Abrir menu principal

UESPWiki β

UESPWiki:Autopatrolled Users/Completed Nominations

< UESPWiki:Autopatrolled Users
Please add newly completed nominations to the TOP of this page.


Moinante (talk+ contribs edit count logs email)

After patrolling nearly 200 of his edits (and that's just today), I think Moinante is worthy of being Autopatrolled. I rarely (if ever) need to correct mistakes in his edits and him being autopatrolled will drastically lighten the load of unpatrolled edits.

  • Support: As nominator. •WoahBro►talk 01:37, 14 September 2014 (GMT)
  • Support: I'm good with this. Moinante has been making a number of contributions to the Online namespace for some time now, and the majority of these have all been of a very high quality. He seems like a great choice for this group. Forfeit (talk) 02:43, 14 September 2014 (GMT)
  • Support: Moinante has really been on point with both the quality and quantity of his edits. -- Hargrimm(T) 02:57, 14 September 2014 (GMT)
  • Oppose Neutral: Moinante has made a huge number of contributions to the Online namespace, not the least of which are his amazing images. A cursory glance at his contribution history reveals a large number of small edits that help get articles off the ground (the first step is often the most difficult, after all). At a glance, I can't see any problems with the edits he makes. My only concern is that the overwhelming majority of the edits seem to be maintenance edits, small things like updating parameters, adding template information, linking to other articles, creating pages with templates but no descriptions - which, again, is great, but I have no idea what his content edits are like. I feel kind of bad saying this, since his small edits are great, but without knowing what his larger content edits are like, I can't give my full support. Zul se onikaanLaan tinvaak 17:52, 14 September 2014 (GMT)
    • Comment: It seems to me like these are concerns more suited for a patroller nomination, not an autopatrolled user one. •WoahBro►talk 18:22, 14 September 2014 (GMT)
      • Comment: The two aren't mutually exclusive. I'm not saying that his edits aren't up to snuff, and it may be that he doesn't do anything BUT make small edits, in which case I can't envision any problems down the line. But without knowing that he understands how to make other edits as well, I can't bring myself to give my full support. I will concede, however, that a full understanding of all editing procedures may not be necessary for users who largely make one kind of edit, so I'm changing my vote from "oppose" to "neutral". Zul se onikaanLaan tinvaak 19:10, 14 September 2014 (GMT)
  • Support: Given the fact that he only makes tons of maintenance edits and image uploads, it makes him suitable for autopatrolled status ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2014 (GMT)
Consensus: Support. Robin Hood  (talk) 03:52, 22 September 2014 (GMT)


Quill-Tail (talk+ contribs edit count logs email)

Quill-Tail has been around for a while and knows our formatting and style preferences quite well. It has been one of the most consistent editors in the last six months, and has shown an exemplary standard of grammar.


  • Support: As nominator. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 19:53, 9 July 2014 (GMT)
  • Support: Quill makes a lot of really good edits and pays great attention to detail. He (?) has also done a great job writing pages for NPCs and uploading images. Some of his NPC rewrites do contain sections with minor grammatical errors (or at the very least, could stand to be tweaked a bit), but not to a degree that causes serious concern. I almost never feel a need to patrol his small edits, which tend to be pretty free of error. While I do have a few minor concerns, they're nothing substantial enough to prevent me from supporting this nomination. Zul se onikaanLaan tinvaak 21:11, 9 July 2014 (GMT)
  • Support: Full support. Quill has been making great contributions across the wiki for some time now, be they article rewrites or high quality images. I cannot see any issues with having these edits become autopatrolled as they usually need very little or no changes before they are marked as patrolled. Forfeit (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2014 (GMT)
Consensus: Support. Robin Hood  (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2014 (GMT)


Jimeee (talk+ contribs edit count logs email)

Per the terms of his successful nomination its time to review Jimeee's status. As there have been no real issues with formatting I propose his current status is kept intact until the end period of this nomination, whatever its outcome.


