UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard/Archive 21

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.

Spam Wave

Is it just me, or are we getting an abnormally large amount of spam recently? We currently have some spammers to deal with here, here, and here. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 04:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

And [[User:Linseyybudreau|here]]. Kitkat xxx ^{•Talk•Contrib•E-mail} 06:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep, it has increased to new heights. Truly annoying and it seems to get worse. We'll see what we can do. --Krusty 06:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that a lot of it is people typing stuff in manually rather than a bot doing it. The problem is that the links they're adding are varied rather than the usual pattern of one link being spammed repeatedly. That means that adding each link to the blacklist won't have any effect. rpeh •T•C•E• 09:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, having looked at the links, they're all Polish sites. It would be very extreme, but if it continues we could block all .pl links for a short period. If the current wave doesn't stop, I'll do that - as long as someone promises to remind me to undo it again in a week or so! rpeh •T•C•E• 09:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

(←) Okay, this edit prevents all URLs ending in ".pl" from being added to UESP. As I said above, this is pretty extreme but as the spam wave shows no sign of slowing down, I think it's fine for a short while - two weeks?. UESP doesn't have many links to Polish sites, and we'd have half as many except for a user rewriting the Links page in his sandbox. If someone does have a valid link and triggers the filter, the message they receive directs them to places where they can post a message. rpeh •T•C•E• 08:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and the suggestion that admins should approve accounts is pretty much a non-starter. Since people can post as anons, it wouldn't be much use in any case. rpeh •T•C•E• 08:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

(←) I removed the block on Polish links and we got spammed in less than twelve hours. We can try again in another few days. rpeh •T•C•E• 20:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Are .pl accounts blocked again? Kitkat xxx ^{•Talk•Contrib•E-mail} 20:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Accounts, no. Just links. Try creating a link ending in ".pl" and you (should) be prevented from doing so. rpeh •T•C•E• 20:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyright Categories

I'd like to take the categories off our image templates - at least for a little while. Right now, I'm having to keep running RoBoT to generate a list of images without categories as I'm trying to make sure every image has a proper category. Personally, I think it would be best if we removed these categories permanently: they aren't really useful, and it means that the wiki's built-in special page is largely useless. Removing categories for good won't even hurt our ability to make lists of copyrights, as Whatlinkshere can be used for the same purpose (example).

As admins, we need to start checking each uploaded image and making sure it has an appropriate copyright template and an appropriate category. I've found far too many images that are undoubtedly copyright being uploaded with "public domain" or "fair use" templates, and we can't do that.

So does anyone have an objection to the categories being removed for one month, and does anyone have an objection to the categories being removed for good? rpeh •T•C•E• 00:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see an issue here. The only argument that really could be raised is the functionality of {{PAGESINCAT}}, and that's a minor one. I can't really think of any time I really used the categories, either. Elliot (talk) 00:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good and useful idea. I just skimmed through an awful lot of uncategorized images today, and we need to get them into categories asap - and I guess this is the best way to get an overlook. Go ahead. --Krusty 00:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, since it's easy enough to undo I've been bold and done it - except on Template:Nolicense, which should be flagged anyway. It'll take a while for the task queue to work its magic, but we should have a proper list within a few hours. rpeh •T•C•E• 01:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Move Request

Could an admin please move Lore:Haafingar to Lore:Solitude? My reasoning hasn't been questioned so far, so I'm taking over a month of silence as a sign that no one objects. Thanks. --Legoless 18:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Sorry for the delay - I hadn't noticed that request. Solitude is definitely the more common name. rpeh •T•C•E• 18:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested Semi-protection

I'll once again request that the pages mentioned at UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard/Archive_20#Requested_Semi-protection be protected. Users agreed to have them protected, so I do not see there being any issues. Thanks. Elliot (talk) 18:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, those articles were protected by Rpeh sometime just after that discussion. I just added the protect tags. --GK^talk2me 18:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I missed that. I think I looked at the main glitch page and erroneously assumed they all weren't protected. Thanks for clearing it up. My bad though. Elliot (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like I forgot to add the relevant template. It's worth mentioning that when Daveh upgrades the wiki we should be able to add the PROTECTIONLEVEL "magic word" to the {{Trail}} template and flag protection automatically - since almost every article should have a trail template. rpeh •T•C•E• 20:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I actually think I had this in mind when I was re-requesting. Elliot (talk) 23:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

New messages for anon IPs

It seems to me that our current way of handling the problems with new messages at pages such as User_talk:207.191.187.21 is just perpetuating the cycle. Every time someone edits that page, it resets the "you have new messages" flag for that IP in the database -- causing the message to start get adding to the cached versions of even more new pages on the site. Therefore, any list of to-be-purged pages needs to be somewhere other than the user talk page. I've set up a new page at UESPWiki:Purge Requests to handle it, and I'll try to modify all of the user talk pages accordingly. --Nephele^Talk 05:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Well it would only cause the cache update if the IP was accessing the site again, but yes - much better to do it this way. Thanks. rpeh •T•C•E• 08:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Skyrim Preparations

My work schedule of the last few months has finally returned to normal and I'm beginning to prepare for Skyrim's release in almost one month. From the site administration and technical side of things here is what I'm planning on working on:

• Pre-Release Access -- While it was a long shot it doesn't look like any pre-release access to the game, editor, or files is possible.
• Wiki Upgrade to v1.8 -- At least I'd like to upgrade sooner rather than later. I've already done some prep work and I may be able to get it done this weekend depending on how difficult/time consuming it turns out to be.
• New Server Prep -- I'm talking with iWeb, our server provider, to ensure that if new servers are needed they can be brought up with the minimum of time and effort. The current servers should be more than enough for significant traffic increase but there are always surprises when you enter territory you haven't been in before.
• Time Off -- I'm taking a week off of work surrounding Skyrim's release so that should anything happen to the servers I have my full time available to fix them as well as any content and game hacking I can do for the Wiki.
• Game Content/Hacking -- If the CS is released on the 11th then I plan on immediately starting on our Skyrim map. If not I'm going to play around with the ESM/ESP format and the game console to see if the map files and information can be extracted that way. Even if it turns out not to be possible it will yield a good amount of useful information that can be added to the Wiki (console commands, file formats, etc...).
• Site Contest -- If people would like to do some sort of site contest I can purchase copies of the game/collector's edition as prizes. This is just an idea in case someone likes it and could be one way to encourage new active editors for Skyrim.
• Skyrim Copies for Active Editors -- I'd like to purchase copies of Skyrim for the current senior and active editors. I don't mind buying 20 or so copies of the game for people as it is the least I can do and the site is doing well enough financially to be able to do it easily. If you'd like a free copy just e-mail me what your preferred delivery method would be (digital via Steam or a hard copy via Amazon would be the two main choices).

If there's anything else you'd like me to work on or look at in preparation for Skyrim just let me know. -- Daveh 22:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind if I take the map off your hands? If the new CS has a map export option, my existing Oblivion code should be able to handle artifact removal and water shading as well as the zoom levels. I should be able to get the tiles generated within a few hours of the CS making an appearance. If it doesn't have that option, then that's a different matter, of course.

If we aren't getting an ESP in advance, the first priority is to extract lists of NPCs, quests, places, items etc so that NepheleBot and/or RoBoT can start creating stub pages with accurate names. Nephele and I have already done some prep work on this but it'll be good to get an extra pair of eyes on the files. rpeh •T•C•E• 06:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking the same thing after I wrote this. We'll also need the game locations extract and put into the database which is more my area anyways. -- Daveh 11:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to barge in, but not only would you purchase special/collector editions for site contests, on top of that you are willing to buy copies for active editors? Wow, that's... generous, to put it lightly. I suppose I fall into the active user category, so you would buy me a copy just like that? Did my work earn this? ~ Dwarfmp 14:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Umm...a little clarification please. Would you be using the site's funds to purchase these things or your own? I'm sure the site is pretty well off with advertisements and such, and I'm sure that's listed somewhere on here... Also I have the same basic question as Dwarfmp. How would you classify active? I am on the site literally every day (at least 90% of my emails are page changes... /foreveralone) and I patrol regularly and such. But my actual editing is a bit low, spiking at random times. Some people are obviously well qualified, such as admins that have been actively around recently (rpeh, Neph, Krusty for example), but it just seems like there isn't a clear way to make the decisions. Other than you of course. You are the site...something. YOU ARE THE SITE!!!!! xD --DKong27 ^{Tk Ctr Em} 15:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I have a loose definition of "active" and ultimately it depends on how many people ask for a copy. If I get a few hundred requests I can't fulfill them all so will just look at the top 20 (or so). As for money, the site and "me" are currently the same thing currently. As long as the site expenses are matched or exceeded by the revenue (as it has been for a while) I don't have an issue spending a few thousand of that money on dedicated editors of the site. Its something I've be meaning to do for a while now. -- Daveh 15:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

