Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/003

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search

Task[edit]

if you have any tasks which you need fellow sysops' hands, please put it on here.

VfD closing and archiving[edit]

I'd like to ask my fellow sysops to seriously consider helping out with closing and archiving Wikiquote:Votes for deletion. We continue to get new articles nominated regularly, but with only 3 sysops (LrdChaos, Fys, and myself) apparently willing to do this work, and all of them showing some reluctance to do this on a daily basis in recent days, I feel we're beginning to get some VfD-weariness from these folks. (That's certainly how I feel.) Do we have any other volunteers? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, I would certainly be willing to help out, but I'm afraid I may need a slight refresh on the process (sorry for my ignorance, since I know you've explained it to me before, last year), as my brain has refused to retain the knowledge. ~ UDScott 14:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I assume you're concerned about the archive process, as that's the rather tedious part. Frankly, I'd appreciate help just on closures, because they sometimes require careful judgment calls that I find more taxing than robotic archive processing (even though the latter is more technically complex). The archive process has changed a bit since my posting, too, as we now use a more WP-like log instead of a huge single page for archived votes. I'll see if I can work up a new summary and post it somewhere logical. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the archiving is the part I'm not too sure of anymore. I've closed the only vote (and deleted the page) that has currently hit its end time, but I'll wait for your instructions for archiving the vote results. Thanks. ~ UDScott 14:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Before we get too much intro writing up a new "how to", is there still any support for the idea of making our VFD process even more WP-like and having the nominator create a separate subpage for each nomination? I think it would make things a lot easier on the sysops when closing a nomination (since there's no need for the process of copy/pasting each nomination into a new page) and will keep the edit history for each confined to that subpage (so that it's easier to check for evidence of vote-tampering). I know the suggestion came up once before, right around the time we were shifting to the 7-day period and the new SD policy (I think), so we were probably content to avoid any other big things at that point. I could probably whip up the appropriate templates and some quick docs by the end of the week, if there's interest. —LrdChaos (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm leaning toward using WP's method of nominating by creating the discussion as a subpage, which would make it vastly easier to sort out problems that frequently arise in discussion posts, and would give each contributor a clear connection to each discussion in both the subpage's history and user contributions. I didn't move forward because I wasn't prepared to do the work to get it working and properly documented, but I would be willing to review it if someone else did it. My main question is how our other VfD participants, especially non-Wikipedians, feel about this. I'd want them to take a look at how Wikipedia does it and/or have a means to test it here, before we decided. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to work on the needed templates/documentation today or tomorrow, in such a way that it can be used "alongside" the current system and doesn't become a permanent solution unless we want it to. —LrdChaos (talk) 14:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've rigged something up for the time being. See my longer, detailed post at WQ:VP#New VfD nomination method, trial. —LrdChaos (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Bad image list[edit]