  • Comment: As yet undecided, I'm just starting the process. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 01:54, 11 June 2014 (GMT)
  • Support: I have no issues with this. Jeancey (talk) 01:58, 11 June 2014 (GMT)
  • Support: I haven't seen any issues arise due to Jimeee's edits not being patrolled, so I have no problems with him remaining autopatrolled. His edits are of a high quality so I think it would be wiser to focus on patrolling the edits of other users as opposed to using time to look through his edits. Forfeit (talk) 03:55, 15 June 2014 (GMT)
  • Support: I'm fine with him staying on. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 13:25, 15 June 2014 (GMT)
  • Support: I've never seen any issues with his edits that are cause for serious concern. Having him be autopatrolled would probably make things a lot easier on everyone. Zul se onikaanLaan tinvaak 14:33, 26 June 2014 (GMT)
Consensus: Support. Note: no additional actions need to be taken, since Jimeee was already a temporary autopatroller. Robin Hood  (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2014 (GMT)


Kertaw48 (talk+ contribs edit count logs email)

I figured some people might have activity concerns, which is the only reason this isn't a patroller nomination. But Kertaw says he's planning to be more active, so maybe we can have that vote soon. For now, though, patrolling Kertaw's edits is downright silly.


  • Support: As nominator. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 01:58, 29 March 2014 (GMT)
  • Support: Sure. Why not? -damon  talkcontribs 02:06, 29 March 2014 (GMT)
  • Support: I'm fine with him being an autopatrolled user. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 14:43, 29 March 2014 (GMT)
  • Support: Looks good to me. --Xyzzy Talk 15:29, 29 March 2014 (GMT)
  • Support: He's been on my list of people to watch for possible patroller status for some time now, so I have no problems with Autopatrolled. Robin Hood  (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2014 (GMT)
Consensus: Support. Robin Hood  (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2014 (GMT)


Jimeee (talk+ contribs edit count logs email)

Jimeee has already done a lot of work on ESO, and presumably will keep up the good work. This nomination is for Jimeee to be autopatrolled temporarily, with a revote/review of the situation beginning approximately 2 months after release (i.e. June 1st). As the 5th highest unique contributor in the last month that's a lot of edits that can be removed from the patrol list and allow for focus on finding the bad edits in amongst the good. The reason this is only a temporary measure is an expressed view of his occasional lapse in UESPwiki formatting, and lesser issues such as spelling and grammar. I hope that you recognise that these won't be our major concerns in the first few weeks of the game (as some of you may remember the lessened patrolling guidelines after Skyrim's release). Remember, temporary is the name of the game, and a lesser period may be considered if a case is made in the comments.


  • Support: As nominator. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 00:47, 20 March 2014 (GMT)
  • Oppose: Don't get me wrong, Jimeee is a fabulous hardworking user both here and on TESWiki, as evidenced by the hard work he's put in here with articles such as Neloth, as well as the fact that he's one of TESWiki's administrators and most prolific editors. I am more than happy to support this nomination any day of the week when he expresses full comfort in our editing style here, but by his own admission, he tends to lapse in our policies, style, etc. The day he determines that he's comfortable is the day I give him my fullest support, but I can't at this time. If he's going to be auto-patrolled, his edits need to be good, and he needs to be fully comfortable with our workings and our ways of doing things. I feel that if we are going to do this vote, we need to be one hundred percent certain he can perform. If other patrollers and admins doubt his ability enough that he needs a probationary period, then in my opinion he isn't good enough yet and this vote ought not succeed. I am truly neutral and on the fence with my vote, and the only reason I outright oppose is because a neutral vote is effectively not a vote. -damon  talkcontribs 03:05, 20 March 2014 (GMT)
  • Support: Jimeee is really doing a lot of work for ESO, it will be for the good of the wiki to have those edits auto-patrolled. Personally, I see no reason to make that temporary either. Perfection isn't required, but if anything, I see him to be way more careful about making sure that his edits confirm to "our style" than the average auto-patrolled user. --Alfwyn (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2014 (GMT)
  • Support: Jimeee is an extremely conscientious editor. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 16:40, 20 March 2014 (GMT)
Consensus: Support. Single opposing user. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 14:42, 29 March 2014 (GMT)


Enodoc (talk+ contribs edit count logs email)

Enodoc is another user involved with ESO. I don't remember there ever being a major issue with his edits, and I think he qualifies and deserves to have his edits trusted now. He is a Userpatroller but I don't see much in the way of patrolling (not that there are that many anyway).


