UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard/Archives/Things That Need to Happen

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

Things That Need to Happen

I've been a user and occasional contributor to this site for some time now. I have watched with some dismay as it has begun to resemble a forum rather than the productive wiki it once was. Insults, rudeness and snide remarks seem to have become the order of the day, with the blocking policy having been ignored in several cases. I have come to the conclusion that there are certain actions that must be taken to halt the slide and, with any luck, reverse it. Why have I hidden my name? Because it doesn't matter. Whatever I may have said in the past, I doubt you will need to read too far before realizing that none of the current administrators come out of this very well.

1. Wrye must be have his sysop privileges revoked

   It is clearly unacceptable to have somebody who claims to be "99.5% retired" still taking an active role in administrative disputes. In the latest case, he has only responded because it directly affects projects he has chosen to include on somebody else's wiki rather than his own site. His posts are consistently rude, dismissive and arrogant. He brings the role of sysop into disrepute with almost every post. If he thinks he deserves the role, he should stand for election to it - something that he has never done.

2. Put Nephele and Rpeh into a room together and don't let them out until they stop fighting

   I have no idea what has happened here but the conflict that has been brewing between them for the past couple of months has begun to erupt and needs to be stopped before it gets even worse. Everything I read on this site shows that they were good friends until recently. Whatever it is that stopped this situation: fix it. And before one of you replies telling me that I don't know what's going on: no - I don't. Fix it anyway.

3. Have a privilege-expiration policy

   Non-active admins and patrollers should resign or have those roles removed. I would have thought that the (relatively) recent return of a patroller, followed by two dozen reverts after his edits to an archaic system of pages would have caused the penny to drop here. Evidently not. You can't have people keeping these roles unless you want to have chaos when they return and don't know what has happened in the interim.

4. Enforce your policies

   You have rules against swearing, insults and abuse. Enforce them. You have a deletion policy that should make the entire current deletion debate a no-brainer. Use it.

5. Keep molehills as molehills

   Every single decision seems to escalate into a site-wide debate about right and wrong, with each side claiming to be right. I'm not going to give you the answers because I'd be accused of taking sides, but all your recent arguments have had a clear solution. I can't believe you have taken so long along the road to reach them - and still haven't got there in at least one case. This site - and this may come as a shock - is not the most important thing in the universe. Stop acting like it is.

To summarize, the entire sysop team has been conspicuous either by their absence or by their bickering. That is not the image they should be presenting to the site. If it hadn't been for three (and a half) of your current patrollers (GameLord, GuildKnight and Timenn deserve mentions here - unfortunately Gaebrial seems to have departed) and some of your other users (LordDagon, Puddle and sometimes Darkle have all been helping) the site would have fallen apart.

And no, I'm none of the people I just mentioned.

I half expect this to be reverted and have my shiny new account blocked. How dare I criticize the mighty sysops?! If that is your solution then feel free. I have made this post only because of my concern for the site. I hope you deal with it in the same manner.

Voice Of Reason 14:29, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

According to Special:ListUsers, Rpeh and Nephele are still the most active users here. Also, I can tell you from my own personal experience, that the administrators, especially Reph, are quick to stop any vandalism and distruptions to the site. I know since I was banned for disruptive behavior. You should stay on the site for a little longer before you start making judgments about people. --Michaeldsuarez ^{(Talk)/(Contribs)} 15:38, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

I also know that Reph is very pround of this site, since he stops anyone outside of the site from copying from UESP without giving proper attribution. Also, according to Special:contributions/Wrye, Wrye has made edits recently. In fact, he made edits today. The only thing that I could say your right about is that little problems could become big issues for silly reasons, which is partially why I was banned. --Michaeldsuarez ^{(Talk)/(Contribs)} 15:46, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

I'll agree to most of what VoR has said, though not always for the same reasons. What's more, I'll even put my name to it! I know the Admins here are not generally vindictive, and if they were, then what I said and any repercussions of it would be irrelevant, since I wouldn't want to stay in that case anyway. So to me, the idea of putting my name to it or hiding it is entirely a moot point.