(←) (edit conflict) As patrollers, I am pretty sure you two would count. And, as you can see at UESPWiki:Site_Support#Financial_Records, the site is pretty well off when it comes to money (although it hasn't been updated recently). elliot (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. It's nice to have a site creator actively involved in the workings, if not day to day activities. It would be nice if you updated the page elliot linked though. It's very interesting to see. Up to you though of course. :P --DKong27 ^{Tk Ctr Em} 16:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

You/UESP are prepared to buy 20+ copies of the game... and they still won't give us a sneak peek at the game files??? What's it going to take! :) rpeh •T•C•E• 17:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it's great that you'd be willing to do that for us. I do wonder if I qualify though. Even though I'm a patroller, I've just been back to this site for a month now after a hiatus of a year. My latest contributions haven't been anything to write home about either. Ah well, I'll just send an email and hope for the best! An another note. ^Talk Wolok gro-Barok _{Contributions} 18:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

On another note, does it matter on which platform it gets ordered? ^Talk Wolok gro-Barok _{Contributions} 18:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

(←) I'm not addressing this to anybody in particular, but let's not turn Daveh's generous gesture into a "Well if (x) qualifies, I certainly do" contest. Please email Daveh and not discuss this particular aspect on here any more. There are a lot of people who've done a lot of work on the site, and we all did it with no expectation of any reward. That shouldn't change now. rpeh •T•C•E• 19:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of rewards (Smooth conversation topic change!)... What do you have in mind for the Site Contest that you suggested? I'm not opposed to the idea per se, just confused as to what the contest could be. Besides some kind of raffle, I don't see a way for that to work. I'm probably just being uncreative in my thoughts I admit, but I can't think of any obvious answers besides a raffle. I also am having trouble imagining how it'll directly encourage new active editors besides by potentially increasing traffic from people interested in the contest. Have we ever had a site contest before? It'd be nice to see how that was handled as a comparison. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 19:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Competition Suggestions

I've started working on some rules in one of my sandboxes. To be clear: this doesn't mean anything other than that I've started thinking about some rules. Anybody should feel free to edit the page as much as they want, as long as they remember that any competition (and we don't know there's going to be one) is supposed to be a) enjoyable and b) benefit UESP. We don't want to play people off against one another.

My suggestion is that people submit ten (or however many) diffs to a page; they're free to update these at any point up until the close date, and then Daveh picks the best x - however many prizes he wants to buy. By submitting diffs, we're discouraging the more-edits-is-good mentality, although we'll almost certainly need to offer advice on how to deal with edit conflicts.

I'm just making suggestions here. UESP is in a unique position in that it has both the available resources and somebody generous in charge of those resources. After the elbow-barging that took place above, let's remember how much work and camaraderie has gone into making this the case, and not start sniping at each other about how things should happen. rpeh •T•C•E• 21:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I like it. It gives a reward for editing (Likely to motivate users to give it a try), it attracts editors towards the newly opened Skyrim namespace (Quite important if we want to get it set up on time), and it might attract more traffic from those interested in the contest. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 14:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course, now that I think about it, editing is often a collaborative process. It may be unfair to reward someone for making an edit that a group of people helped them with. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 14:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It would worry me a bit if making a number of edits is the goal. Why not making an article? Whoever makes the best article gets a prize. While that's harder to do, and it may not attract as much people, I think it would make more sense and we would get something useful for the site to begin with. I can't imagine it would be a good thing to encourage people to make multiple edits when Skyrim comes out, because I can imagine hundreds of unpatrolled edits in an hour without the contest. ~ Dwarfmp 15:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem with your suggestion is that there are a limited number of potential subjects for articles. Besides, currently administrators and patrollers have made the majority of article's in the Skyrim namespace. As elected editors on the wiki are ineligible with this suggestion, so are most of the potential entries. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 15:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

But all of the Skyrim articles are greatly underdeveloped, that's my point, there's a lot of information to be gathered and submitted about everything in Skyrim. Now that I think of it, it's a bit ironical that you would need Skyrim in order to get the free Skyrim copy. But I suppose the multiple edit suggestion doesn't necessarily concern the Skyrim namespace. ~ Dwarfmp 15:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

(←) I thought it was implied. "A user must have made substantial improvements to at least ten pages in the Skyrim namespace between the start and end dates of this competition. ". It doesn't make sense to just require you to have made ten substantial edits to the Skyrim namespace, with you being allowed to submit any edit afterwards. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 15:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Add an id

Can an administrator add an id (such as id="not-forum-notice") to MediaWiki:Talkpagetext (the forum notice) so that users can hide it with CSS if they wish? Thanks. elliot (talk) 06:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually this is probably a good time to start a discussion about whether or not we still want that banner in place. rpeh •T•C•E• 06:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it would really hurt to keep it up, especially with Skyrim coming out. I just don't need to see it. :) elliot (talk) 06:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Well I've added the id for now. rpeh •T•C•E• 08:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! elliot (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

202.61.38.125

This IP has repeatedly added links to this site.- *Show IP - despite being advised and told to stop. After the spam was reverted for the third time, I gave a warning, but I'm not sure how to deal with this, since the link seems vaguely uesp-related, and it isn't conventional spamming. Any ideas? Kitkat xxx ^{•Talk•Contrib•E-mail} 06:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

That IP has been blocked at Wikipedia for doing the same thing. It seems to have stopped for now but if we get more links I'll block it. rpeh •T•C•E• 09:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Tes5Mod

I think we should probably set up the Tes5Mod namespace -- assuming we want to use the same namespace structure that we've used for Oblivion and Morrowind. My primary interest right now is to create placeholder articles for documenting the .esm file format -- and provide some talk pages that would be a logical place to discuss plans for how to decode the file format. So do we want to use the name 'Tes5Mod'? Or is there some other way that we want to organize Skyrim modding-type information? --Nephele^Talk 19:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a no-brainer "Yes". Morrowind's ESM had a header of "TES3", Oblivion had "TES4", and even if Bethesda decides to change their naming convention in the wake of Fallout 3 having a "TES4" header, I think it's more important to take things from a TES perspective. Let's go for TES5Mod and hope that I'm not around when the tenth game is released... rpeh •T•C•E• 23:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. -- Daveh 23:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I think it's now added to all the namespace-documentation pages, too. --Nephele^Talk 01:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested block: User:Honda1996

Honda1996 has continued his disregard for policies and procedures when it comes to the wiki, despite being warned, blocked, and warned again. Not only does he continue to remove the official warnings on his page, he has a habit of reverting and reverting some more behind the premise of "standing up for what he believes in". Here are just a few examples:

• [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]

Prior warnings:

• [7], [8], [9], [10]

Ridiculous antics:

• [11], [12], [13], [14]

I would have blocked him myself but I felt that since I have minor involvement in wouldn't have been appropriate. I believe another block is warranted (in months) as well as the reinstatement of his warning and the removal of the copypaste warning he placed on mine. All of these behaviors show that he is only here to cause trouble. elliot (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This is getting out of hand. Kitkat xxx ^{•Talk•Contrib•E-mail} 20:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

If I can throw in my three cents, I don't believe that he is such a problem for the project that he should be banned for longer period of time, however removing the warnings on his page is unacceptable, moreover the quotations in articles are subject for further discussion and mutual agreement among us. Existing editing war is not serving any purpose [15]. --Arkhon 20:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I think Nephele got the block just right with a day. But Krusty did that before. Kitkat xxx ^{•Talk•Contrib•E-mail} 21:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I blocked him because of the edit war at User talk:Elliot. I would have liked to have given him a chance to read the followup message I posted on his talk page, but things were getting too insane too quickly. --Nephele^Talk 21:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not too sure 1 day will be enough, but the block can easily be reinstated if necessary. elliot (talk) 21:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I have said this hundreds of times, but here we go again: when an editor starts edit warring, take a deep breath and wait with all the reverts, warnings, guideline-reminders and endless links to said editors’ past mistakes on the AN – all administrators are perfectly capable of looking up Edit Histories and there is absolutely no reason to ‘waste time’ with the links. Just take that deep breath and revert the thing tomorrow, even if the whole quote-thing started as being ‘NBD’. --Krusty 21:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, one day is a fair decision even though he was blocked before for 6 hours by Krusty [16]. User:Honda1996 claims to be autistic [17] which is very serious disorder of neural development but we all must stick to the rules, regardless of our weaknesses. --Arkhon 21:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

(←) (edit conflict) Krusty, it is customary to post links when bringing up a member's activities (especially over at Wikipedia). So, no, I didn't waste my time with something that I chose to do. Sorry Krusty, but I'll handle it how I see fit. elliot (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Deleted Histories

Forgive me for bringing up a seriously minor point, but I just happened to notice that there are several deleted revisions of Lore:Destruction. It's nothing useful - basically bots created a link to the old dictionary pages, categorised it, moved it around and then it was proposed for deletion when the dictionary was killed off. I was going to restore these edits (and others at the other magic pages) so there's a full history of the page, but I thought I ought to ask first, as it would be a non-standard use of the deletion functions.