  • Support: As nominator. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 21:16, 13 March 2014 (GMT)
  • Support: Per nominator. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 14:41, 16 March 2014 (GMT)
  • Support: Looking a bit through his edits, I have no problem with this. --Alfwyn (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2014 (GMT)
  • Support: Per nominator. -damon  talkcontribs 18:02, 16 March 2014 (GMT)
  • Support: Per nom. Jeancey (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2014 (GMT)
  • Support: Good candidate for autopatrolled. --Xyzzy Talk 14:41, 18 March 2014 (GMT)
  • Support: I definitely appreciate those users who work on the back-end of things, and Enodoc is doing good work with images and his quest icons. -- Hargrimm(T) 16:30, 18 March 2014 (GMT)
Consensus: Support. Fully supported by all participants. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 00:54, 22 March 2014 (GMT)


Alarra (talk+ contribs edit count logs email)

Alarra is going to be helping and editing ESO pages, and although she falls a little short of the amount of edits suggested, I have yet to find a major problem with any of them. She is a forum moderator which should suggest she will be sticking around to make use of having Autopatrolled status. ESO is coming up quickly, so anyone we want to promote needs to be done so around now. She has been a Userpatroller for a while, but she was only that so her sandbox edits could be autopatrolled, so she is happy to give up the rights.


  • Support: As nominator. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 16:08, 13 March 2014 (GMT)
  • Support: --Alfwyn (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2014 (GMT)
  • Support: She may fall short of the 500 edit recommendation, but it looks like she meets the 200 content space edits she needs instead, so she's got my support. Bonus points for using logical quotation on at least one page that I noticed. Robin Hood  (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2014 (GMT)
  • Support: I have no problem supporting a minor demotion of rights. The edits I've seen have all been good quality and I don't have any issues with not patrolling her edits. • JAT 18:13, 13 March 2014 (GMT)
  • Support: I didn't even know that "frontispiece" was a word... --Xyzzy Talk 20:51, 13 March 2014 (GMT)
  • Support: Alarra is rather smart, hard working, and dedicated to the UESP. All of these make fine qualities for any editor, I don't see why she would need to be carefully monitored. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 14:41, 16 March 2014 (GMT)
  • Support: Alarra is definitely a good, hardworking user. She's got my endorsement. -damon  talkcontribs 18:02, 16 March 2014 (GMT)
  • Support: I could have sworn I supported this already.... Jeancey (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2014 (GMT)
  • Support: Already proving to be a great contributor for ESO, and regularly active in IRC for a bonus! -- Hargrimm(T) 16:30, 18 March 2014 (GMT)
Consensus: Support. Fully supported by all participants. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 00:54, 22 March 2014 (GMT)


Forfeit (talk+ contribs edit count logs email)

Though he is not interested in becoming a patroller at this time, Forfeit's contributions to the site speak for themselves. He is active, has knowledge of multiple TES games, has a great writing ability with proper spelling and grammar, helps out on talk pages, contributes to various projects, etc. He is an all-around excellent editor, and I would feel completely comfortable with his edits being autopatrolled.
As a side note, he is currently a Userspace Patroller, and he understands that becoming an Autopatrolled User means being removed from the Userpatroller group. After speaking with him in e-mail, he has said that he is okay with having his Userpatroller rights removed if his nomination here is accepted.


