UESPWiki:Patrollers/Nominations/Completed/2009a

This page is an archive of old nominations for patroller status and should not be edited. Please ask any questions on the main article's talk page

Krusty

Reasons

Krusty has been around for a few months now, and has been a huge help on several projects since day one. His edits are always impeccably researched and when there's any doubt, backed up by even more detail on relevant talk pages. In short, he's a splendid editor and I look forward to having his edits automatically patrolled in the future. The one concern was that he is a fellow "u" and "ll" user, but I am assured that a new US dictionary is in place, which should alleviate that problem :) –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 19:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• I accept this nomination. Krusty 19:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• As I don't think its very useful to have all patrollers digging up examples on my bad grammar, I'll just add this speech to the nomination. It has been an agreement since day one, that all my edits are entirely free to reword and correct. Why? The first reason is that my grammar isn't very good. I know that and all of you know that. The second reason is, that I spend SO much time researching those NPCs, that I really cant be bothered whether to call it "isn't" or "is not" when I finally start writing the pages. Why can't I be bothered? Because we have the agreement. I know, that somebody (it being SerCenKing, Rpeh or Wolok gro-Barok) will go in and do the final fixes, and I'm very grateful for that. Mind you, that my "larger" edits typically consists of between 1000 and 7000 letters - and sometimes two or three in a day. That's a lot of writing, and there's bound to be some mistakes. That being said, it's not like I don't care. I'm doing my very best on all the pages I edit, and I aim to improve and learn every time. What I do know about is Oblivion. I have an extreme knowledge on NPC behaviour, I have cleared some 250+ places, I have savegames all over the questline(s) and I'm more than willing to spend huge amounts of time verifying edits in-game. I'm not going to do any grammar fixes, and I certainly don't see any of my edits as auto-patrolled - as a matter of fact, I don't consider any of my edits as "patrolled" before they are checked in the CS - but I still think I could contribute to the cause. Thanks. Krusty 10:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Votes