• Like VoR, I've noticed some tension among several administrators recently, and I have to wonder what's going on. It's definitely not good when Admins are sniping at each other publicly. I've even noticed this spilling over to affect other users, which is also not good. If there are personal problems between Admins, or with any other user, take them to private e-mails where possible - it's never good to have those in charge openly in conflict or appearing snarky towards other users...even moreso when you're talking about one of the largest wikis on the web next to Wikipedia.
• In regards to privileges, I agree that Patrollers and Admins should lose their status if they haven't been active in some time (say 6 months or a year), and probably the same for Cartographers, though I'm not sure if that's as much of an issue. Similarly, if Wrye is 99.5% retired, then I believe he should give up his Admin privileges (preferably voluntarily) unless there's a serious need for the extra Admin to help out from time to time. We all have periods in our lives where we can't give the time to something that we used to (for example, I haven't Patrolled lately because I'm too busy hunting for a job), but there's a difference between that and being nearly or totally inactive for long periods of time.
• As for the remaining two points (4 & 5), I both agree and disagree. :) It's good to keep things simple and to enforce policies, but at the same time, it's also good to review and challenge existing policies from time to time. This process will invariably take time, and may lead to conflicting views. This is normal and expected, and should be considered a good thing to a point. As long as it doesn't devolve into the same points being endlessly repeated in different words, I feel that usually that means progress is being made. So perhaps Admins should put a limit on how long some things get debated, but if it were up to me, I would be inclined to let most of these discussions play out, personally.

Anyway, those are my opinions on the various topics. What can I say - I'm always good for an opinion or two. :) --Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 19:17, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

The reason for not auto-expiring admins is that it's unwise to dismiss a potentially useful resource. The truth is that admins come and go. They'll be here and active for a while and then they'll leave, thus leaving the site admin-short. Having older admins able to step in and backstop is tremendously useful. Moreover, these are folks who are pretty much the most tested in dedication to the site -- hence they're (relatively) unlikely to screw things up. And they've put a lot of effort into the site, and hence may have the motivation to come back and try to fix things if things take a wrong turn.

Put another way, having old admins around means having more admins around. And having more admins around tends to make things a bit more democratic (if occasionally loud). I.e. if the current leading admin says "X" while two older admins say "not X" as happened in the recent debate on redirect deletions, it tends to balance things out. More admins also tend to bring in different points of view -- and thus perhaps new solutions.

In short, admins have already proved themselves. If they're not active, then they're certainly not doing anything detrimental to the site. And if they are active, then they're presumably (based on past evidence) doing something useful and constructive. Admins should only be demoted if there's clear and pressing reason for that (as was the case with Aristeo).

--Wrye 23:55, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

PS. "Voice of Reason" is an account created specifically to make the comments that started this section (i.e. his only edits are two to this page, plus his own page). However, other edits from the same ip that Voice of Reason used tend to be trollish (e.g. at the extreme, this one). --Wrye 00:28, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

To respond to each of "Voice of Reason"'s concerns;