There's no particular reason to do this, other than to present a fuller history, but there's no reason not to either. Does anyone object? rpeh •T•C•E• 20:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to restore them. --Legoless 20:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me --Nephele^Talk 20:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay I've gone ahead and done it. Thanks. rpeh •T•C•E• 20:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit History Inconsistency

There is something really weird going on with the article Skyrim:Cities. The edit history for the source simply doesn't match up with how older versions of the article are displayed. The current article shows explanations for most cities (for me), while the source of the page suggests that there should be none (purging the page didn't cure that). Going back to older versions shows that the number of descriptions is slowly growing over time, while this shouldn't be happening going by the diffs of the source. It looks like there are two different versions of the article, one that is displayed and another version for the source code. The fact that the strangeness persists throughout the history rules out http caching issues on my side I would think. --Alfwyn 16:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

you can transclude information from a page for example {{lore:argonian}} would give you the argonian information from the lore page hope that helps, im going to bed (^{I plead Lazyness}_{Eddie The Head} 16:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC))

(edit conflict) The descriptions are created through the template Place Link. The infobox on the individual city page has a description= section that is referenced by the template. Those descriptions are then added to SR:Cities when they are added to the place infobox. --DKong27 ^{Tk Ctr Em} 16:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I see, it seems to be some site specific save/load magic hidden in the template, that didn't seem to activate when I tried the same source in the sandbox. --Alfwyn 16:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Site Email (Again)

I've re-setup UESP domain e-mails (name@uesp.net) which are available if desired for any of the site admins. The previous attempt was to self-host the e-mails on our servers which took far too much of my time to manage (I'm busy enough with the rest of server administration). This time I'm just using Google Apps which makes it as close to no work for me as possible although it does cost a bit per account which is why I'm limiting it to admins/senior editors. If you want one just e-mail me or see the Mail article for (a few) more details. -- Daveh 00:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Spam attack again?

is it just me or are we getting alot more spam than we usually do? (^{I plead Lazyness}_{Eddie The Head} 06:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC))

I've noticed it too. We've had a lot of accounts and pages being blocked or deleted for spamming external links recently. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 14:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

These things go in phases. There have been a number of wikis affected by spam users with names of the form Capital Letter, Name, Two digits - like JDyer50, JLandon87, LHope28, CStrouse96 and CForrester66 that I blocked at the Oblivion Mod Wiki, or MCarillo23, YIsaac96, TFrasier38 and LBenge28 that Nephele, Krusty and I have blocked here. It's odd that given the number of accounts that have been created, more spamming hasn't been done, but I don't want to complain about that!

Typically, someone comes up with a way of circumventing the captcha, creates a load of accounts, posts a load of spam, then we either use the blacklists to stop them creating more links or block the underlying IPs and it dies down until somebody comes up with something new. Unfortunately there's no realistic way of stopping this. We just have to deal with it whenever it starts happening. rpeh •T•C•E• 15:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Welcoming Members

This is a revival of a previous discussion on welcoming every single new account that's made, the original can be seen here. We currently have an unofficial policy (At least as far as I'm concerned, I am unaware if this has somehow changed without my knowledge) when it comes to welcoming new members, you don't welcome them before they've made an edit. This is in contrast to the original decision, which says it's okay. While I'd prefer for us to not welcome users who haven't edited yet, I'd be happy to just have some kind of policy as it's clearly needed. Of course, there are times when I welcome new users who haven't made an edit yet (Whenever I invite someone to make an account I do this), so it may be smart to allow certain exceptions (Such as when you've invited an user to create an account). Besides reasonable exceptions, this is just a bit annoying as it can easily flood recent changes with edits. If anyone else have thoughts on this issue, I'm all ears, let's just get this resolved so there is a clear course of action in the future. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 16:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

My opinion hasn't changed in the last two years. elliot (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced any official action is needed at all, but seeing how this subject turned into a rather hot topic, it might be necessary. Maybe a new message concerning this subject could be created over at UESPWiki:Messages. I think that's all that needs to be done, especially since welcoming new users is not wrong per se and apparently customary at other Wikis. ^Talk Wolok gro-Barok _{Contributions} 17:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

My opinion. It seems like welcoming every new member is very unnecessary. A word that I always misspell every single time dang it. But anyway, many people create accounts and never use them, or of course the spammers and other vandals. Personally, I will only welcome an editor that I see make their first or second relatively useful edit. I can see how it might be argued that welcoming someone would make them more active and all that blah, but I think that people who are making an account that actually plan on editing will have that set before any welcoming. Welcoming seems like such a inconsequential topic though, and it seems superfluous to have a set change in policy or something. --DKong27 ^{Tk Ctr Em} 19:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree it's a pretty minor issue. On the other hand, it seems to keep resurfacing -- even before the discussion AKB mentioned, there were at least two other discussions. So I'm sure it will come up again in the future. Given the amount of attention it's already received in the past day, it seems worth trying to create some type of summary of what's been said. Although, splitting hairs, I don't think we're aiming for a policy, but just a guideline -- the difference being that a guideline is saying "this is what's normally done" (but there will be exceptions) instead of saying "this is what must be done".

Now that all of the preamble is out of the way.... I'd prefer that new users not be welcomed until after they've made some type of constructive edit, for all the reasons that have already been stated. --Nephele^Talk 21:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really warm to the idea of welcoming users before they edit, but I'd be much more concerned with a well-intentioned editor being scolded for welcoming users who haven't edited. It seems like a no-brainer to me- to welcome someone once they've begun contributing- but I'd rather we not have a guideline that will end up causing warnings for editors who are only trying to be friendly. --GK^talk2me 15:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't normally mind, but when we get 100 such welcomes in a 15 minute period it stretches the point. Welcoming users one at a time isn't a problem, it's when people go back through the logs and welcome everybody from the past several days that it gets annoying. rpeh •T•C•E• 15:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

(←) Wasn't the biggest problem that welcoming every user just creates a lot of unnecessary talk pages (aside from clogging up the recent changes)? GuildKnight, has someone ever gotten a warning for welcome messages? Because that's just wrong. I even did this myself when I became a Userspace Patroller. I did this because I remember being welcomed, which I thought was really nice (of course when I found out it was just an auto-message sort of thing it was less special, but still nice), and being a Userspace Patroller, I felt it was one of my duties to do so. But yeah, I realized afterwards that many people signing up here is the most they ever will do. So now, whenever I see a new user who has made 1 or more edits, constructive or just userpagelike, I give them a welcome. Best thing to do about people welcoming every user is just to point out the futility in a polite and appreciative manner nonetheless. ~ Dwarfmp 21:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

After a bit of though, I've come to the conclusion that a guideline is more appropriate. More importantly, this sort of behavior should never receive a warning unless it's done to purposely disrupt the wiki (Which would be next to impossible to prove unless they explicitly said that was what they were trying to do). Too summarize, if we were to have a guideline, it would be something like: "You should only welcome new users after they've made at least one edit, assuming that edit wasn't done to vandalize the site." That pretty much covers what we're already doing. Not sure if we can actually mention this anywhere besides this page (Maybe on the Messages page?), but that's essentially what I think we need. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 16:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, nobody should ever get a warning of any kind after giving somebody a welcome. There have been three or four cases where an admin or patroller has had a quiet word with a user who has given a shed-load of welcomes, but that's it. What happened here was that several - also well-meaning - regular editors jumped in both on my talk page and the new user's talk page and this gave the impression of piling-on.

I'm not going to criticise anybody's actions or edits but I would ask that in future when something like this happens, people leave the response to the patroller du jour as it were - ie, whoever found the problem and had to deal with it. In this case, I posted the message so I should be the person to follow up. Next time it might me Dwarfmp or Kiz or some other user. Leave it to that person and it'll be far less intimidating.

As I said, I'm not criticising anybody here. Everybody has acted in good faith and done what they thought should be done.

We can all (and yes I mean me too) take this as a lesson on how to deal with new users. rpeh •T•C•E• 20:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I have, somehow missed this, but I think - reaction massive for such a small problem. Just need a sentence or two to the individual user on his talk page or however is convenient by the first person to pick up on it. Job done, no guideline on 'Welcoming' just lets not welcome every user on the User Creation log without a talk about in about a 2 minute period :) --Kiz ^{·•· Talk ·•· Contribs ·•· Mail ·•·} 20:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Truthfully, what really made me post this was the previous time this came up (See this topic), I just used this opportunity to bring it back up as it'd be silly to bring back up such a minor issue without reason. The simplest solution to a problem is usually the best, and letting whoever responded to it be the one to resolve it is quite simple. Since this problem comes up so rarely and the circumstances around it can easily be quite different, I believe treating this case by case would probably be for the best. I don't think anyone likes discussing this, so let's just leave this problem to whoever responds to it. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 20:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism of Harm's Folly

This IP address user_talk:97.92.225.245 has repeatedly vandalized the Harm's Folly page Here and here and I recommend that an administrator take action against this account at first convenience. I warned the IP after the first attack and another one occured a half hour later. Thanks. Sn0L3prd 04:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha. Although the vandalism seems to have faded away now, the nonsense itself qualifies for a week-long block. --Krusty 05:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Wait, didn't we blacklist Nigga?--I a m g o o f b a l l--Need Something? Drop by on my Talk Page. What I've done for this site. 01:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection (yet again)

I really hate to bring this up, but Oblivion:Useful Spells seriously needs to be protected. If the examples in the history are not proof enough, then the general consensus formed under the DR should convince you. I don't understand why this has been ignored for so long. elliot (talk) 03:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Quite simply, the Protection Policy doesn't give us the option to protect pages because we don't like the edits being made to it. Pages like Oblivion:Armor warrant protection because people kept adding incorrect information, which required checking each time. With Useful Spells, it's just spells that aren't very good. These are always pretty obvious, and reverting doesn't take long. I know there's an exception with OB:Glitches, but there's a long-standing history with that page, and frankly now the whole /Proposed nonsense is over we should probably unprotect that too. rpeh •T•C•E• 05:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Gaedrion

Gaedrion has repeatedly been warned to use the show preview button and has blatantly ignored those warnings. He/she continues to make tons of tiny edits to his/her and is disrupting the Recent Changes page. Even a block from Rpeh didn't seem to have any effect. What exactly is policy for people who refuse to use the show preview button? He/she's not vandalizing the site, but it's still disruptive. Kitkat xxx ^{•Talk•Contrib•E-mail} 21:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked him again - three hours this time.