Cbrown1023 has suggested that we implement MediaWiki:Bad image list, which automatically prevents listed images from being displayed, as a means to interfere with some of the recent image-based vandalism that we've seen. (See w:MediaWiki:Bad image list for Wikipedia's version and use of this software filter.) We could add images as they are used for vandalism and/or start with Wikipedia's list. We should also consider whether we should protect it or not. (We are getting more conscientious editors who do not wish to be sysops, so it would be nice to leave it unprotected. Of course, some vandals read these policy pages, and it would be an obvious target for vandalism itself, so we may have to protect it.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Since protection feature has recently changed, we need to elaborate our protection policy (now still being a draft). For a short-term remedy I recommend all to protect a page with expiry within a week. Sometimes one day protection is even enough preventing vandalism. --Aphaia 06:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, just one problem. MediaWiki pages (that is where that page is) are protected by default. They are basically the "software" of the wiki, even though you can trust most of us who aren't sysops, I'd rather you left it protected. Cbrown1023 talk 18:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
JeffQ, with a trick we can invite all editors to edit the content (not the Mediawiki message itself though), so I assume it isn't a problem for us technically; having a page somewhere (a template or Wikiquote namespace page) and include it to the target message. It works out on recentchages header on some projects.
However Cbrown1023's argument makes a sense. I am not afraid so much we are armed severely, but it makes a little sense we leave the page editable for a group of editors who may include whom we would like to keep away. In my understanding semi-protection isn't allowed for such purpose, so as for this issue I'm being pursuaded to keep it as a plain mediawiki message unless some of our regulars but non-sysops complains, but generally it should be our axiom to keep our site editable by people as many as possible. --Aphaia 00:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little confused. I hadn't noticed that any of the MediaWiki: namespace pages I've worked on have been protected. I just checked a few and found quite a few unprotected, without any overt effort to do so that I'm aware of. Is there perhaps a core set of MW pages that is protected, with new ones not automatically protected? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Which are not protected? I just checked a few and they are protected. They aren't protected to you guys, because you are admins. However, they are protected to regular users. Cbrown1023 talk 01:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Oops! My mistake. I was in the middle of a bunch of VfD-related maintenance, and my hasty MW examination was in error. There is no "protect" tab for any normal MW page for sysops, and I just confirmed that they show up with "View source" tabs for non-sysops. Sorry about the confusion.
Given the obvious expectation that MW pages should only be edited by privileged users, I retract my earlier considerations. I don't want to mess around with novel semi-protection schemes unless non-sysops (like yourself, Cbrown1023) feel it's a priority to allow everyone to edit MW pages. (And if you do, I'm more likely to consider you for sysop status first. You've been warned. ☺) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
JeffQ, maybe you are too old to be aware of that ;p MediaWiki namespace was open to all until June 2004 or so, in other words before the age of MediaWiki 1.3 hath come. After then Template namespace was created and MediaWiki namespace is limited to system messages which only sysops are expected to edit them. Aphaia 04:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Nah, not too old. Just too ignorant. Thank goodness wiki is a collaborative effort. ☺ Thanks for the explanation. That makes a lot of sense. (Maybe I am too old — I think I was around before MW 1.3, but I don't remember the emergence of templates, probably because I'm always running into things I hadn't known about.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone objects to make it live? --Aphaia 03:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No objections from me; it would eliminate at least some of the inane vandalism we've been getting. ~ Kalki 03:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not, especially after the recent wave of it tonight. Cbrown1023 talk 03:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
So MediaWiki:Bad image list was created. It could have started with less materials. Or not. Hope it works. This discussion is better to be archived its talk? --Aphaia 10:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't it works (cf recent diff? We need to ask devs a help to activate ite? Aphaia 08:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It does work. The image no longer displays on the page the link is posted on, and one must click the link to display the image. This should significantly reduce the severity of some of the more persistant vandal attacks. ~ Kalki 08:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your clarification! I was confused it with m:Spam blackilist perhaps ... --Aphaia 10:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

General[edit]

QOTD updates[edit]

I have been traveling and did not have internet access for several days this week. I anticipated before I left that I might not have access for at least a day or two at a time, and selected the Quotes of the day for several days in advance, based on the options available, but there were changes in preferences on a few of the dates that occurred after I had made these selections.

In the next few days I will be able to intermittently work on making some QotD suggestions and selections, but there will be another 2 or three days before the end of the month where I likely will not have internet access. If any admins notice that the ranking balances have significantly changed by about 2300 UTC before a particular date, and I have not made new selections based on them, they are welcome to do so. After next week things should be back to normal, and I will be able to update things daily. ~ Kalki 14:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Though many things are keeping me busy, and I've not been doing much more than QOTD lately, I am back home and should normally be able to update QOTD daily now. ~ Kalki 22:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Good to have you back; even those of us who aren't around a lot (but have been lately!) notice when you're not with us. Essjay (Talk) 02:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Archived[edit]

As the board was growing rather long, and some of the posts were from 2005, I've archived to Archive 2; I also made some aesthetic improvements to the header while I was at it. On the subject of archiving, I'm moved to ask if there would be any interest in having a bot do this kind of archiving; I have three very successful bots on en.wp that archive in various namespaces, and I'd be happy to set one up here if there is interest. Essjay (Talk) 02:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd support an archiving bot if we could ensure it only archives topics with no recent activity, regardless of the age of the original post. I'd also like to examine how the bot works, as I hope in the foreseeable future to start some maintenance bots here that will free up our harried editors to do more stuff that only human inspection can accomplish. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The code looks for the newest (not the last one in the section, but the actual newest) timestamp and archives based on that; each page is coded with a specific number of whole-days after which to archive. Take a look at w:User:EssjayBot II, w:User:EssjayBot III, and w:User:EssjayBot IV, all of which use the same code. I also run a bot for the en.wp Mediation Committee, w:User:MediationBot that does various maintenence tasks; have a look at it and see if it does anything you're looking for. Essjay (Talk) 04:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