1. I fail to see how Wrye's administrative status has played any role in the recent discussions. Whether I agree with his views/positions or not, he has voiced his concerns in a completely valid manner. This is the idea of achieving consensus; we voice our concerns, others address those concerns and voice their own, and back and forth. Wrye's past contributions alone, regardless of his administrative status, would have meant that his opinions on the recent matters discussed would be worthy of serious contemplation.
   Though I can see Wrye's posts seeming "rude, dismissive and arrogant" to some, and I would love to see his posts become more... "friendly", I do not see how his administrative status has any bearing on this at all. He would still post (I hope), and due to his experience in the more overlooked areas of the wiki and his history with it, he would still have some "clout" in any discussion that involved anything related.
2. Rpeh and Nephele... I too noticed the tension. Though I personally can only think of one or two instances I've noticed where it was public, I agree with RH, "It's definitely not good when Admins are sniping at each other publicly." However, these things happen. They may not be handling whatever's going on perfectly, but not many people do. It's difficult when you have a disagreement with with someone you previously got along well with, and this situation is always exacerbated when the disagreement occurs online, where it is more difficult to convey "degrees" of feeling and conviction.
3. I don't think a privilege-expiration policy would help anything. I can see the argument concerning familiarity with recent changes in policies and procedures, but we really think about things before making a person an admin or patroller and they all would (hopefully) be willing to adjust to any changes. If one of us were to take a long "leave-of-absence", and return to an unfamiliar situation, it would not take long for a currently-active editor to fill us in, and the cleanup wouldn't really be that arduous. I think it is invaluable to have the perspective of admins and patrollers that have been around, so that essentially we don't have to learns lessons twice. However, I do think that a discussion should take place when a potential admin is nominated concerning their dedication to the wiki and what sort of long-term commitment they are considering, just so that that can be taken into account when users vote.
4. Yes, our policies should be enforced, and they are; however, there is nothing wrong with a discussion about whether the current policy is sufficient or if it should be changed. This is the way a wiki stays current, accurate, and useful. This is what we have been doing, discussing whether policies need to be adjusted, or if the policy works as it is.
5. I think that current discussions have had appropriate... "magnitudes." We have just happened to have a few recent discussion that do affect large portions (or all) of the wiki, and have necessitated wiki-wide discussion.

This is just the way I perceive things. Though things have not been perfect recently, they rarely are, and I'm rather proud of the way it's been handled. We are learning from each other, and seriously considering one another's views. This is definitely the most mature wiki I've ever seen, and I'm proud to say that I've helped even a little. --GuildKnight^Talk2me 01:30, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Wrye raises a good point about having "backup" Admins and Patrollers around in the event that they're needed. Giving it some thought, I think perhaps Wrye's chosen method of indicating inactivity (ideally on both the user page as well as in any Admin/Patroller list pages) is probably the best approach. It lets people know that this person isn't active and may not respond right away, but that in the event of some overwhelming need, that they're still around. Anyway, that's it from me...just wanted to indicate my change of view on that point. --Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 02:19, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm not going to post a full response yet because I'm still thinking about what I should say. So let me make this brief and say that I agree to at least some extent with everything Voice of Reason said. Since this is about to become a big discussion anyway I don't see that it inflames anything to point out that Wrye a) should not have posted CheckUser information, and b) "exaggerated the truth" about what he posted. According to CheckUser, the IP used by VoR has been used to make precisely one post (the one to which Wrye linked) other than the ones made under a named account. I also object to the way Wrye characterised the debate about the deletion policy. In fact, a more accurate description would be that he made a suggestion unacceptable to the site and two admins got him to back down. He is being disingenuous to suggest anything different. I will post a full response soon. I just want to make it clear that I'm not ignoring this debate. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 14:05, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Well I disagree (strongly) with Rpeh's summary of the discussion, but folks can judge for themselves. See UESPWiki_talk:Deletion_Policy. In any case, I am mostly retired. Regarding this suggestion, I wanted to voice the problems with it, which I've done, so I'm done on the subject.