Just to be clear, I have no problems with people using UESP to store their fanfics, and previous discussions have made it clear that most other people are fine too. My problem is with people who treat UESP like a word processor. When you start doing that, you end up with dozens of edits that all need to be patrolled when you're doing nothing more than tweaking some character names, grammar or spelling. When you start doing that, you're disrupting the site and it starts to fall under the Blocking Policy.

As far as I'm concerned, this guy has had a decent set of warnings, a couple of short blocks, and from now on I'll have no problems with anybody handing out blocks if the same editing pattern resumes. With the imminent release of Skyrim, the last thing we need is someone using the site as a spell checker. rpeh •T•C•E• 22:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Temporary Role Changes

We're three weeks away from Skyrim's release, and it's time to make a couple of temporary changes. At the moment we don't have many active admins, and while I'm sure the active status of some will change after 11/11/11, it's best to be prepared. I'd like to propose the following five users for temporary adminship, to last from the moment of their acceptance until the end of 29/2/2012, unless said duration be reduced or extended by community vote:

• AKB (talk⁺ • contribs • edit count • logs • email)
• DKong27 (talk⁺ • contribs • edit count • logs • email)
• Dwarfmp (talk⁺ • contribs • edit count • logs • email)
• Legoless (talk⁺ • contribs • edit count • logs • email)
• SerCenKing (talk⁺ • contribs • edit count • logs • email)

Additionally, one extra Bureaucrat is to be created for the same period:

• Krusty (talk⁺ • contribs • edit count • logs • email)

The thinking here is that a few extra admins will be able to help out with the extra load while the new game is being added to the site, and that an extra 'crat is a good idea to enable new admins to be created if really necessary or removed, if really really necessary. Just to be clear: these new admins/'crats would have all the rights and responsibilities of the role. One reason for making the changes now is that it gives three weeks to learn the ropes before Skyrim is released.

I don't want to apply any arm-twisting here, but after the game's immediate release the current active admins will be mostly involved in decoding the game files so that new pages can be created by bot. We're going to need extra eyes on the site.

I also don't want to cast aspersions on the contributions of any other editor. If you're a patroller who isn't on this list, it's because you haven't been active enough. One reason for creating an extra Bureaucrat is that extra admins can be created quickly, should that prove necessary.

My final point is that everybody should remember that this isn't about power: it's about responsibility. These new admins are going to have to spend a little less time playing the game, and a little more time taking care of the site. If any of them want to decline the role, this is the time to do it. rpeh •T•C•E• 23:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The promotions are now effective. While I was at it, I also gave all give of our new admins Cartographer permissions, in anticipation of eventually having a Skyrim map that may need some edits (the cartographer link contains a list of special pages that should now be available). I'm inclined to think the cartographer rights should be permanent, but if there are other opinions, we can discuss it. --Nephele^Talk 14:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to advise the new cartographers to be careful when it comes to editing the map. There's no history, no "undo" button and no Recent Changes, so nobody else can even see that a change has been made. A little testing is fine, but please make sure you put things back the way they were. rpeh •T•C•E• 15:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Votes

• Support As proposer. rpeh •T•C•E• 23:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose What is your main reasoning behind this in terms of responsibilities? Blocking? Because we have blockers for that. Protection? Make a protection group. I mean... I don't believe this is necessary, let alone having five more administrators. Checkuser isn't necessary, and the other rights aren't used enough. Expand the rights of patrollers and blockers for a few months rather than granting administrative privileges. elliot (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support If it will help lighten the load of Skyrim's launch, by all means. I know some of these guys fairly well, and I know how dedicated and committed they are. --OblivionDuruza 02:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support (Yes, I'm still around) This sounds like a good idea to me. The release of Skyrim is all but guaranted to tax our current admin team, and having some more competent editors to help out until things return to normal seems to have little dowside to it from my point of view. Five seems like more than we'd really need at the moment, but I would definately prefer we have more temp-admins than we need as opposed to not enough. As for Elliot's question, I would say that if we're going to temporarily provide people with the major rights and privilages of admins (protection rights and permanent blocks being the most prevalent), we might as well make them temporary admins. Just my two cents. Dlarsh^(T,C) 20:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support I think that this is a good decision, if we indeed get an in-flux of new and experienced editors that we seem to be anticipating it will indeed help out. If we don't get all the new editors, it's only a temporary measure. Although of course Elliot's point is a valid one, more Blockers or a Protection group would achieve the desired effect. I think that all the proposed editors definitely have earned their suggest positions.--Kiz ^{·•· Talk ·•· Contribs ·•· Mail ·•·} 20:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support Everybody on that list deserves admin privileges, even if it is only temporarily. And getting more admins can only beneficial with Skyrim coming out so soon. Kitkat xxx ^{•Talk•Contrib•E-mail} 20:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support I think it's a good idea, when skyrim comes out there are going to be a lot of pages being created daily, the extra admins would help. If there are any problems, the decision can also just be undone anyway. On top of that, everybody on the list is easily qualified. RIM 20:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Question: Are those being nominated supposed to vote? In any case, I accept my nomination. --Legoless 22:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Yup, feel free to vote. You're not just voting for yourself, after all. rpeh •T•C•E• 06:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support: It is quite an honor to be nominated, I don't really see myself as one of the "big fish". While one does not have to devote his life to the wiki, these added responsibilities do sound a bit... well... to perhaps put it bluntly: constraining? The thing is that, I don't know what to expect, and I sense that none here really know what to expect. I'm referring to the activity on the site after 11/11 that needs to be patrolled, fixed, etc. I do tend to underestimate myself, but I picture myself merely cleaning up people's messes like anyone else here can, nothing too complicated, leaving the big stuff to what I think are the big fish around here. Notable is the fact that I tend to screw up at first when given new rights, e.a. blocking myself... Anyway, I just want to point out that, like everyone here I believe, I want to play more game and do less wiki time. However, I probably overrate the meaning of activity on the wiki. I expect me to check the site a couple of times every day, which I usually do, but I'd be hoping it would be short checkings considering I want to be playing. I suppose that, should I be considered not to follow up on those responsibilities, this status can be revoked earlier, so I suppose there's nothing to fear here. So I'll trust your trust in me, and let's just see what happens. To end my rambling, I'm fine with the other nominees by the way ~ Dwarfmp 05:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support: I support all other nominees. I also accept my nomination, in case that it wasn't already clear that I do. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 22:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support: I have no problems with the proposed role changes. --Legoless 22:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support: I made not be at liberty to say this because of past things, but I agree completely with the decision to temporarily promote the users nominated Honda1996 23:35 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support: The second that game comes out, and people start putting hours of their lives into Skyrim, the forums AND the wiki are going to be flooded with spam about the game and all kinds of new info. This ALSO means that lots of old spammers that switched IPs to troll, along with hundreds of other ones are going to start taking advantage of the post flooding. You might want to nominate a few more users than that, though.--I a m g o o f b a l l--Need Something? Drop by on my Talk Page. What I've done for this site. 02:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Recommendation: We might also want to make it so that Skyrim can only be edited by logged in users, so that trolls have to go through the process of making their account. They should also have to have 5 edits to non user-space areas to be able to post anything in Skyrim, and then they have to be there for 10 days. Not many trolls I know of would show that much commitment to trolling, besides the old troll on the Forums who trolled for a long time. I hope you take these in consideration.--I a m g o o f b a l l--Need Something? Drop by on my Talk Page. What I've done for this site. 02:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: To avoid derailing this vote, I'd suggest you start a new topic to discuss this. While the suggestion to shut off or limit editing for anonymous and new users has been shot down multiple times, most recently in the Starting to Create Skyrim Content discussion, it still is quite a popular suggestion. Though I'm almost positive that this idea will be rejected, I can't stop you from discussing this. Consider making a topic on this page or on the Community Portal, as this suggestion will most likely be ignored or forgotten about here. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 02:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support: One major factor from my point of view is that after the game's release, rpeh and I are likely to be putting all of our effort into extracting game data, running bots, and other behind-the-scenes activities. Even though we'll still be watching the wiki, the less time we need to put into wiki maintenance, the better. In response to Elliot specifically, there are many admin duties besides blocks and protections that are going to be needed after Skyrim comes out. Two that immediately come to mind are page deletions (sometimes speedily, e.g. for plagiarized content or spam) and editing the Main Page, especially for news updates. Therefore, I think it's safer to give this group of people all the admin rights -- if we try to come up with a shortened list of rights, we risk finding out on November 12th that there's an unexpected need for one of the omitted rights. --Nephele^Talk 20:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • You make a good point, but it does not shy away from the fact that I believe I am more qualified than most if not all of the members listed. I may not exactly be active right now, but of course that will change with Skyrim. elliot (talk) 01:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I guess I will echo the fact that I believe I should be placed on this list. There is no reason as to why some users were considered above me. elliot (talk) 22:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
      • The fact is that you are not on the list, and this discussion is now effectively over -- it's been a week, with nearly unanimous support. The list is not going to be modified at this point. --Nephele^Talk 00:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support: I definitely support this “better-safe-than-sorry”-approach. Nobody can predict what will happen on November 11th, so a temporary promotion of the above-mentioned people is a no-brainer - for all the reasons stated by Nephele above. An awful lot of pages will be created – and an incredible pile of information will be added, and it will take weeks and months before we know what is wrong and what is right. This way, we can at least make a decent attempt to control what is going on. --Krusty 20:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support: I think that this is for the best it will help us get skyrim info on the site sooner because the current admins will not have to deal with the trolls or spammer and ect.----Candc4, Also known as the Man Inside the Sexy Leather Pants CT 15:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support: A bit late, but a whole-hearted support for everyone else on the list. I haven't been as active in the past month due to university commitments, but I will make a special effort once Skyrim has been released. I will of course be playing the game on 11/11 and probably during the weekend, but I'll try to pop in on the site and check that the world hasn't collapsed :P I am torn between accepting the position or not, as I'm afraid I might not be able to fulfill it completely, but I do realize that we need experienced editors to give an extra hand, and considering I am by far the most experienced user on the list, I feel it is my duty to help out our admin team. All the best to everyone, --SerCenKing ^Talk 19:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support: I didn't really have to give too much thought to this. All of the editors chosen are perfectly capable and (as far as I know). We'll need thaton 11/11/11 when the onslaught of new visitors and editors begins. Full support from me.--Kalis Agea^{Yes? Contrib E-mail} 20:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• Consensus: Support