  • Support: As nominator. — ABCface 20:24, 2 August 2013 (GMT)
  • Support: I've felt for a time that Forfeit was ready for more responsibility, but unsure how anyone else felt. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 22:21, 2 August 2013 (GMT)
  • Comment: Support. All his edits are consistently high quality. I think it's a great idea for him to be autopatrolled. --Maroonroar (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2013 (GMT)
  • Support: Per others. Jeancey (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2013 (GMT)
  • Support: Vely►t►e 01:09, 7 August 2013 (GMT)


Arthmoor (talk+ contribs edit count logs email) Arthmoor is one of the people who works on the Unofficial Patches. He keeps us updated as best he can, no matter our squabbles over what is and what isn't a bug. This isn't about that though, what Arthmoor has is tech know-how. He eliminates many non-bugs from our pages, with explanations either in the summary or the talk page. He knows our style, has immaculate manners, and takes time to investigate bugs for the community.


  • Support: As nominator. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 00:52, 14 April 2013 (GMT)
  • Support:Per nom Jeancey (talk) 00:56, 14 April 2013 (GMT)
  • Support: Vely►t►e 01:24, 14 April 2013 (GMT)
  • Support: While there has been the odd time or two, like the Fortify Light Armor issue, where the edits Arthmoor makes are factually incorrect, those are exceedingly rare and well within the accuracy rate of any other autopatrolled editor, including patrollers and admins. The vast majority of his edits are to add or update info on the various bugs, and I've almost always been able to patrol them on sight. Robin Hood  (talk) 02:29, 14 April 2013 (GMT)
  • SupportABCface 19:54, 14 April 2013 (GMT)
  • Support: Not a very verbose nomination, it seems. This shouldn't be controversial at all. The only thing I'll miss is being able to patrol Arthmoor's edits and learn about the bugs he's fixed that I've never heard of. • JAT 21:42, 14 April 2013 (GMT)
  • Support I see no reason why Arthmoor shouldn't be auto-patrolled. --Krusty (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2013 (GMT)
Consensus: Support.


MortenOSlash (talk+ contribs edit count logs email)

MortenOSlash's edits consist mostly of adding the {{uns}} template to talk pages (which is a great thing, since it's sometimes tedious to clean that up). Sometimes he edits talk pages with conversation or tweaks articles, and his grammar appears fine to me. He's relatively active compared to most users and he understands wiki format. While he may not have a lot of content edits to speak of, I would say that 99% of his edits do not need patrolling--he knows what he's doing in each edit, and he has a lot of edits. With ESO coming up (and ESO beta having started), we're going to want to reduce the amount of edits we have to patrol, and I bet we're going to get a lot more unsigned talk page comments on top of everything. I feel comfortable letting his edits become autopatrolled.


  • Support: As nominator. Vely►t►e 22:48, 28 March 2013 (GMT)
  • SupportABCface 23:38, 28 March 2013 (GMT)
  • Comment: I kind of find this logic flawed. He adds a lot of {{uns}} to talk pages, so we should auto patrol all of his edits? Members in this group should have edits on par with patrollers and admins. If he ventures into templates or more content, are you really comfortable with that? Elliot (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2013 (GMT)
It is a valid concern, yes, but I'm looking at his current edit style, and I don't imagine he'll jump into big projects, especially if he doesn't know how it works. However, we shouldn't ask "what will happen if he does this?" As a patroller, I myself have very little knowledge in creating templates and haven't touched them more than a little; same with everything to do with categories. Other patrollers are the same. But Morten makes a lot of minor edits, and I don't see a huge change coming in the near future. I also believe that he's responsible enough to check syntax and fix problems if he looks at something new and/or doesn't understand something.
It depends on whether or not you think the "risk" of him suddenly changing behavior and needing to be patrolled outweighs the expectation that he'll keep making small edits and be responsible whenever he does something new. Vely►t►e 02:30, 29 March 2013 (GMT)
"Editors in this group are editors whose high-quality edits have been noticed..." Numerous ≠ high-quality. Elliot (talk) 05:15, 29 March 2013 (GMT)
  • Support: While I understand the concerns above, I think the question is really one of whether we trust that his edits don't need patrolling. My general impression has been that they don't, and that's backed up by a random look through about 20 edits. There's not a single one of them I wouldn't have patrolled unchanged. Unless I just happened to get lucky and pick 20 perfect edits when large numbers of the others were flawed, I'd say he's an excellent candidate for autopatrolled, perhaps even patroller. Autopatrolled doesn't mean we think he's a wiki-god, it just means that we trust what he does, and that if his editing habits change and he feels something needs an extra check, that he'll ask for it or ask us to revoke his autopatrolled status. Robin Hood  (talk) 05:32, 29 March 2013 (GMT)
  • Support: Looking back, I’d never had any gripes with the edits of Morten – full support from here. --Krusty (talk) 08:54, 30 March 2013 (GMT)
  • Comment: While I feel Morton's maintenance edits (unsigneds etc), are all fine, and have no need to be patrolled, I see a distinct lack of content edits. These type of content edits are the most important aspect of the wiki and I don't feel that there have been enough to fully evaluate Morton's style. That being said, I can't bring myself to fully oppose the nomination. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 14:34, 30 March 2013 (GMT)
Consensus: Support. ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2013 (GMT)