Regarding use of checkip info -- Rpeh if there's a policy here or on wikipedia that's relevant, please point me to it. Also, regarding that ip, you can check the contributions page as well -- apparently ipconfig only goes back so far, while the contribution links go back farther. As I said, that particular posting was extreme, but the previous postings however also had a trollish air (e.g. history comments such as "Stop it you child." and "you need to grow up"). And that's as much as I'll say on that topic as well. (Though again, if there's a relevant policy page, I'll appreciate hearing about it.) --Wrye 16:24, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

AFAIK, CheckIP info is only available to Admins, and therefore I would treat it the same as cross-posting private information into a public forum. Netiquette says that this is a bad thing. If I'm wrong in the assumption that checkip is only available to Admins, please let me know. --Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 16:44, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

That is generally correct, though exceptions have been made when dealing with vandals and trolls. It's not extremely sensitive information - you couldn't track down the user's home address this way or anything like that. (You might get the general area they live in, but nothing specific - I tried checking my own IP once and it was off by two whole states.) The most you could do with it would be to post a complaint to their ISP, which I think we can agree is hardly appropriate in this case. Now I wouldn't classify this poster as either a vandal or a troll, though it does border on trollishness, slightly. I also disagree that the comments made in the history such as the examples Wrye gave above are trollish - both of those comments were made while reverting vandalism, which was indeed of the childish variety. However, I do not agree with the poster's insistance that Wrye's administrative priveleges be revoked. The behavior that VOR is comlpaining about isn't even related to administrative priveleges in any way - anyone can post in policy discussions on the site, this right is by no means restricted only to Admins, and nothing Wrye did in this case was something that he had special rights to do by virtue of being an Admin. (Except afterwards, with the CheckUser, which is relatively harmless as I stated above.) I see no reason why Admin (or Patroller, or any other priveleges) should be revoked simply because a user has been inactive. The only valid reason I can think of for revoking priveleges is when those priveleges are grossly misused, which is a very rare and exceptional occurance. So far, it has only happened once in the history of the site (and I disagreed with that as well. But then, I've always adopted a "Why can't we all just - get along?" attitude). As for the rest, I do agree that petty bickering among Admins looks bad and should be avoided in general, or at least kept in more private forums whenever possible. We should keep in mind that anyone can read user talk pages for other users, so it's not exactly a private messaging system. And regarding the site rules and their enforcement, I'm not really sure what that's about, but I have always considered the rules to be more "guidelines" than hard rules set in stone. There are definitely times when strict adherence to the rules would seriously impede progress, and sometimes the rules need to be bent a bit in the interests of efficiency. Again, not sure how that's relevant to the recent controversy, but that's how I feel about it. --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 00:18, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

Purely to reply about the posting of CheckUser data - see our Privacy Policy on the matter. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 03:02, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

Ok, first of all I'd like to remind everyone that this is a discussion of VoR's 5 points, not the privacy policies on CheckUser information.

I'll post my responses to the points in the same order as VoR brought them up.

1. I think that Wrye's administrative status has indeed had an effect on the past discussions, not however on his posts themselves, but on the responses to his posts. Although it should not be the case, when an editor sees an adminstrator voicing his opinion, the editor will often, not always, see that the poster is an administrator, and for that reason be inclined to agree, sometimes even subconsciously.
   Also, although it's not set in stone, administrators are generally expected to be helpful to the other editors.
   VoR's final sentence on this point intrigues me. Wrye was promoted to administratorive status on the 18. October 2005. At this time the wiki was still very small, there were most likely not even 10 dedicated editors on the site. Wrye's promotion would have gone unnoticed by most people. There are currently only three editors (that I know of), who were active then and still are. Following generations of editors would simply see that Wrye was an administrator and assume this was for good reason. Since then Wrye has been involved, willingly or not, in other administratorive conflicts.
   As Wrye never had to present himself to the rest of the community, I think that although it would be over 3 years late, it still should be done; Wrye should be nominated for administratorice status, and the other editors should vote on the outcome.
   If Wrye would do this willingly, I for one would be extremely grateful. If not, we shall have to see what the rest of the community thinks.
2. Administratorive conflicts should generally be avoided whenever possible. I've noticed the tension between Rpeh and Nephele, but didn't say anything at the time, hoping that it would boil out. Other people seem to think this is unlikely however, so I suppose I should post my ideas now.
   Any conflicts that may exists between two editors should be resolved with the minimum amount of fuss. I'm not saying that we should try and pretend that it never happened, but that it should be resolved quickly and neatly, rather than leave another massive blob on the CP or the AN. This is because if the problem is resolved, things will msot likely go back to as they were before, with Rpeh and Nephele both being excellent administrators and editors. If a huge discussion takes place, people will undoubtably go into the page histories and attempt to dig out and exaggerate every mistake either of them have ever made. This is not a good way to solve anything. All it would do would be increase the tention between the two.
3. I think that a priviledge expiration policy is a good idea. If a long absent patroller or administrator were to return to the wiki, it is highly unlikely that they would be able to patrol or administrate succesfully. Bringing them up to speed would be almost impossible, as a huge number of important discussions will have taken place in their absence. Even if they looked through the archives and re-read the discussions, they would still have to get used to all the new editors, learn who's who etc. However, it will never be possible to have a solid expiration date. Every patroller and administrator is different and should be treated differently. I think that the best way to solve this would be to have a similar method to the way in which they were promoted in the first place: If an edit thinks that an administrator or patroller has been absent for too long, then that editor should nominate the administrator or patroller for a demotion. Although a better name could probably be thought up. I think this is especially necessary for some of the currently inactive editors, such as Endareth, who have publicly stated that they will be unlikely ever to return full time to the wiki.