• Support: As nominator –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 19:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support: I know he has done great work for the ONPCRP-project. Besides that he is always on the lookout for vandals. So he definitely has my support. Wolok gro-Barok 19:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: Krusty has done so much fantastic work on the site that I feel quite bad having to say no. I appreciate all the work he's done with the ONPCRP and for the time he spends watching the Recent Changes, and I hope that continues for a very long time. On the other hand, his edits still require quite a lot of cleanup, which is a serious flag. For that reason I can't condone having his edits automatically marked as patrolled. Work on the grammar skills I'll gladly support you :). –Eshe^talk 19:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: As Eshe has said, he has done great work on the ONPCRP; however, I cannot support this nomination. The main factor is his grammar. Edits that people have to go back and clean up such as this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this all hinder and clog up the recent changes. And these needed fixes show he is more than a "u" and "ll" user. I enjoy the fact that he watches the RC, but reverting vandalism isn't necessarily a task that shows he is ready for patrolling. Don't get me wrong, I hope he continues to do so though. I am extremely worried that his edits would become automatically patrolled, which I feel I would still have to look through (something I shouldn't have to do with a fellow patroller). Clean up the grammar skills, and I may support you in the future. --Elliot^(T-C) 20:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support:: Krusty himself has said part of what I intended as remark on the negative examples. What should be considered is that patrolling isn't about perfect spelling or reverting vandalism. I have more problems with factual errors that are patrolled as correct, and with reversions of contributions that actually held some value. I see it as a scientific process where the goal is not to keep only what we know is right, but to be open for new insights. This is something I trust Krusty with, I have seen him spend time in actual research, and I know he won't simply discard and edit because it feels out of place.
  I too make errors when writing significant amounts of text, so I see these errors as something for Krusty to improve on as editor, instead of a reason not to vote for him as as patroller. --Timenn < talk > 12:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Timmen and Krusty have both made very good points on this issue. I agree that it is and will continue to be extremely useful to have people with a deeper knowledge of the games who can verify some of the trickier edits. However, verification does not a Patroller make, and even if Krusty chooses not to patrol for spelling and grammar, the edits he himself makes will be marked as no longer needing attention, which means many errors may go unchecked. If Nephele's overhaul were already finished, or if "auto-patrol" were still an option, I would have no problems with this. I really, really hate to have to say no, but I'm afraid that will have to be my answer until I see a real improvement in that area. Again, Krusty, please understand that I'm truly in awe of the amount of work you do and we all appreciate it very much. I know you put a lot of time into your work and the results are brilliant. I don't have a problem cleaning up the few mistakes that are left behind (as it's usually quite fun to read!), but having to seek out the edits that need cleaning...well, I can imagine that's why the Patroller extension was installed in the first place. I'm just unable to fully support your nomination at this time. –Eshe^talk 16:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment:The problem with this is that we cannot make agreements about what should be and what shouldn't be patrolled by a Patroller. In my eyes, a Patroller should fit all of the criteria as put up in the Patroller page. I would feel as if I would have to go through all of his patrols and verify them, something I nor anyone else has time to do. When you become a patroller, the edits you patrol are supposed to be that: patrolled. It is not meant to be a two stage patrolling process that it will become. --Mr. Oblivion^(T-C) 16:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: Does that mean you resign then? The standard of grammar in that post was shocking, and given mistakes like the one you made earlier about Areldur, you don't have the editing experience either.74.54.138.2 16:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Since my previous comment wasn't really helpful in any way, I guess I'll try again. As Krusty himself pointed out, most of his edits should still be looked over since they need to be verified and checked via the CS. That goes for all project-members of the ONPCRP, whether in-game or via the CS. His articles/edits are always of a high standard (ignoring spelling and grammar) and he is always able to tackle questions involving NPCs. Whether that makes him capable of being a patroller is arguable. I do agree he does not fulfill all criteria for being a patroller. However, I think spelling/grammar is not a patroller's main task not even in one's own edits. In my opinion, a patroller should have a deeper knowledge of the aspects of a game, so that he's capable of answering questions and verifying things that need looking over. Krusty certainly has proven that. Wolok gro-Barok 21:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Regardless of what edits he makes, I still feel I will have to check over all the edits he makes, regardless if he makes the patroller position. The thing is: I shouldn't have to. He is an invaluable editor, but his grammar is not up to the caliber you would expect to see from a patroller. --Elliot^(T-C) 21:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree with you. You indeed should not have the urge to check a patroller's edits. I couldn't help but noticing this edit (sorry Krusty for bringing this up), which could have been avoided if better wording had been used (nothing too major, though). I just wanted to express my opinion better than I had done before, and to point out that most of edits need to be looked over anyway because of the project. Wolok gro-Barok 21:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: I have to agree with Eshe's reasoning on this one. Because Krusty's own edits would be auto-patrolled, I cannot support his nomination at this time. We certainly all make mistakes from time to time, or fail to notice others' mistakes, but if grammar and spelling edits are a regular occurrence for an editor, I don't feel they should be a Patroller...at least not until we get the overhaul up and running. --Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 23:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Consensus

No Consensus - the vote was tied at 3-3 when the vote was closed one week after the final vote. Please note that this result means the three month rule does not apply in this case, although Krusty should obviously address the reasons given by those who opposed the nomination - as he already seems to be doing. –rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 17:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Oblivion / Elliot

Reasons

I haven't been back for very long, but I've been pleasantly surprised by the consistently good work I've seen from Mr. Oblivion. He has clearly demonstrated that he is skilled at various types of edits, from small grammatical fixes to scary template work, and I haven't had any reservations in marking his edits as patrolled. On top of that, he's already been watching the Recent Changes page and exercises good judgment in dealing with new edits. I think it's time we welcome another active Patroller to the team! –Eshe^talk 16:07, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

• I accept this nomination. --Mr. Oblivion^(T-C) 16:20, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

Votes

• Support: As nominator. –Eshe^talk 16:07, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
• Support: Not much to add, Eshe pretty much said it all. Krusty 08:40, 13 June 2009 (EDT)
• Support: Though possibly a bit too soon, but I feel that we can trust Mr. Oblivion's judgement with patrolling. It's good to see he also deals with the harder edits (not just vandalism reverts), my only suggestion to him is that he is just a bit more reluctant with reverting edits or adding verification tags. Not that I suggest he is not up to the task. No, I would prefer to see him as a patroller. --Timenn < talk > 09:02, 13 June 2009 (EDT)
• Support: In a short time, Mr. Oblivion has shown himself to be an able contributor and patroller. I would like to have him as a patroller. Wolok gro-Barok 11:03, 13 June 2009 (EDT)
• Support: I had been considering nominating Mr. Oblivion myself, as it's pretty clear he knows what he's doing. One thing I would appreciate is rather more descriptive edit summaries when undoing in some cases, or perhaps moving comments to talk pages rather than simply removing them. That's a relatively minor point, though, and I'm sure he'll be a great patroller. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 16:30, 16 June 2009 (EDT)
• Support: Mr. Oblivion has been doing a lot of work lately, and I can't recall ever seeing an edit that I wouldn't have patrolled. (Besides...not having to patrol those edits will be immensely helpful in its own right!) --Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 19:33, 16 June 2009 (EDT)
• Support: I can't say much that hasn't already been stated by everyone else. I've seen Mr. Oblivion do some very good and diligent patrolling recently, and can't see why he should be made a patroller. --SerCenKing ^Talk 07:13, 21 June 2009 (EDT)
  • I think you meant "why he shouldn't be made a patroller". ;) --Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 14:02, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