Addendum

Since Nephele "decided" the previous discussion was over, I figured I would start a new one. I am proposing that I be added to the list above. My reasoning is fairly simple. I have been on this site for quite some time, and I know more about MediaWiki, templates, and CSS than anyone on the site (barring rpeh and Nephele). If you are going to determine the most qualified (minus those two since they will be doing background work), then I can't see how you can exclude me. If you want to bring up past drama, then feel free to do so. However, most people are over all of it, so you should be too. You picked a whole lot of content editors, but who will do the dubious work on maintenance? Me, and I am willing to do it. What more do you need? Thanks. elliot (talk) 01:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I am still hearing thing from people saying I do not qualify to be a temporary administrator. I know this is rather ridiculous, so I will dig up some discussions and proposals that have universally helped the wiki. First off, the Dropping the Ball on Vandalism Among Other Things discussion consisted of 8 proposals by me to help quell the vandalism we were having around that time. This led to a massive discussion that benefited the wiki tremendously. Also there was this addition that saved us a whole bunch of trouble for awhile. You might say, "Oh, you don't need admin rights to continue that." But that is essentially missing the point. I understand what needs to be done, and I know how to do it. Also, there is a lot more, but those two are ones that stuck out in my head. If you have any concerns, feel free to email me. elliot (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Votes

• Support as proposer. elliot (talk) 01:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. A key criterion in selecting the five editors listed above was that they are patrollers. You are not a patroller, and it's far from obvious that even a patroller nomination would succeed at this point. Furthermore, knowledge of MediaWiki, templates, CSS are not the most important factors in selecting admins. You can edit templates without being an admin; MediaWiki and CSS changes are not frequently needed. None of your "qualifications" are particularly relevant for the specific admin tasks identified in the previous discussion. --Nephele^Talk 02:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I would say I am shocked, but I hate lying. I don't want to be a patroller. Been there. Done that. Not interested. And there were no qualifications established in the prior discussion, so actually come up with a reason as to why I am less qualified than the other editors and stop wasting my time. elliot (talk) 02:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. ok first things first, I sorry if anyone gets offended from what I'm about to say, but the whole premise of elliot's argument is fatally flawed, It was obvious that to a vote of 1 opposed and 16 in support, that it would be supported and elliot claims he is more qualified than all the patrollers being recommended even though he has failed to back this up with actual evidence that he "deserves" it, thank you for reading this Honda1996 03:27 October 29th 2011

First, I never said I wanted to remove any of the above editors from the list. Second, not that edit count means a whole lot, but I have more edits than AKB, DKong, and Dwarfmp combined. It just shows that I have my share of contributions to the site (and that it is easily deserved). elliot (talk) 03:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

ok elliot, since your case of why this should not reach a consensus even though you clearly lost, so I'm going to make it clear here, I will always oppose you, I will make sure you are never put into a real position of power, you are flat out the most abusive editor on this site, you hurt new editors instead of helping them, and yes I know this is probably be removed by either a admin or you, so I end this nowHonda1996 03:27 October 29th 2011 (UTC)

• Support: I had to toss this idea around for a bit, but I think that I've come to a decision. So, before I call it a night, allow me to explain why I voted "Support".

• The Shadow of the Past: I think that Elliot's history on this site is holding sway over many decisions based around him. I can say that although I have read all of what happened (or most of it at least), I was not there when the controversey with Elliot began; thus, I don't have a sour taste in my mouth, so to speak. What I mean is that we shouldn't be letting Elliot's past cast a shadow over our judgement. He has definately learned from his mistakes.

• Monkey See, Monkey Do: Another reason I'm inclined to say that Elliot deserves this position is the tremendous amount of excellent work he has done, and how that has caused him to be one of my main inspirations (not to sound too cheesy) as far as editing goes. Additionally, his huge edit count is testament to his dedication to the UESPWiki. That being said, I'm not voting "Support" because I "like" Elliot or because I think he's "super awesome", but rather because I have seen what he has done and believe that it has earned him this temporary position.

• A Pleasure to Work With: Yep, no clever section name for this one. ;) But in all seriousness, Elliot is overall an edit whom I genuinely enjoy working with. At the same time, if he has an issue or a concern, he states it immediately and rarely sugar-coats it. Honestly, we need another Administrator like that, however temporary the position may be.

There really isn't anything more to say. I certainly hope that this turns out with a consensus of "Support", despite my gut telling me that it may already be dragging towards "Oppose". After all, my gut is hardly ever right (I mean, my gut told me that the FI would be removed after all that controversey over it).--Kalis Agea^{Yes? Contrib E-mail} 06:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support: Elliot's knowledge on Mediawiki is certainly above average, and I fail to see why he shouldn't be given the same temporary rights as the ones above. Just because he is not a patroller does not mean he is less qualified, and events in the past have little to no relevance on this temporary admin status. I do think that elliot is sometimes less than tactful if I might be so blunt, and the whole foreplay to this preposition is an example of that, but as I stated before, that has no direct bearing on this temporary status. Wolok gro-Barok 15:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Before I support you, I need an explanation on something you've said. As our article on Administrators clearly states, all administrators are also patrollers. To be an administrator, is to be a patroller. However, you've said several times that you don't wish to be a patroller, despite you wanting to be an administrator. Do you intend to just ignore that part of the job, or are you willing to accept patroller responsibilities only if they are alongside administrative responsibilities? I can't vote either way without an answer. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 01:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I said it in the below section, so I am just guessing you didn't look there. Also, I check edits currently, but it's not really my focus. If I had the rights by being a temp. admin, then I would obviously use them; I just wouldn't work at it like I did as a patroller back in 2009. There was essentially a time when the only ones patrolling were myself and rpeh. We patolled... a lot. I would naturally do it. elliot (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Support: Good enough for me. Elliot is a competent editor, he has a lot of experience under his belt, and he generally is assists the site. While he can have a bit of a temper, who doesn't? Generally, I'm willing to trust him to do the right thing for the site. I'm sure that he deserves this punishment if he wants it. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 03:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm sorry, but I can't bring myself to support this at the moment. You opposed the proposal because you didn't get on the list; your addendum is about you being added to the list. When you made your proposal you felt it necessary to take a little dig at the closing admin, who was simply doing what was required and closing the discussion after one week.

I don't think anybody doubts you are technically competent to hold the extra responsibilities, but everything I see tells me that you aren't temperamentally suited for them. If you had proposed that "blockers" rather than "you" should be added to the list if would indicate a little thought about others. You have often stated that trying to achieve consensus is a waste of time and that people should simply do what's necessary, which is a deeply worrying position for a potential admin to hold, but this makes your comments about the closure of the original vote hypocritical. In other words, it seems to me that you see consensus as being "What Elliot Wants".