1. I'm not sure what VoR means here. We have policies, and we enforce them. Period. Sometimes these policies have been bent slightly, depending on the situation, but largely have been kept to. What VoR may mean is that we give vandals too many second chances. This shouldn't change in my opinion. Second chances are always a good thing, as we can never tell how an editor might change over time.
2. It would indeed be wonderful if we could keep molehills as molehills and we try to. However, a wiki is an open community, where everyone has a voice. These voices may differ dramatically from oneanother. As a wiki that supports the Concensus policy, we try to make as many people happy as possible. This means reading and responding to each users reply individually. They will then reply to the reply and discussions evolve. Having huge discussions may seem like a bad thing, but they really are the optimal method in which we can solve problems.

That addresses all of VoR's points and basically sums up my opinion on the entire matter. - Game Lord^{Talk|Contribs} 16:13, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

Timmeh writes his opinion

1. Wrye

   I don't have any problem with Wrye being a sysop. He should go into IRC every once in a while though :(.

2. Rpeh and Nephele

   I don't know anything about this, I haven't been here for a while.

3. Have a privilege-expiration policy

   I agree with Voice of Reason in some respects. There should be a vote of no confidence for patrollers every 3-6 months and for administrators every year (that way we can get rid of DaveH!), just to make sure that they are doing their job.

   I totally know that I'm a part of the group that would get cut, which is fine. I should be, because I am not very reliable.

4. Enforce your policies

   We weren't?

5. Keep molehills as molehills

   I don't know anything about this. Small things like site policy on British/American spellings come up every once in a while, and those are debated. Otherwise I don't see anything wrong with this.

--Timmeh ^Talk 16:03, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

Endareth's musings... While I would not dispute that if there was a need for less administrators I'm definitely at the top of the list for removal, and would not complain (too much! ^_^) if demoted, it really comes down to the benefits of having extra, longer term, admins around. Administrators are not just there because of their large numbers of edits, there's generally more involved including a mix of general level of activity, maturity, knowledge of wiki coding, and more. People come and go, not just administrators, but all users. Some of us leave and come back (you'll no doubt be seeing a lot more of me when TES 5 shows up on the scene!). If there was a compelling reason for me to come back here before then, major policy arguments or such, I like to think that I might be able to assist, in some ways more objectively perhaps. — Endareth^Talk–Edits 22:32, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

Cool. It's like having an admin stuffed away in cryovault -- "Dethaw in case of TES 5"! :lol: --Wrye 02:36, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

The OP Returns

I was hoping not to have to reply but in the light of the lack of input from Nephele or Rpeh, and given that we have the "cryo-admins" attempting to justify their continued existence, I think I have to say something.