JR (talk+ contribs edit count logs email)

JR's has been around for a year now and mostly knows our formatting. His edits are almost always left alone, and only tweaked for wording if they are touched (as he is an English speaker, but one who lives in a foreign country I find this acceptable). He is definitely active enough, and has shown his trustworthiness (plus who wants to be forced to read one of his essays again :P ).


  • Support: As nominator. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 18:20, 20 January 2013 (GMT)
  • Support: He writes novels about the most basic things... I would definitely support not having to manually read them all just for the sake of marking off his edit. :p ES(talkemail) 18:43, 20 January 2013 (GMT)
  • Oppose: My main concern with his edits being autopatrolled is that he hasn't yet mastered internal linking, and perhaps more importantly, didn't notice the mistakes. The most recent one is now on a deleted page, so I can't show the diff. A slightly older one would be this one. Once he's improved his skills in that area, I'd be happy to support him for either autopatrolled or even full patroller status. Robin Hood  (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2013 (GMT)
  • Support: Since RH70 mentioned it, there have been a few instances where JR has gotten links wrong, such as here and here, though such mistakes are easy enough to make and go unnoticed. Otherwise, though, JR's edits seem fine, as those bad links are included in so few of his edits. Vely►t►e 23:51, 20 January 2013 (GMT)
  • Oppose: Sorry, but I have to agree with RH here. JR has made great improvements, but I still see too many mistakes (bad links, unsigned posts, etc.) to feel comfortable having his edits automatically patrolled. eshetalk 00:12, 21 January 2013 (GMT)
  • Oppose: I hate to oppose a nomination for someone I like so much, but I don't feel comfortable with JR's edits being autopatrolled either. The content edits he makes are good, and his grammar and writing are great. But when it comes to formatting and general wiki practices, he still has a bit to learn before I'd be comfortable having his edits go through unchecked. — ABCface 00:32, 21 January 2013 (GMT)
Consensus: Oppose.


Psylocke (talk+ contribs edit count logs email)

Though she is not interested in becoming a patroller at this time, Psylocke's contributions to the site speak for themselves. She is certainly active enough, it's clear that she's read up on site policies and guidelines and understands them as well as (and better than some) more experienced users, and her spelling and grammar are virtually flawless. She consistently makes edits to reword information for grammar and clarity, reformat articles to fit the style guide, and ensure accuracy of content by checking game-data. I think Psylocke is an ideal candidate for this usergroup.


  • Support: As nominator. ABCface 03:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: Excellent edits, no reason she shouldn't be autopatrolled. Vely►t►e 03:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: Ditto ES(talkemail) 03:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: Excellent editor. --XyzzyTalk 03:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: Not much else to say. I trust her edits completely. • JAT 03:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • SupportLegoless 16:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: What Xyzzy said. --Krusty 18:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Consensus: Support.

The Silencer

The Silencer (talk+ contribs edit count logs email)

I've been meaning to do this for a few weeks now. The Silencer does not qualify to be nominated for regular patrollership again for another six weeks, but I'm of the opinion that his contributions make him a good candidate for the autopatrolled users group in terms of both quantity and quality. It would help out patrollers a lot, especially in the near future, as the wiki will probably be getting a splurge of Dawnguard-related edits now that it's been released for PC.