<pokes discussion with a sharp stick> Any leftover interest? Should I set it up and let it work a couple days so people can see what it can do? Essjay (Talk) 03:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I say, go for it. It'll help keep us focused on current problems, and we can always fix anything that breaks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I've set it up as User:EssjayBot; I ran the code by hand to archive this page, and Wikiquote talk:Votes for deletion. I set the threshhold for this page at 15 days; I'll also set it up for Wikiquote:Village pump and any other pages I can think of that get enough traffic to need regular archiving. Anyone with ideas of pages that may need it can drop me a note on my talk page; same thing for any glitches we find.
The only other question that comes to mind is, do we want the bot flagged? It doesn't really cause a lot of recent changes flooding, which is the main reason for flagging bots, so a flag isn't strictly necessary. Two of my archive bots on en.wp have flags, one doesn't, so I guess it's worth asking. Essjay (Talk) 03:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I must inform my fellow sysops that I have committed a grevious error in what I thought was an ordinary stoppage of an active bot. Our colleague Essjay has informed the community on his talk page that my action was an "unnecessary show of force", violating bot customs (by WP standards; we have practically no community bot experience here yet) and unreasonably insulting him. I must apologize to all for my ignorance. I ask that other sysops and bot-experienced editors join the discussion on Essjay's archiving bot so that my ill-informed voice is not the only feedback he gets as he tries to help out the community with some of its maintenance tasks. Thank you for your assistance. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for undeletion[edit]

I propose hereby for undeleting those draft pages. I have been occupied and not noticed those. There are two reason I prefer to keep them.

  1. Historical interest. It is interesting for me those who voted for deletion were not involved at that time, and only JeffQ who participated and took initiatives showed interest. As well as him, I find interest in those items. I find no harm in those items, specially as proposed, if they are renamed in a proper way to avoid confusion.
  2. Editcount. No, I am not an edit-count monger, but in this project participation degree is sometimes calicurated with edit counts. For example, if you have less than 400 edits, you are not eligible to vote for Board member candidates. Contributions of people and thus they themselves, in my humble opinion, could be respected to some extent, even if "they aren't contributing anything,". I am very shocked with those words. My inactiveness is a good reason to delete my past contributions? As a person who was involved into those drafting, I would like you not to erase my past contributions and others'. Honestly I am saddened and feel disrespected. My contributions are now called useless, and thought better to wipe out.

I was thinking I could have restored them and moved to my user page subpage, but before rushing, I ask you to consider to restore those edits. --Aphaia 00:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Support, as this was my position in the VfD discussion. My suggestion there was to move them to some out-of-the way location like "Wikiquote:Old proposals/Proposed Votes for deletion", etc. Another idea might be to date- or year-tag them (e.g., "Wikiquote:2005 drafts/Proposed Votes for deletion") to allow us to reuse useful pagenames without ambiguity. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Procedural comment: Not to engage in WikiLawyering, but our expected undeletion policy (which I still haven't drafted!) was to allow for requests based on possible failure to follow policy, not so much as a basic reconsideration. However, this situation suggests a problem with our shorter close times. I can assure Aphaia that no one meant any disrespect for her contributions; even I hadn't considered the loss of edit-count and contributions for such important and busy pages. But it is incumbent upon editors to watch VfD more carefully now, not only because of the shorter discussion time (still 2 days more than Wikipedia), but also because we have more editors willing to nominate far more articles for consideration. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Primetime on your hands...[edit]

Just a warning but User:Primetime seems to have fled to this wiki after being run out of Commons on a riot. For more information on this user, see meta:Vandalism reports#Primetime, wikipedia:WP:'T and commons:COM:AN#Potentiall trouble. Thus far he seems to be just using his userpage to rant and troll and not plagiarize. I know your wiki will have different standards and policies for blocking, so I'll leave what action (If any) up to you (plural). 68.39.174.238 22:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we can be relaxed at present. The number of new articles on Wikiquote is such that every one of them gets checked, so if we start getting copyvio articles we will quickly know about it. I don't see any reason to intervene with Primetime right now; perhaps his user page is a bit of a rant but it's not interfering with the smooth running of Wikiquote. Thanks for the warning, though. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 23:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Wait, what's this about The Labyrinth of Solitude? 68.39.174.238 01:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Spotted, VFD'd and deleted. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 10:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Examining deleted revisions, I agree the reason of deletion; copyvio. --Aphaia 11:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

An undeletable page[edit]

I just noticed that someone seems to have found an exploit in interwiki handling that can be used to create a page that can't be deleted (at least, not my any means I've found). 69.177.167.71 (talk · contributions) created a page Wikipedia:Road Rovers on Wikiquote; clicking a link to it (from Special:Newpages, for example) just takes you to w:Road Rovers, and trying to manually construct a delete link to the page (by going to another page, clicking "delete", and then replacing that page's name with this one) also redirects to the Wikipedia page, rendering the page here effectively undeletable, as well as unviewable, and uneditable). —LrdChaos (talk) 16:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


I tried to probe this problem a bit and document it thoroughly, in case it's a MediaWiki bug. Here's what I found.