So how to move forward? I'd like to see an apology for the negative comments you've made on this page during the course of the recent debates. You've attacked editors for inexperience, you've criticised other people's actions, and you've been generally abrasive, with comments like "stop wasting my time". And not one of these hypothetical apologies that seem to pass as contrition elsewhere "I'm sorry if you were offended", which is utter garbage as far as I'm concerned. You've been making quite a few edits away from here, which is good, and I'd like to see that continue. And I'd like to see a more friendly attitude in discussions on this page. I don't think any of those requests are unreasonable.

Lastly, I'll make the same comment about this topic that I did about UserPatrollers getting the tboverride flag: if it's misused, the role - and with it the flag - can be removed in the same manner it was granted, ie by an admin simply taking it away. People qualify for permanent blocker status when two admins agree, and so if two admins agree that it's time to take the role away, the extra admin rights would go too. Do you understand and accept this to be the case?

Several people have mentioned leaving the past behind, and I want to make it clear that I'm doing that. My concerns, as I've already pointed out elsewhere, are based purely on the posts that Elliot has made on this page over the past couple of weeks. If I can see that Elliot understands the problems and is willing to address them then I'll support blockers being added to the list. rpeh •T•C•E• 10:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I opposed the proposal at first because I didn't think it was needed. As time went on, I felt that it would probably be best if we did end up having a little more stability. And yes, I made that "dig" because Nephele took it upon herself to take a dig at me: The fact is that you are not on the list, and this discussion is now effectively over -- it's been a week, with nearly unanimous support. The list is not going to be modified at this point. She had no authority to say such a thing or to back it up, as can be seen by this discussion I created and her subsequent opposition.

Blockers would make some sense, but the difference between that group and patrollers is: me. I'm the only non-patroller blocker. I think the fact that I haven't used my blocker rights is a good indication that I know how to handle extra buttons. There have been a few times when I fot pretty close to blocking, but instead, I took a deep breath and it died down (therefore, I didn't relight the fires by blocking, as some tadmins have done recently). I haven't said much about consensus as of late, but I do remember making it clear, in your request for adminship, that what I believed in wasn't always right. My views are not set in stone.

Now, I will not apologize because all of my angst is typically against one user, and that is Nephele. I am not going to beat around the bush. She doesn't like me; I don't like her. We move on.

Also, I'm not a child who gets ordered around to apologize, because even if I said it, I wouldn't mean it. If you want me to lie, then say so.

I'll tone in down in the future, but if some people are going to throw unwarranted attitude my way, then they should simply accept it when they get it from me. If they want to treat me like an editor of this site, then they will get my respect and kindness. elliot (talk) 02:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: In the light of that reply, I can't do anything else. I'm genuinely sorry this is the case. rpeh •T•C•E• 07:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to strike this because my history with Elliot is going to lead to accusations of bias no matter how much it's not the case. I just deleted a post that had taken about an hour to write about the nuances of this discussion because it was only going to add more fuel to the fire, no matter how carefully I wrote it. rpeh •T•C•E• 00:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: Before this whole discussion, I was tempted to give Elliot another chance at a position of responsibility. However, it is obvious that he still hasn't really learnt from his past mistakes: his attitude towards other users and towards the wiki and the way it operates, as pointed out by rpeh, are simply incompatible with the role of an admin. Of course, Elliot is one of the three most technically skilled people on this wiki, and I praise the work he has done. However, Nephele has already pointed out that he does not require any new buttons to keep doing such work, and I see no reason whatsoever why he should be given them. --SerCenKing ^Talk 11:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

You don't really have much to back up your accusations of "attitude towards... the wiki and the way it operates". I mean, you continuously bring up my "past mistakes", so how can I get past that? elliot (talk) 02:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: Since I have no idea what your "past mistakes" are, I'm going to base this vote purely on what I've seen in my time here. This is a good example of why I don't think you are temperamentally suited to be an admin. While nobody here could doubt your technical ability or your massive amount of contributions, your attitude towards other editors leaves a lot to be desired. Kitkat ^{•Talk•Contrib•E-mail} 08:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: I'm not going to bother with too many reasons - the events last night explains it all; it also explains why we didn’t ask you the first time ‘round and explains why people hesitate to vote. They can live without the endless bickering, reverts and fights. You clearly have no interest in helping the site, only an odd interest in getting a promotion you definitely don’t need. --Krusty 10:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I have about 8,400 reasons that disprove your "no interest" comment. elliot (talk) 02:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: For reasons pointed out about your temprement I don't think you suit the role of administrator, even over this short proposed time period. I have noticed that, since around the time of the proposed temp admins, you temprement (especially in edit summaries) is somehow getting worse. I also wish to state that even this mornings has shown unsuitable traits in an admin, such as the obvious one about trying to change consensus to suit your aims. (I couldn't post this on the AN without wiping it clean, and i might not be on till friday so i thought i'd better vote sooner, rather than later) --Kiz ^{·•· Talk ·•· Contribs ·•· Mail ·•·} 10:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I changed consensus on a majority vote. How is that horrible again? elliot (talk) 02:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support: Yes I support you but only just. I think that you are certainly one of the most capable editors on the wiki and that you would help as an extra admin but you should be a bit more understanding. Nephele was only pointing out that the discussion was basically over, she wasn't really "having a dig" at you. The reason I support you is that you should get another chance for all of the great work you have done for the wiki. also, all temporary admins can be removed at any time so i feel that if you were to cause any trouble you would just get removed and there would be little damage done. By making Elliot a temporary admin it would give him another chance, it would help the wiki when Skyrim comes out and if he messes it up he can be removed. Based on the amount of good work he has done in the past I think he should get at least one more chance.RIM 14:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: Since you desire more votes, here's mine. You are making a big deal out of a temporary adminship. I can only assume you want to be a temporary admin so you can help out the site. However, you appear to want it so bad, that you'd even do the opposite (hindering the site) to get to your goal, because if you think ignoring administrators' decisions, undoing the same edit over and over again, etc. is helping out the site, I'm afraid you're mistaken. You should respect what administrators have to say, and not state you're not listening because you disagree. If you won't listen to administrators, you won't listen to anyone. How is that beneficial for a community site? You have the right to disagree, and it's good that you express your disagreement, but you have a tendency to express this in a wrong way. You brought up reasons why you are more fit as an administrator than me, for example, which are having more experience, edits, knowledge on templates etc., which are good reasons. However, I don't see any required experience and edits on the site on the administrator page, I'm fairly sure I've exceeded these requirements, and the difference between mine and yours are therefore unimportant (just wanted to state that, not that it's important). But you fail to see what people are bringing up here. Even as of now, I worry about getting a rather hostile reply from you, which should be something people don't have to worry about, especially from an admin, and I'm sure I'm not the only one expecting things like this from you, cause that's what you do. I can imagine things like pages being deleted and recreated, going on and on, since you have been given the power to do so. Don't tell me that isn't possible. That's the sort of vibe you express, so I advise you to listen to other people's advice on how to improve that vibe, and not blame them for ordering you around. I believe your behavior is more than enough to disqualify you for adminship. You are too quick to take a decision based on your own thoughts. Now, please respect my opinion, just like I respect yours ~ Dwarfmp 16:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I really could care less about it, to be honest. It's not going to be the end of the world for me whether I did get it or not. I am more qualified than even some administrators and felt it is an insult to not involve me in the discussion. I may be harsh at times, but that's what's required to knock sense into some people. elliot (talk) 02:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: My biggest problem is that I can't see any benefit to the wiki by granting you temporary admin rights. Nothing that you've mentioned has clarified that point, which I'm not the first to raise. On top of that, this entire discussion shows exactly why you can't be trusted, in any less-than-ideal situation, to behave in a way that reflects the image we- as a community- want to portray. --GK^talk2me 23:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I find this comment hilarious considering how some administrators act. elliot (talk) 02:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Consensus

Oppose. (Community response: 5 "Support", 8 "Oppose". Consensus called by an uninvolved admin, 12 days after the proposal was first made.) --GK^talk2me 23:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

More Skyrim-Related Policy Changes

Now that the most urgent pre-Skyrim policy discussion has been settled, I wanted to tackle the other issues I'm aware of. Hopefully with these changes we'll be ready policy-wise for November 11th.

(1) Expand tboverride rights, specifically giving it to patrollers, userspace patrollers, and UESP bots (e.g., RoBoT, NepheleBot).

• Rationale: tboverride is the right to override the page creation limits imposed by MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. Currently the right is only given to admins. We need this change for Skyrim in order to make the limits below under (2) and (3) work as intended. But beyond that, bots, patrollers and userspace patrollers can all safely be exempted from limits on user names and spam pages, so this right might as well be permanent.
• Time period: effective as soon as this discussion concludes, and left in place permanently.

(2) Limit creation of new Skyrim pages. Prevent anyone except those with tboverride rights (see #1) from creating new Skyrim pages. (Will not apply to talk pages).