Endareth, Wrye: You do not have the respect of the community. Nobody trusts you because nobody knows who you are. Wrye only ever bothers to pop up when one of his private projects hosted at Daveh's expense is threatened (witness the debate when his precious redirects were proposed for deletion). He has done nothing useful or productive on the site in ages. Endareth has the good grace to recognize that but misses the point with his comments. He doesn't require admin status to make points in debates, and if he were to be likely to make such points, where has he been in all the recent debates that have so negatively affected this community? Lastly, the idea that an unknown editor should be able to pop up and have admin-level input to the TES 5 project when that occurs is horrifying. Why should these two people (plus the other inactive admins) have such an input when they can't be bothered to turn up now?

That brings me back to my main point, that most of you have missed. Most of the site staff are invisible at the moment. Even Darkle, who I mentioned in my original post and who went on to get made a patroller, then disappeared. Quite simply, if you can't do the job, at least have the decency to put a comment on your user page saying so. To be fair, Nephele and Ratwar have done that, which I suppose means Rpeh is the only admin left which might account for his heavy-handed scalpal use when it comes to patrolling.

The other point, that you aren't enforcing policies? Nobody seems to have said much about that. Let me give you an example. Perhaps Rpeh (or anybody else) can explain his refusal to ban TempleZero for his latest swearing comments on Lore talk:Pocket Guide to the Empire, 3rd Edition/Cyrodiil (and yes it's definitely him)? THEN I'll believe you're enforcing policy.

So back to my original questions:

1. When are you going to sack Wrye? (The very fact he didn't know the site's own privacy policy is surely reason enough!)
2. When are Nephele and Rpeh going to sort it out? (At least they've stopped fighting in public)
3. When are you going to have a privilege-expiration policy?
4. When are you going to start enforcing your policies?

The last one was more an observation than a statement.

It's been a month and nobody has answered these clearly enough. Try again. Voice of Reason 16:40, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

And I thought I'd have a night off... I guess not.

I didn't reply in detail to your original post because I decided, after considerable thought, that it wasn't worth it. As it happens, I agree with you on several points. The main difference is that I don't place as much importance in them as you do. Let's go through your original post.

Wrye must be have his sysop privileges revoked

I don't think it's going to come as a surprise to any regular on this site to hear that I have a lot of problems with Wrye. I agree that his attitude could do with... adjustment... and that his focus on certain parts of the site has cause him to be... less than knowledgeable about current policy. I also agree that he should stand for election (as should the other two unelected admins). What you might find surprising is that if Wrye stood for election, I would vote for him. I would even campaign for him should it become necessary to change individuals' votes. The reason for that is that, whilst the two of us disagree on many aspects of site administration (not all), I cannot fault him on his dedication to the site. The disagreement you cite over redirects is a case in point: the two of us had a difference in focus during the debate but I couldn't - and didn't - claim that his POV was aimed at anything other than helping users.

So yes, I'd agree there should be an election to put every admin on the same footing. But my call during such an election would be: Vote Wrye!

Put Nephele and Rpeh into a room....

At least you acknowledged that you didn't know what's going on. Believe me that if either Nephele or I knew exactly what was going on, we'd have sorted the problem out before it became obvious. Don't claim be so naive that you think it can all be sorted out with no problem. Nephele and I are two very intelligent people who have chosen to give a lot of time to this site. If friction occurs it will be between the two fastest-moving components and that is what we have. Since you don't know me or Nephele, please don't take it personally when I ask you to shut up and leave us to deal with it ourselves?

Have a privilege-expiration policy

Yes, we should. We have it for Mentors and should have it for patrollers. Admins.... yes, if there's nothing at all after a year (say).