Consensus

Support –Eshe^talk 14:18, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

Note: this editor was renamed on his request on 26 June 2009 from Mr. Oblivion to Elliot. The header of this nomination has been edited for clarity. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 20:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

SerCenKing

Reasons

Yes, its me again! My motivations are mostly the same as my previous nomination, although the problem seems to be more acute this time. I've come back round this second time with the same intention of helping to keep the un-patrolled edits under control, with a good deal of experience and a better judgement. Given the circumstances under which this nomination comes, I hope votes won't be too much influenced; although in a spectacular case of 'doublethink', I also hope that everyone will understand how much UESP needs active Patrollers to get the job done and that I can count of everyone's support.

As a side note, I would like to stress the fact that I had already decided to nominate myself in a week or two, but recent events have made me speed up the process. Also, it would be appreciated if we could side-step the normal procedure of waiting a week to analyse the runner-up. I think I have made enough edits recently to be judged by them only and also, in case I'm successful, so that I can crack on immediately. Thanks. --SerCenKing ^Talk 16:42, 28 May 2009 (EDT)

Votes

• Support - Recently with my becoming more active, I have noticed a lot of what has been going on and who has been helping the most. The most active users I have seen are Nephele, Rpeh, Krusty, SerCenKing, and myself. But SerCenKing has done a lot for the site (uploading images, watching the Recent Changes page, and continuing on self-projects) recently. And with the recent fallout of certain events, UESP needs more patrollers, and I can think of no one better than SerCenKing. --Mr. Oblivion^(T-C) 18:17, 28 May 2009 (EDT)

• Support - No doubt in my mind about that! SerCenKing has proven to be a stabil and loyal contributor to the site, as well as taking the time to correct and undo edits, welcoming new members and so forth. In these here times, where we have an urgent need for patrollers I can't think of anybody more obvious for the job. - Krusty 13:04, 30 May 2009 (EDT)

• Support - While recent events may have triggered a slightly earlier application on your part, you've been more than busy enough, with reliable, quality edits recently to get my vote regardless. --Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 04:25, 31 May 2009 (EDT)

• Support - I supported you then, and I'll support you know for the same reasons. - Game Lord^{Talk|Contribs} 15:25, 31 May 2009 (EDT)

• Oppose - I'm afraid I have to oppose again. I just checked through most of your last 50 or so edits, which were all within the last three days; about 5 of them I would not mark as patrolled as they were. Everyone makes mistakes, but one out of ten is a lot of mistakes that would be automatically marked as patrolled, especially considering how many edits you make per day. I am so very grateful for your hard work, because it is much easier to clean up your edits than it is to do as much work as you're doing here. I'm just not comfortable with your edits being automatically marked as patrolled. --GuildKnight^Talk2me 00:41, 2 June 2009 (EDT)
  • Comment - If he doesn't select the option in the preferences, his edits wouldn't be patrolled, and he could still patrol the edits of others. Just a thought.--Ratwar 00:56, 2 June 2009 (EDT)
  • If I'm not mistaken, it used to be an option in preferences, but it's now automatic. --GuildKnight^Talk2me 13:54, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

---

Added after the nomination was complete

• Comment - The nomination is closed but I feel I should add some comments here. I didn't notice this nomination because of my recent inactivity but, with a heavy heart, I have to say I would - just - have voted "Oppose" if I had. The site desperately needs new patrollers but the comments I made in the previous election still stand: I feel SerCenKing needs to learn more about the site and the games before making comments as if from a position of authority. This was one edit that stuck in my mind. User:Dark Spark's edit was correct, but SerCenKing undid it with a rather odd edit summary. Now we all make mistakes. I've made my fair share, and it's always going to happen. But there's a difference between adding information incorrectly and making an undo. When I see a patroller or admin make an undo (or revert) there's an implicit trust: this person was elected and knows what he or she is doing. I'm not there with SerCenKing's edits yet. To summarise, I'm not going to oppose this nomination - apart from anything else it's too late to do so - but I would ask that, in the event of his successful election, SerCenKing be careful about edits of fact. Since his excellent work on the OBNPCRP has demonstrated familiarity with the CS, he should use that tool to research before undoing edits. I'm sure that SerCenKing will grow to become a superb patroller in a short time, and I wish him the best of luck. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 18:06, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