• Rationale: As soon as the game is released, bots (RoBot and/or NepheleBot) will start automatically creating placeholder pages/redirects for every quest, place, NPC, item, spell, etc. in the game data files. In other words, bots will create every necessary Skyrim page. Using bots ensures that all pages are spelled and capitalized properly, and also ensures that they're given the correct categories and breadcrumb trails. Once the bots start running, anyone trying to create a page will probably be trying to create an incorrectly named page (e.g., "River Wood" instead of "Riverwood"). With this restriction, we'll avoid the chaos of multiple pages on the same topic, merging those pages, redirecting/deleting the incorrect one, etc. Any editors who try to create a page will instead be directed to place a request at New Page Requests.
• Time period: November 11th (specifically, once bots start creating pages) - February 29th, 2012.

(3) Limit creation of Oblivion, Lore, and main namespace pages. Prevent anyone except those with tboverride rights (see #1) from creating new pages in these namespaces. (Will not apply to talk pages).

• Rationale: These three namespaces are places where editors unfamiliar with UESP are likely to try incorrectly creating Skyrim pages. As with #2, preventing incorrect articles from being created will reduce the chaos. There shouldn't be any need for new Oblivion or main namespace articles, so there's virtually no downside to restricting those two namespaces. On the other hand, new Lore articles will need to be created, so the question that needs to be discussed is whether there's likely to be enough demand for new Lore articles to justify the risk of allowing unrestricted page creation.
• Time period: November 5th - February 29th, 2012.

(4) Change patrolling guidelines for Skyrim articles. Mark edits as patrolled as long they are not vandalism/spam or obviously inappropriate.

• Rationale: In part this is necessary just so that we can be sure to keep on top of edits. In addition, we won't really be able to fact-check Skyrim articles initially. At some point once the dust has settled we'll be able to start imposing quality standards on the Skyrim articles, and at that point we'll move back to normal patrolling guidelines.
• Time period: November 11th - February 29th, 2012.

The end date (February 29th) for these changes is somewhat arbitrary. I think they'll need to be in effect at least into January 2012, because there's likely to be a large burst of new editors/edits after christmas. In any case, details of when to return to "business-as-usual" can be discussed further once we've survived the initial chaos. --Nephele^Talk 02:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support: It seems that we're not going to have a Construction Set for some time after release, so the only way to check a spelling is going to be to find it in-game, and that's going to add a huge burden in terms of trying to keep things accurate. It's not just about preventing badly-named pages, it's also about preventing other articles filling up with links to badly-named pages. Even with the fourth proposal, it's a good idea to keep things as accurate as we can, and getting the bots to create the pages while preventing people being creative with spelling will help with that, and also help find oddities such as the longsword/long sword mess in Oblivion. The restriction on new Lore pages is trickier but probably necessary at first. We already have pages for the larger towns and cities of Skyrim, so we're only likely to need about a dozen new pages (not counting books), to cover factions, a few extra towns, plus a few new people. The page creation mechanism will work if people really want a new article, and in any case, it's likely to be a patroller who wants to create the page so the restrictions won't matter. Lastly, it's worth mentioning that any or all of these restrictions can be removed early if we feel they're no longer necessary. rpeh •T•C•E• 08:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support: All of the changes seem logical. We can already see that other namespaces will be subjected to misplaced Skyrim content. --Legoless 15:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support: Logical choices that are just basic common sense not much more to be said, this sort of SR related policy is now fairly well covered, or so I would think. --Kiz ^{·•· Talk ·•· Contribs ·•· Mail ·•·} 15:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support 3, 4 Oppose 1, 2: The community has already decided who will be able to make new pages in the Skyrim namespace. I don't see why you are bringing it up again. If you want to limit it to just about 20 or so users, then that would work, but like I said before, that (8) is not enough people. There are editors on the wiki who are just as if not more experienced than the patrollers, so limiting them is dumb. elliot (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Well, according to point (1) it would not be limited to 8, it would be limited to about 20 members. All Admins, Patrollers and User Patrollers would be able to create new pages. Thats gotta be a few mroe than 8. --Kiz ^{·•· Talk ·•· Contribs ·•· Mail ·•·} 16:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess I overlooked it, but I will be opposed to the first one as long as userspace patrollers are given the ability to create pages. Figuring there are some questionable members in the group. Based on that, he could create pages, yet I could not. That's crazy. elliot (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes it is rather. Could you not just apply for a exemption on that rule? I can't honestly see anyone refusing you the right to create Skyrim pages. Or just apply for Patrollership? --Kiz ^{·•· Talk ·•· Contribs ·•· Mail ·•·} 16:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Sorry, I forgot to even mention the apparent contradiction between item #2 here, and my previous proposal on the Community Portal. The critical difference in what's being proposed here is that #2 will only be implemented after bots are able to start creating Skyrim pages. Over the next two weeks, while Skyrim page creation remains open, we can finish creating most of the Skyrim "structure" pages -- pages such as Items, Quests. After that, 99.9% of the remaining pages will be ones that the bots can create. Every named object in the game -- quests, places, NPCs, magical effects, spells, weapons, clothes, armor, ingredients, books, etc. -- will be identified from the game data and fed to the bots. The bots won't fill in the actual page content -- that will be left to real editors -- but they will make it so that nearly every time an editor goes to start a page, they'll find that a stub page already exists, and therefore the editor doesn't need page creation permissions.

Also, as background, one major factor why I'm proposing #2 is my experience when Shivering Isles was released. In my opinion, the single biggest problem we had with new SI content was that editors would create multiple versions of the same page. For example, quest pages would get created at "The Cold Flame of Agnon", "Cold Flame of Agnon", and "The Cold Flame Of Agnon" -- and those are just a few of the legitimate options without considering typos. The reason this was so problematic is that the editors wouldn't realize that it was happening -- or even if they did, they'd have no idea of how to fix it. Therefore, it was a problem that had to be fixed by patrollers/admins. Furthermore, it had to be fixed as quickly as possible -- merging three complete quest walkthroughs into one is far more difficult than merging three stubs, plus we want to lose as little page history as possible during the merge. Plus, it had to be fixed while the editors were simultaneously trying to continue working on the pages, adding even more chaos and stress to the process.

Finally, I think the fact that patrollers and userspace patrollers will be able to create Skyrim pages is an important point, and a significant difference from the limits previously in place for Skyrim page creation. The restriction isn't there to prevent pages from being created, as much as it is to make sure that people creating the pages are familiar with UESP. I'd encourage anyone who is a regular site contributor to become a userspace patroller -- both to help with Skyrim page creation, and to help with patrolling the flood of new userspace edits. The qualifications for userspace patroller are (intentionally) relatively simple to meet. So if your concern is that you personally won't be able to create Skyrim pages, there's already a built-in mechanism for addressing that concern. --Nephele^Talk 16:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no interest in being a patroller. That alone would invalidate your reasoning/suggestion. Now, if you want to make a subset of senior editors, then I would be fine with that. All other propositions (besides the main one I have above) will not really work. elliot (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I've read all this several times, gone away from my PC, come back and read it again and I can't come to any other conclusion that you want the rights associated with being an admin without any of the responsibilities. You easily qualify as a User Patroller, a role that would let you bypass the restriction on page creation, but your repeated statement that you have no interest in being a patroller seems to indicate that you just want the Delete and unrestricted Block rights without having to check edits. Even then, instead of suggesting a small change so that Blockers are added to the list of exempted groups, you decided to vote to throw the whole scheme out.

This isn't the first time. In the vote on creating extra admins you could have voted to support and then suggested that you be added to the list: a suggestion that might well have passed. Instead, you opposed the whole proposal and made a personal attack on another user. At the start of these debates I would almost certainly have voted to support your inclusion: now I'd almost certainly vote oppose.

None of these changes - and don't forget, they're only temporary - are being made to polish the egos of editors. They're all being made for the good of the site. The situation before all this started was that we had three to four active admins (me, Krusty, Nephele plus about half each of GK and Daveh), and three of those would be spending time disassembling the game data leaving less time to spend on keeping things under control. It was pretty clear we needed help, and the five most active patrollers were chosen to augment the admin ranks. Patrollers were chosen because the role means they have passed a site-wide vote of confidence and so have the trust of the community. It's not about rewarding people, it's not about any kind of quid-pro-quo, it was a simple necessity.

At this point I suggest you take a brief time out to think about what it is you actually want here, then apologise for your personal attacks (the little swipes at Honda and Ziguildmaster were totally uncalled-for) and try to start again. At the moment you're digging yourself deeper into a hole, and it's not going to lead you anywhere useful. rpeh •T•C•E• 17:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think I can be most useful with the responsibilities. I work way too much to actually become involved in some of the deep project on the site (the ones where you stalk NPCs–I can't do it). As of now, I make edits here and there where I see fit. It actually limits what I can do, so I don't do much. Also, I check edits currently, but it's not really my focus. If I had the rights by being a temp. admin, then I would obviously use them; I just wouldn't work at it like I did as a patroller back in 2009. But my oppose in regards to the current conversation was conditional; I don't have problems changing my votes, but voting oppose typically is my way of saying "Let's be serious". I knew your proposal would have been approved, so it was more symbolic. I'm not being disruptive for the sake of being disruptive; there are just problems with the proposals, and as an editor of this site I believe I can speak my mind. Do I think the TAdmins need all of the rights such as Checkuser and Cartographer? No, and it's partly why I opposed.