Enforce your policies

This is where I could really get cross. To put it simply: you have NO idea what it's like to be an active admin on this site. We have few enough active editors helping to fix other people's edits; we then have few enough active patrollers to fix the ones that get left. Eventually, though, it comes down to the active admins, and that almost always means me or Neph. And this is (I assume) what you mean about my scalpal [sic] touch on the Recent Changes page.

Before I became a patroller whenever I came across a 50/50 edit I'd leave it for an admin. I didn't feel confident enough to deal with information that, whilst it might be true, may not deserve a place on the page to which it had been added. When I was made an admin, I realised I couldn't do that any more. The buck (or pound in my case) stopped here. I don't know who first said that "Decisions are made by those who turn up", but being an admin, you have to make some darn hard decisions: Is this worth mentioning? Is it always true? Is that phrasing right? Is it better-placed on a related page? The same is true of admin decisions. Assuming good faith, is that a warning? A non-warning-warning? An immediate block? To be honest, I'd much rather see a good ol' fashioned "Ure all ghei" post that leads to an obvious block than a more ambiguous one that could be anything!

Molehills?

I can only say that your post stirred up a load of stuff that didn't need to be stirred. When it comes to making mountains, you've made the biggest for some time.

Basically, none of the items on your list need to happen. At worst one or two of them might benefit the site in some small way. And I've spent an hour on this post that would have been spent mapping out Shadowkey, so thanks for harming the site in that small way. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 17:28, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Apologies, but I missed the specific blocking example you highlighted. Let me ask you a question for once: In the light of the current tense-ness that you have identified between various members of the admin team, do you think that blocking would have helped? Or, given the nature of the activity, was my "scalpal"-wielding hand subtle enough to get the point across without exacerbating the situation? Just some points to consider. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 17:35, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

More "Insight" from Timmeh

On the subject of Wrye, even though he may not be around much, he is probably the most respectable person on the site about TES III and TES IV modding. It may be debatable that he might need to be demoted to patroller, but I honestly don't know what goes into the mod sections of the wiki and I don't know if he needs the admins rights. So let him keep the admin, if it comes to that. He might start fights and alps, but he does have the most knowledge on the subject, which at least allows him to keep the mod sections correct without patrollers needing to watch him. If it comes to a vote, I say yes (and a definite yes if he bribes me by coming into the IRC room).

Also, isn't there a expiration for mentors? I'm not sure if it's enforced or not but I know I was taken off the mentor list when I was inactive. --Timmeh ^Talk 12:20, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Well, before I even start my response, I think it is about time that I (and the rest of the inactive administrators) laugh manically at our success at causing the UESP harm when we're not even here, so "Muhahahahahaha". Anyways, now to business.

1. Sacking Wrye: When and if Wrye decides to step down, or he goes completely crazy. I don't care if the community doesn't respect him or Endareth, they have still earned their positions as administrators. They are both responsible people, and time away from the site does not take that away from them. So, I believe your fears are very misplaced. If fact, for all your talk about 'trust', instead of talking about this with your established IP or an established username, you've chosen to register something entirely new, with NO contributions outside this discussion, and yet you wish to attack others because people won't know them? Seriously, where's the logic in that?
2. Nephele and Rpeh: As long as it isn't screwing up the site (which it obviously isn't), I don't see why any of us should give a crap (Oh Nozors, I said 'crap').
3. Privilege-Expiration Policy: When you pry it out of my cold dead hands. Once again, privileges are not given for being married to the site, they are given when someone has shown they are capable of handling them. Time away from the site does not reduce a person's responsibility. When and if someone comes back, they may need awhile to readjust, sure, but they will not be a cancer on the site, and I'd expect most problems to rapidly disappear.
4. Enforcing Your Policies: When they are broken by someone. Your example of Rpeh not banning someone for saying 'crap' is (in my opinion) hilarious. Whatever the case, I'd say Rpeh was more in the wrong for talking about bad language in that context.

Those are my answers to your questions/statements. I hoped you enjoyed them. --Ratwar 13:14, 28 October 2008 (EDT)