Specifically, the 01:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC) edit (http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Road_Rovers&diff=prev&oldid=366740) that is displayed in User:69.177.167.71 contributions is the issue. Clicking on this diff link or its corresponding hist link [http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Road_Rovers&action=history) doesn't do the expected diff or history display, but rather displays the current w:Road Rovers. The same thing happens when you click on:

I also checked "What links here" for Road Rovers, but the mystery page apparently doesn't include a link to the properly titled article.

I wondered if this was a bug in the MediaWiki page creation system, improperly allowing someone to accidentally create something that looks like a project-namespace page from another project. I decided to try creating "Wikipedia:Bug demonstration" on Wikiquote. I entered Wikipedia:Bug demonstration in the Search box and pressed Go to get the "There is no page" page (MediaWiki:Noexactmatch). The create link it hover-displayed "Wikipedia:Bug_demonstration", and the URL was an interwiki link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bug_demonstration

Notice that it is not a Wikiquote URL, but a Wikipedia URL, even though it is a result of a Wikiquote query. Clicking on it jumped to Wikipedia and presented its "Wikipedia does not have an article" page, not a malformed Wikiquote page. (I confirmed this with an Wikiquote "all pages" check of the article namespace, starting at "Wikipedia". There was no Wikipedia:Bug demonstration, but I did see the "impossible" Wikipedia:Road Rovers.)

I then tried Wikipedia:Road Rovers in the search box. This acted exactly the same way as my bug-demo page: a hover-display of "wikipedia:Road_Rovers" and a URL of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_Rovers which attempted to pull up w:Road Rovers when clicked on (which succeeded in this case, of course, since the WP article exists).

I used Recent Changes to get the new-page entry for "Wikipedia:Road Rovers" and clicked on its history link (http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Road_Rovers&curid=40208&action=history). As LrdChaos found, clicking "delete" just presents the WP article again, as does "edit". However, when I tried "move", I got a proper "move" page for wikipedia:Road Rovers (notice the lowercase "w" in "wikipedia", even though the URL is http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:Movepage/Wikipedia:Road_Rovers). I attempted to move it to Road Rovers (buggy version) so it could be deleted, but got the following error:

Source or destination title is of a special type; cannot move pages from and into that namespace.

Note that there is no problem moving pages into and out of a project's proper namespace (Wikiquote:, for us), so I infer that even the move function is interpreting the wikipedia: prefix as an interwiki link instead of a non-project page title with a colon in it.

I deduce from all of this that there is a problem with MediaWiki software that makes it impossible to deal with pages within project X that have a project Y namespace prefix, however they may have gotten there. I still don't understand how they could get there in the first place, but attempts to deal with them run into the overloading of the "PROJECT:" syntax, which is used as both a project-namespace denotation and an interwiki link mechanism. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. There are two paths to take from here, but I don't have time for them at the moment. One is to get a developer to remove the offending page. The second is to check MediaZilla for a known bug. If one exists, note our situation as a current example and wait for a fix. If there is no report, file one. If someone doesn't beat me to it, I'll look into these later. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Willy on Wheels[edit]

Looking around at Wikipedia I notice that a particular IP address has been identified as the one the real Willy on Wheels always uses, and declared an exception to the policy of never banning an IP address indefinitely. We have seen some Willy-style attacks on Wikiquote, and while I think some may be impersonators, some were undoubtedly the man himself. Should we follow Wikipedia and make a prophylactic ban on this IP? Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 09:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you point out the discussions where this has been researched? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Have a look here. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 20:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Has any action been taken? I agree with Fys. Some may have been his impersonators but some were possibly the man himself, specially early attacks. I am not favorable for permanent blocking - if he moves, for example, the IP address wouldn't have been used no more and could be assigned to the third party. Anyway permanent blocking won't continue permanetly. It should be expired in thirty years (hint: Unix date). In some day we need to re-block the IP even if he doesn't alter his ISP. In my opinion blocking some years may make a sense - perhaps one year as the first step. --Aphaia 15:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Nominating a category for VfD[edit]