Consensus

Support –Eshe^talk 15:39, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

SerCenKing

Reasons

Well, here we go. I think that I would be well suited for the role of patroller for several reasons. First of all, I think that I have managed to reach the level of experience that has kept me from nominating myself before: I have been on the wiki for over half a year now, am actively participating in the two most important Oblivion projects and have around 1300 edits. Secondly, I think that my grammar and spelling is adequate to the task. Also, for the last two weeks or so I've been checking the Recent pages to get a feel of how it would be like, and although not all of my edits were perfect, no one really is! Most importantly, I think, I've noticed that many Patrollers have been absent for quite some time; for example Vesna has last contributed on Christmas day. With GameLord and Timenn inactive, Rpeh and Gaebrial are the only patrollers I've seen around recently. I therefore think they could use an extra hand, and I'm willing to offer my services to the wiki. Thanks for reading. --SerCenKing 16:49, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Votes

• Support - I've not seen any problems with SerCenKing's edits recently, so as far as that goes, it's fine by me. Secondly, as has been said, there aren't many active patrollers/admins at the moment, so extra hands will always help. And of course the old saying: The more the merrier! - Game Lord^{Talk|Contribs} 14:42, 27 February 2009 (EST)
• Support - While I'm just coming back to the wiki now, myself, checking some of SerCenKing's edits, they look to be of good quality, they include at least some advanced edits like tables, and he's obviously helping a lot with projects like the OPRP. And as has been pointed out, more Patrollers make the job easier on all of us. --Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 19:03, 3 March 2009 (EST)
• Oppose - SerCenKing has been doing some good work on the site and it's great to welcome such an active editor to the club. I wish this nomination had come in a couple of months however, because although the standard of editing has come on in leaps and bounds, at the moment I don't believe SerCenKing is quite ready to be a patroller. The acid test usually described for prospective patrollers is "Do I need to check every one of this user's edits?" and at the moment, I feel I still have to. There have been a few edits like this, this and this that show a touch of infamiliarity with the site's content and policy. It's nothing serious and I'm sure once SerCenKing has spent a little more time on the site, these issues will disappear. I look forward to making a "support" vote in a few weeks. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 03:16, 4 March 2009 (EST)
• Oppose - Look, I want to make this perfectly clear, I really want to be able to vote Support. I even investigated nominating you myself a few weeks ago, but I came to the conclusion that you're just not ready. For example, three days before the self nomination, Rpeh had to contact you about Reverting. I want you to stay around, and you're helping the site out a lot, but I don't feel comfortable giving you Patroller privileges right now. Of course, I will say that in your case, I don't believe that the 'three month guideline' should apply. Give yourself another month and you'll probably have my full support.--Ratwar 01:12, 5 March 2009 (EST)
  • I agree with Ratwar about suspending the three month guideline here. SerCenKing is clearly almost ready and I'm sure that if he reapplies in a month or so, he'll have made the step up. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 01:14, 5 March 2009 (EST)
• Oppose - I agree completely with the sentiments expressed by Rpeh and Ratwar above. I think SerCenKing is almost ready to be a patroller... but I'm not yet comfortable with having all of his edits automatically marked as "patrolled"; I still feel the need to double-check his edits. Ditto to the one-month wait to re-nominate, too; in another month I'm sure we'll all be reassured of his judgment and editing skills. --GuildKnight^Talk2me 01:49, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Thanks to all who have participated, both supporting or opposing. I find myself agreeing with Rpeh, Ratwar and GK (but also with Game Lord and RobinHood XD). I believe I have learnt much in my time where on the wiki, but I sometimes have had the feeling that I had to learn that little bit more! And I understand the concern of some of you that my edits still need patrollng. I would like to thank you all for your support, and I'm not talking about the vote. Looks like I'm going to have four weeks of heavywieght editing in front of me! See you all again in a month! --SerCenKing 09:33, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Consensus

Oppose –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 09:04, 15 March 2009 (EDT)