  • Support: As nominator. ABCface 22:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: I still do not believe that Silencer is a good candidate for being a patroller. In the past, his larger edits have been riddled with grammatical errors, making me want to check over and fix each one. Now, with the vast majority of his edits being minor, the only examples of his grammatical skills are his edits to talk pages. I don't know that I'd want him checking off edits as patrolled, as I haven't seen too much improvement (I'm rather picky about grammar). However, as I said, a huge amount of his edits are minor. Looking through some of his edits, I'm hard-pressed to find any content edits with issues in the past month or so, grammatical or otherwise. It's been ages since I looked at his edits with more than a glance. I tried looking through his history for problematic changes, and there were none. I was kind of surprised. He's made 500 edits in the past 21 days alone (with his earlier 500 edits in only 14 days), making him one of the most active contributors at the moment. I would say that 95-98% of his edits require no checking. I fully support him for becoming an Autopatrolled User. Vely►t►e 22:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Support. For all the reasons Vel gave. ThuumofReason 22:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: Per Velyanthe Snowmane(talkemail) 23:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: Also per Velyanthe. • JAT 01:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment:Support.Also per Velyanthe.--Skyrimplayer 02:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: Considering I nominated him for Patroller, I certainly don't have an issue with him being autopatrolled. Robin Hoodtalk 02:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: I supported the patroller nomination - so naturally, I'll support this as well. --Krusty 23:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Consensus: Support.


Kiz (talk+ contribs edit count logs email)

One of the points brought up in the original discussion about this group was that users who would qualify as Recent Changes Patrollers, but don't wish to be Patrollers for one reason or another, would make good candidates for the group. When Kiz decided to leave the site, he gave up his rights as a Patroller. However, he ended up unable to stay away from the site, and returned shortly afterward. He is still actively editing, and anyone can see by looking at his contributions that he does, at times, decide to make many consecutive edits to a large number of pages in a short amount of time. Given his tendency to make such edits, and the fact that we have trusted him as a patroller since November, I propose adding him to this group. That way, he can continue editing just as he has been, but without the rights of a Patroller. I certainly trust his edits enough for them to be autopatrolled.

I accept this nomination. --kiz talkemail 21:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


  • Support: As nominator. ABCface 22:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: Given that he was a Patroller just a few days ago, I see no reason his edits shouldn't continue to be autopatrolled. Robin Hoodtalk 22:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: Good quality edits, and rarely are there any issues. I don't see a reason not to support. Vely►Talk►Email 23:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: An easy decision, obviously. I don't see why Kiz can't go from being a Patroller to an Auto.Snowmane(talkemail) 23:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: No problems with this one - easy peasy :) --Kitkat TalkContribE-mail 23:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: One of the suggested qualifications is that the user be active on the wiki. In the past week, Kiz has really only made about 4 edits. I fail to see how this is warranted, aside from giving him a title, which seems to be the focus of the nominator. elliot (talk) 23:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment: I think we get that it isn't meant as a title. I think most are treating this as a downgrade of rights, rather than an upgrade (we've all had our moments to regret) and Kiz did say something along the lines of waiting for the outcome of this before resuming. The Silencer has spokenTalk 23:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Check out his May 13, May 7, and April 13-17 edits--I think he does a lot of his edits in bulk, rather than over time. Plus, he just took a self-imposed wikibreak. He's generally active, based on history. Vely►Talk►Email 00:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Support. I feel that the Contributions to the Wiki by Kiz are both Appreciated and Helpful, I support Kiz! Ziguildmaster 00:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: I too see this as a downgrade of rights. I don't see any reason to oppose that. • JATalk 02:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Consensus: Support.


Elliot (talk+ contribs edit count logs email)

This group was created for users just like Elliot. I think his contributions speak for themselves, and anybody whose been on the wiki for more than a week has probably figured out that he's one of our best editors. I don't have much else to say, other than that I can't imagine there will be much opposition to this nomination.