Now, the main reason I began the discussion was because I believe it's the best way I can contribute. I didn't make a swipe at Honda, but my wording in regards to ZG was poor. I just believe he hasn't done much for the wiki and is underqualified for the position. Rpeh, you know I am not dumb (I know you aren't dumb either), and you know I can benefit the wiki. elliot (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support: One thing's not clear to me, otherwise I would be fully supportive of this whole proposal. It's not clear to me why userspace patrollers should be given tboverride. The criteria for becoming a userspace patroller aren't really enough for me to be comfortable with that. Since most of the necessary pages will be either created before the bots start or by the bots, I think restricting it to bots, admins (including temps), and patrollers would be fine. Permanent and temporary admins should be able to keep a fairly good watch on the page creation requests, so I wouldn't think it would really hinder the content creation. --GK^talk2me 18:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Most userspace patrolers can use wiki formatting, have made hundreds of edits and are trusted enough to not vandalise pages.RIM 18:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I wondered about UPs too, but I think the criteria for the role means they all know roughly what they're doing and so it shouldn't be a problem. If any userspace patroller starts to mess things up, we can always remove the role just as easily as it was originally added. On balance I think it's fair enough. rpeh •T•C•E• 18:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I suppose. --GK^talk2me 19:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support: I really see no reason to vote "Oppose" on any of these. For one, most Patrollers and UPs are editors who have some rudimentary understanding of the workings of the wiki; thus, I see no problem with giving them tboverride (plus, as was stated above, those rights can always be revoked). In regards to the second proposal, it is only logical that this be put into effect; users with Patroller and UserPatroller rights are not only competent editors, but very likely mean well. What I mean by this is that typically a vandal or troll is not going to through the trouble of becoming a Userspace Patroller (that would require meeting the, though admittedly low and simple, criteria of a UP). The third proposal (that being to limit article creation) addresses what is perhaps my biggest concern for Skyrim: having to deal with nonsensical pages. While this would also make the creation of content noticeably slower, I honestly do think that it is worth it. And finally, as far as the proposal to ease up on the patrolling requirements for Skyrim, though I support this, I give a sort of hesitant support. Although this would make the whole process of patrolling altogether more efficient, I still feel like perhaps its a little hasty. On the other hand, it is not a bad move, and I feel -- for the moment -- as though a move that is not a bad one is better than no move at all, if that makes any sense. Overall, I feel as though these policy changes will be highly beneficial to us once Skyrim is released.--Kalis Agea^{Yes? Contrib E-mail} 01:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support: I support all four of Nephele's propositions. However, I wish to point out that the first, second, and third proposals isn't so much about preventing vandalism, as it is about making sure the wiki isn't as chaotic as it would be with a bunch of articles on the same subject. Plus, even if a user were to attempt to vandalize by creating nonsensical articles, the new boost to the administrator's ranks make it more likely that admins will always be available to counter it. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 05:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support: AKB said it all in the above post. While I’m not a big fan of “I agree”-posts, I have nothing much to add; at this stage, it is not about if’s and but’s, it is about doing the best we can for the site. Yep, I’ll agree with Elliot and GK that the userspace patroller inclusion seems a bit odd, but I also agree with rpeh that these rights can be removed with the speed of light if anybody starts to mess things up, just like any other change that may prove unbeneficial. As of now, I just wish we could reach November 11th and get on with it. --Krusty 07:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support: I agree with all points raised. I at first had my doubts about point 2, but after reading Nephele's comments about what happened when Shivering Isles was released, I can see why this would be a good solution. Wolok gro-Barok 14:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Support I agree with all of the points stated by users above(excluding elliot's), these four points will reduce some of the craziness that will occur when Skyrim does come out Honda1996 2:17 3rd November 2011

Status

#1 and #3 have now been implemented, including most importantly limits on page creation in Oblivion and Lore namespaces. All autoconfirmed users should still be able to create Skyrim pages, because that limitation won't be implemented until later this week. But getting Oblivion and Lore done now gives bots, userspace patrollers, and patrollers a way to start testing that their permissions are set up properly. --Nephele^Talk 20:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Restricting Anonymous Editing (or Not)

I'm starting this topic primarily to prevent other discussions from being side-tracked by a potentially lengthy and inconclusive discussion over whether limits should be placed on who can edit Skyrim articles. In other words, should anonymous editors be prevented from editing? Should newly-created accounts should be prevented from editing?

I feel, fairly strongly, that anonymous editors and new editors should be allowed to edit all articles. Furthermore, I don't think any pre-emptive changes should be made unless there is clear support for the changes. In other words, if there are doubts about whether restrictions on anonymous editing are needed, we should wait until after Skyrim is released to see whether such restrictions are truly justified

I've covered some details on this subject in a blog post. In brief my main arguments are:

• We need anonymous editors to quickly create content. UESP needs to have quest walkthroughs for Skyrim as quickly as possible, and I don't see that happening unless we allow anonymous editors to post those walkthroughs.
• We need anonymous editors to collect enough content. Whenever there is a random element in the game, we need the combined experiences of many players to discover all the possible outcomes. So we need dozens of different editors contributing to quest walkthroughs if we want to document Radiant Quests -- or if we want to document bugs. That means we need all the help we can get.

Overall, I don't think we can responsibly put any restrictions on who can edit unless there is a guaranteed replacement for those editors' contributions. For example, the previous section proposes to limit new page creation -- but only because a bot will be creating placeholders for all the Skyrim pages. Bots can not generate quest walkthroughs, or place descriptions, or NPC summaries.

But anyone who feels differently is free to add their counter-arguments. --Nephele^Talk 02:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I know that this is somewhat unrelated, but I have been considering utilising the forums to address the both points Nephele has raised, that is, that Forum users may be able to contribute to quickly establishing walkthroughs, and reporting bugs, etc., which can be transferred to the wiki and later verified more substantially. This is something I agree is important, so although I'd support allowing anonymous and newly registered users to edit, the forums could also be used as an augmentation to this process. --OblivionDuruza 05:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

A couple of months ago I thought turning off anon editing for a while after 11/11/11 was a no-brainer but since then I've heard some very good arguments why it's a Bad Idea. Nephele's blog post goes into good detail, but the two main points are the ones bulleted in the first post here. One of the reasons for creating a slew of new admins is that it will help give us the eyes to ensure that any spates of vandalism can be dealt with as quickly as possible, which makes restricting editing less necessary. I'd rather have a comprehensive site and have to deal with the occasional hilarious post about genitalia than have a half-empty site that probably still gets vandalised by named editors anyway. rpeh •T•C•E• 08:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Just a suggestion but maybe for the first day or two only patrollers and admins etc. should be allowed edit. That way all the namespaces, skills, tables, books etc. can be added without all the disruption. then a day or two later, anybody can edit to get all the info needed. Besides, most people will probably play skyrim non-stop for the first day or two anyway.RIM 20:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Even disabling anonymous editing is a hard sale, trying to argue that it would benefit the site to disable editing for everyone who isn't a member of "staff" is an impossible position. No matter how hard we work, we're not going to be able to do all of the heavy lifting here. If we were to do this, we'd drive away a lot of new users who came in to help out due to the new game. Disabling editing, especially on such an important date, will be catastrophic for the site from every point of view. It's bad for the long term editors who will have far to much ground to cover. It'll be bad for the potential new users, who will be turned away from the very start. It'll be bad for the site long term, as the site's growth could be severely stunted just from that one day.

I think I speak for most people here when I say that the UESP simply can't afford to limit our pool of potential editors on such a grand scale, even for that little time. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 23:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say that some of the world's most knowledgeable TES experts edit at UESP. I'm not claiming exclusivity - there are a load of incredibly knowledgeable people who don't edit here - but we're pretty good. The point is that at midnight on 11/11/11 everyone starts from the same point: zero knowledge. That means a brand new IP editor knows as much as Daveh and so there's no reason why the latter's opinion should be accepted but not the former's. Of course we're going to get IP vandalism, but we're also going to get vandalism from named accounts, and we've taken steps to deal with all of this.

One point that should be made here is that everything proposed so far is preemptive. If we get deluged by nonsense IP edits beyond even the scope of range-blocks, then we can start thinking about this again. For now, let the people write. rpeh •T•C•E• 00:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

(←) I've said it before, but just to note it here, too: I don't think we can afford to lose the extra input that will be provided by anonymous editors. --GK^talk2me 19:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The sheer number of hours of collective gameplay experience skyrockets with their inclusion. If anything gets out of hand, we can put limits to editing pace; however, I am not too sure that it will be necessary. elliot (talk) 21:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Prev: Archive 20

Up: Administrator Noticeboard

Next: Archive 22