I tried to nominate Category:ABC Family shows for VfD but it doesn't seem to work. Is there a different procedure for categories?--Cato 20:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

For right now I have fixed your nomination. However, I cannot look into this matter further at this time. Cbrown1023
To be specific, Cbrown1023 fixed the case of the title in the attempt to add this dicussion to WQ:VFD so that it matched the actual category and discussion title. Case and spelling problems are an incredibly common problems with wiki material, as so many folks accustomed to blogs and instant messaging simply don't care about such matters. That's why it's a good idea always to copy-and-paste titles when using them in any discussions or other operations. (I can't tell you how many times I've been reminded of this rule-of-thumb myself!) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Another thing I fixed was on the nomination page itself. You need to put a colon (:) in front of "Category" or else the article will be placed inside the category instead of a link appearing. (Sorry about my curt response before, but I was on a cellular phone and couldn't type very well, nor insert tildes :)). Cbrown1023 talk 01:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Percival Lowell[edit]

Can someone please undelete this article. He is undoubtedly a notable person. I said I would add quotes, and am disappointed that despite this notice it seems to have been deleted after only six hours. I can post some quotes here, to be added to the article.--Poetlister 22:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The page is now restored. In future, however, it would be better to wait until a page has been completed before posting it. - InvisibleSun 22:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm afraid I created the page then didn't have the quotations to hand!--Poetlister 23:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquote talk:WikiProject Policy Revision[edit]

Please note that I have posted there so that we can finish all of our draft policies and turn them into official policies. I signed it Wikiquote:WikiProject Policy Revision instead of Cbrown1023 talk so that you can all edit it as you see fit. :) Thanks in advance. Cbrown1023 talk 21:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeffq attacks innocent user[edit]

Well, I'm new around here but this is just plane bad. So this Jeffq guy just block...outta the blue...22:09, 25 February 2007 Jeffq (Talk | contribs) blocked "Mr Goodbyte (contribs)" with an expiry time of 2 weeks (trolling; impersonating a sysop). The worst part, this guy (My Goodbyte) didin't even do anything wrong. I know Wikiquotewont stand for this. Certifyer 22:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If the time that some people spend trolling on the internet were actually put to good use, these people might have something more to be proud of in their lives than a few pissant pretenses, that rightfully get flushed away by truth. ~ Kalki 22:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the above statement above my blocking an innocent user is true. Mr Goodbyte was caught up in the middle of a troll attack, and when he tried to inform me of it by posting a quote from the troll as I was chasing down the troll's edits, I mistook his quoting as an attempt to impersonate me. I unblocked his account and apologized before anyone had a chance to complain. But the above user is likely a sockpuppet of one of our boring pattern vandals, who like to complain and attack instead of contribute. I'll be happy to talk to the truly offended party here, but Kalki's right about the pointlessness of wasting time tearing down rather than building. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Taking a break[edit]

Just to give you all a heads up, I'm going to be taking about a month-long break from Wikiquote beginning this Saturday. I've put up a notice at the top of my user and talk pages, but I figure that not everyone will see that right away. —LrdChaos (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Good wikivacation! Aphaia 04:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Resignation[edit]

User:Essjay was desysoped per his own request (cf. meta request page). --Aphaia 04:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note that this has been Wikimedia wide and I am afraid that some of the cause is not available to non-en-admins. It is also available all over the English Wikipedia Community Noticeboard and many other places if anyone is interested. Cbrown1023 talk 04:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Essjay's user page remains as a redirect to his user talk page, which is itself a redirect to his Wikipedia user page. I wonder if they should be either deleted, or replaced with the 'retired' message which is on w:User:Essjay? Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I did that for his userpage on Meta, in addition to a protection, but believe that the redirect should stay in place. It is what he had wanted when he left and now they can get it from their talk page. Cbrown1023 talk 16:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Category merger: Blocked and Indefinitely blocked users[edit]

See Category talk:blocked, and comment please ;) There is also unused category today, {{indefblockeduser}}, just for your information. --Aphaia 04:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

User:67.53.64.151[edit]

He/she has just vandalised Bill Gates. Should he be blocked?--Poetlister 17:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked it for 3 days, as the editor took some trouble (8 edits) to methodically dismantle Bill Gates (the article, that is). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)