  • Support: As nominator. • JATalk 05:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: These are all good choices, so I am going to have to support all of them. ESQuestion?EmailContribs 05:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: Elliot's contributions to UESP content are top quality. He is the prime example of the type of user who belongs in this group.ABCface 05:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 08:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: An excellent editor who should definitely be in this group. RIM 08:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: His edits are excellent, not much more to say. Velyanthe►Talk►Email 15:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: All the reasons why he should be accepted are already mentioned above. Definitely an excellent editor on the UESPWikiHelenaannevalentine 20:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: Tons of good and reliable maintenance edits makes Elliot the perfect and only obvious candidate for this.--Krusty 21:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Had I the chance, I would probably say support. Even though I haven't always agreed with elliot about everything, he clearly takes the established rules and policies of the wiki very seriously, and that's a good thing. ThuumofReason 11:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Consensus: Support.


PLRDLF (talk+ contribs edit count logs email)

Again, this is another excellent user whose edits don't need patrolling. An excellent editor, and one of our few resident Daggerfall experts. This should be another straightforward nomination.


  • Support: As nominator. • JATalk 05:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: ESQuestion?EmailContribs 05:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 08:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: PLRDLF is more knowledgeable about Daggerfall than the rest of us combined. Still, he seems to be comfortable with a second look at his (often) huge contributions, and I can understand how he feels. When English isn’t your first language, you just need to know that someone will read through huge articles. --Krusty 21:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: If what Krusty states is true, and PLRDLF actually wants his edits to be patrolled, I'm inclined to oppose this nomination ~ Dwarfmp 19:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I don't tend to look at his contributions (since I'm unfamiliar with Daggerfall) but Krusty makes a good point. Edits like this need to be double-checked, and while most of his wording is grammatically correct, some of it could stand to be reworded in order to read more comfortably. Vely►Talk►Email 19:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Consensus: Oppose.


Aliana (talk+ contribs edit count logs email)

An excellent editor when he/she edits (sorry for the unclear pronoun, I don't want to presume). Aliana does good work and doesn't require the same amount of oversight as an anonymous IP.


  • Support: As nominator. • JATalk 05:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: Oppose, per Krusty and Kitkat's comments ESQuestion?EmailContribs 05:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 08:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: As I'm the one who originally suggested her, it's only fitting. She's been on the site for years, and I've never seen any issues with her edits. Robin Hoodtalk 19:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: If it saves you guys some work I'm all for it. Aliana 03:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Aliana is a great editor (when he/she is around), but output is simply too sparse for this auto-patrolled thing to be necessary. --Krusty 21:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't think scarcity of content is a reason for opposing. The group is about users who do not make mistakes, not for simply reducing the total amount of patrolling needed. (I would support if I could). The Silencer has spoken 21:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I was trying to avoid specific examples, but this edit is from today - and it is wrong. First line belongs on the place page, second line belongs on the ghostly NPC page. Quest pages are not for armor and loot tips. --Krusty 22:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: The first line would be something that is typically added to the detailed walkthrough for a quest--notable loot during quests tends to be noted on the quest page, as I don't think we have definite guidelines on it. If it were the only occurrence of that piece of armor, it should be notable enough to be somewhere on the page, but that information is incorrect, as you said. Vely►Talk►Email 22:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Both are notable. The rare instance of large quantitys of arrows, and the a guaranteed place to find, which is different to forging it. I won't comment further because this is sidetracking. The Silencer has spoken 23:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: The edit is in line with dozens of other (SR) quest pages: The Break of Dawn page has a Note about the above-average amount of gold on the corpses, The Silver Hand(quest) references a rare piece of clutter in a side room, and so on. It's also in line with our recent discussion of the "Quest vs Place" issues and the blurred lines between them in Skyrim. Being held to a higher standard is implicit for this group. Being held to a non-existent one, rather less so. My wiki activity does tend to come in bursts, and if you consider that enough reason to Oppose then that's your decision to make and all that's needed. Aliana 05:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Had I a chance to vote, I would vote oppose with Aliana as Krusty brought up a good point (and a good example of a bad edit). The Silencer, I completely disagree with your statement. This group is not a title or an award; it is purely to reduce the load of edits an experienced editor makes. And in regards to Vely and The Silencer, both of you are wrong. Those two notes do not belong on the page, for the reasons Krusty mentioned. elliot (talk) 03:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Aliana, you’re halfway right and I’d like to point out that your edit was valid – the information was just put in the wrong place, due to some blurry and non-existent guidelines. However, it proves a point I tried to make back at the very beginning of this discussion, namely that none of us should be up for auto-patrolling when it comes to content-related Skyrim edits; even after 5 months, we’re still not really knowledgeable (or organized) enough, nor have we made 100% correct guidelines on how to sort info. We’re getting there, but it will take a while longer – for now it’s all about helping each other out and spend a few minutes to read through the edits added to articles we know something about. --Krusty 09:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I'm inclined to oppose this - Aliana's activity is very sporadic, and not frequent enough for her to warrant autopatrolled edits. In my opinion, this group was created for users like Elliot, whose edits are so consistent and knowledgeable that they simply don't need to be patrolled. The links that Krusty provided show that Aliana is not at this stage yet, and therefore not ready to have her contributions automatically patrolled. EDIT: This has convinced me that you're really not ready - notwithstanding the fact that that belonged on the talk page. Kitkat TalkContribE-mail 10:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Consensus: Oppose.


