discussions were also mixed as to what should be done, but there was an overall feeling that both parties shared the blame to some degree. Since there is no warning on rpeh's page, I suggest that Corevette's warning also be removed from Elliot's, but clearly, there are divided feelings and I'm not about to take action under these circumstances. I'd recommend the Admins hash it out, but in the absence of action or an agreement at that level, it lacks a clear consensus from the community, so existing policy of leaving the warning would prevail.

‒ Robin Hood↝talk 04:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Block Needed

Obviously, Mike needs another blocking and I suspect he's not done. --Arch-Mage Matt^Talk 03:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

If ChampionQQ needs to be blocked, then how come he hasn't been given a warning? The blocking policy is pretty clear about warning users before blocking them. When I'm checking the site from my iPhone (as I am right now) it is very inconvenient to do extra research into whether this is one of the few exceptions where blocking without warning is appropriate. --Nephele^Talk 03:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

But not if he has A.) Vandalized many pages or B.) Doesn't seem to be stopping or C.) Has made personal attacks. --Arch-Mage Matt^Talk 03:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

What I'm primarily trying to say is that if you think someone needs to be blocked, the most useful course of action is to warn the user rather than post an unnecessary message here. It would take me 30 minutes or more right now to check your A, B, or C conditions -- but only a minute to see that the user has been warned. --Nephele^Talk 03:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Since the nature of the edits makes it clear that ChampionQQ is the same person as mike484 (who is permanently blocked), isn't the warning stage unnecessary? Furthermore, shouldn't the new account receive the same permanent block as the initial account? Dlarsh^(T,C) 04:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That may be my fault, since I set a bad example and took steps out of order yesterday — I asked for a block a couple of minutes before realizing that nobody had yet issued a warning.

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

Innappropriate Username?

Would AssEater9000 be an unacceptable username? Because someone has signed up with that name. --ModderElGrande^{Talk Contribs} 17:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

While it's profanity, it's not harassment toward any person or group of people and doesn't make any type of explicit or implicit threat (unlike the username that was recently blocked), so I don't think any action is necessary. --GK^talk2me 02:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) All true- potentially. But I'd still prefer to ask them to accept a namechange; after all as long as they don't do anything except on their talk page it doesn't hurt anything.--TheAlbinoOrc^{Got_a_question?} 02:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Block Needed 2

User:Demons fiery needs a block not only has he ignored a warning, made personal attacks he has said that he is the same person as a known vandal.--TheAlbinoOrc^{Got_a_question?} 23:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

He has been blocked for a while now.--^Corevette₇₈₉ 23:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Braska (Dragon Age:Origins there. Elven swearing.). I didn't realize that. Sorry for putting this up here.--TheAlbinoOrc^{Got_a_question?} 22:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Block Appeal: User:Ranger / User:Scorpio

Ranger had the following to say:

I believe it is fair enough to keep the block however instead of a month could you shorten the block to one week (Ranger 16:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC))

oh and if possible could you delete scorpio i would like a fresh start on this account thanks (Ranger 16:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC))

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

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

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

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

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

No, Ranger was blocked for using an alternate account to circumvent a block, which is different from sockpuppetry. Given that Ranger's first edit admitted a connection with Scorpio, another edit a few minutes later also admitted a connection and a third confirms it, there's no concern that this was an attempt to create an alter ego. Ditto his other account. It looks to me as if the user has had a chance to calm down, as I asked, and I would support an unblock given edits such as [1], [2], [3] and [4], which seem to indicate a more measured approach to editing. Obviously, any return to the sort of editing that caused the warnings and blocks should immediately warrant at least the full month block that is currently in effect. rpeh •T•C•E• 21:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

I'm afraid you're right. So much for giving him the benefit of the doubt. rpeh •T•C•E• 17:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Prev: Archive 14

Up: Administrator Noticeboard

Next: Archive 16