Manic (talk+ contribs edit count logs email)

Yet another person who was the reason we made this group in the first place. Another of our trusted editors, Manic would make a fine addition to this group.


  • Support: As nominator. • JATalk 05:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: ESQuestion?EmailContribs 05:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 08:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: Lots of small, nice edits, with very little need for correction. Velyanthe►Talk►Email 15:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I believe Manic is prone to adding a lot of info on NPC pages (which is a good thing, mind you), and I've seen typos and other mistakes in there too frequently for my taste. I even checked 4 inventory additions he's made recently, and in 1 of them he made a mistake at least. I see about 5 people nominated all with loads of support. While I'm not against the idea of the autopatrolled group, it has to be very strict. It's supposed to make patrollers lives' easier, but not by simply just creating less work. I don't even know anyone's edits well except Elliot's, who may just be the only one deserving to be part of this group ~ Dwarfmp 06:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose:I still look over your edits, in my opinion this means your not ready for this group yet. --kiz talkemail 18:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Manic is a great editor (when he is around), but output is simply too sparse for this auto-patrolled thing to be necessary. --Krusty 21:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Consensus: Oppose.


Coronus (talk+ contribs edit count logs email)

The past four nominations were pretty straightforward, but this one might be a bit more interesting. Coronus has been a huge help with adding images to the wiki. They all conform to wiki standards, he remembers to remove the cleanup tags (when applicable), and he even adds the right categories. Tons of edits that don't need to be checked - perfect for this user group.


  • Support: As nominator. • JATalk 05:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: The point of this group is to lighten the load on the patrollers and administrators when it comes to patrolling, so I highly advise against adding too many editors, especially ones with few edits. I myself would not feel comfortable with having Coronus' edits automatically patrolled, as I feel his images need to be checked for quality and tagged appropriately. Keep in mind that most of his Skyrim edits are for just adding the images he uploads (images, like I said, need to be double checked for quality). elliot (talk) 05:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment: I've looked at all of his uploads and patrolled half of them myself. They are all good quality. However, that is a legitimate concern. I myself wasn't totally certain that Coronus is right for the group. I figured I'd let the rest of the community decide that. • JATalk 05:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am flattered to have been nominated, however, I have to agree with Elliot on this. I make too many mistakes to be auto patrolled. I often leave behind minor grammatical or formatting errors. While my images (which I believe are the better part of my contributions) are generally fine, they occasionally have required patrolling (my wolf picture for instance). Furthermore, I have not been editing for very long, and the patrolling I have received thus far has helped me learn from my mistakes. Thanks for the thought though. Coronus 06:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Consensus: Refused by nominee.