User talk:AzaToth: Difference between revisions

Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #165

User talk:AzaToth

Welcome to my talk page!

• Please use the Reply button to reply to a message, or add topic (+) to start a new section.
• If I have left a message on your talk page, please DO NOT post a reply here, instead, reply there.
  • Mention me using the "Mention a user" button in the Reply box or type out {{ping|AzaToth}}.
  • I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
• If you prefer to manually edit the page to post:
  • Use an accurate and appropriate heading.
  • Indent your comment by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
  • Sign your post with four tildes (~~~~) at the end.

Template Esoteric

Hi AzaToth, I'm not quite sure how to interpret your comment explaining 'esoteric' in Template talk:Esoteric#Move?. Would you mind inspecting the comment I just placed there with once more a request to unprotect, and leave a note there; else we're going to get stuck with 'esoteric' forever, while few seem to be happy with it. I think that my suggested term is about the middle ground between 'complex' (initially suggested, by Proto) and 'conditional logic' (by Doug Bell), at the low end, and your concern for some of the more esoteric templates. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 17 Mar2007 05:02 (UTC)

twinklewarn.js

Could you please fix twinkle's warnings and add the following sentence so that it displays the reverted link (i.e. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me.) — zero » 22:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Ads

If you feel like doing anything with the images, fine. I've left the template in place (at {{qxz-ads}}) for now, though I've TfD'd it. I've had enough of this place. Thanks for your nitpicky little comments early on. You really helped introduce me to the sort of place this really is. May new, energetic users continue to be put off by them for many years – Qxz 09:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Aww....

I tried using TWINKLE on a Windows 2000 with IE 6 installed, and, it doesn't work. The links, whenever I click them, don't do anything. Oh well. Just thought I'd tell you it doesn't work on IE probably. ДҖ--Huanghe63^talk 01:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

OK

Twinkle seems fine in Safari browser on an Imac so far - just in case no one has told you yet :) SatuSuro 02:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Need your help

Hi there! I'm from Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs & we would like to get an ad on the Qxz-ads banner thingy. However, the user Qxz has left Wikipedia. Your name was on the template page also, so I thoguht coming here to ask you would be a good idea. So, 1) Can we please have an ad? 2) How might we go about getting an ad on the banner? & 3) Anything else important I should know about? Thanks, Spawn Man 07:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello? You have replied to everyone else, but not to me... If you can't help that's fine, but would you be able to direct me to someone who could? Thanks... Spawn Man 04:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As the template isn't protect any more, you could your self add your own if you want, I'm not the best graphical designer, but if you need help creating one, I might be able to help. The template is Template:Qxz-ads _→AzaToth 13:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

E104421

Hi, I just saw your comment and unblock decline here: [1]. I think this was a misunderstanding on your part, though understandable for somebody not acquainted with the case. E is not a shared account, I can personally vouch for that. With "we", E was apparently referring to himself and his opponent, Tajik (talk · contribs), with whom he's been on a very long conflict and who was blocked together with him. - I'm not necessarily recommending to lift the block, just thought I'd correct this misunderstanding. Thanks, --Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Aha, ok my misunderstanding then. _→AzaToth 13:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Wikify

No offense but I don't like your image any better then the previous image. You may notice on the talk page that some one suggested changing to "WIKI" and someone else came along and changed it. Two or three users have since posted challenges to that change that have gone un-responded to. If you would kindly change it back to no image (revert to 22:28, 4 March 2007[2] ), or at the very least to Image:Information icon.svg that would be wonderful. Jeepday 13:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

reverted to iconless version. _→AzaToth 13:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much better :) I will make a note on the talk page. Jeepday 13:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Easter protection

Easter is on Sunday, April 8; perhaps you shorten the semi-protection of the article so that it expires around April 13. -- tariqabjotu 14:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Heather Wilson

I think you can unprotect the page. The dissenting "users" have been blocked as a sock puppets. Arbustoo 01:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You can make a request for unprotection at WP:RFPP. RJASE1 ^Talk 02:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ads

Just wondering if you would be taking over Qxz's ads, now that he/she left. Also, congrats on your RfA. · AO ^Talk 11:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ditto, and also, congrats. RyGuy 12:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverting with Twinkle troubles.

Error: TypeError: Status.status is not a function

Everytime I try to revert, I get that error. Is this common/uncommon? Is there any way to fix this, also?

(Still new to wikipedia)Trident 13:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems that you have failed to load morebits.js, try to clear your browser cache. _→AzaToth 13:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Buses

Not sure its kind to tell someone who deleted over 300 bus images by hand that you had a script all ready to do them... ;-) WjBscribe 16:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL :-). Thanks... Think I'm going to have to learn a bit of programming.... WjBscribe 16:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

RE:{{db-ad}}

Thank you for the information. What do you mean by tapk? DTD_(speak)

Oh, a typo, I meant talk page. _→AzaToth 15:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, dear, sorry. No one's every mentioned it before...DTD_(speak)

Better? DTD_(speak)

Template:Qxz-ads

Are you now taking care of this project?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, great and glorious one. I was thinking that it might do the various religion projects some good if maybe there were a line added to the template page for the various religion projects, maybe particularly the Saints project (which I'm on), and the newer Calvinism and Lutheranism projects as well. If you would know of any way to add a few "lines" to the page for these groups, or maybe for the newer projects in general, I think we would all be very grateful for your profound magnaminousness and generosity. And, yes, I really do talk this way, particularly when I'm trying to flatter people to get them to do something I want. :) John Carter 16:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Protection of Anchor

Thanks for protecting Anchor after my report of it. I have also reported the alleged vandal to 3RR notices, but the upshot is nothing will be done now that the page is protected. Fine by me if it solves the issue with this particular article, but the user who was doing the constant deletion of material (Russeasby) managed to get the last edit before the page was protected. I wonder if you might take a look and undo that revert. Badmonkey 14:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll

Aza, please unprotect this. I'm going to MfD it. - Denny 15:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Unprotect Rudy Giuliani

Hello. Rather than change the protection kind on Rudy Giuliani, as you just did, why not unprotect it? There is agreement on the talk page about how to go forward, and the most contentious editor seems to have been blocked, per User talk:CrystalizedAngels. Wasted Time R 15:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It was mearly an update of protection template, to a new collection. I have unprotected it. _→AzaToth 16:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:

Thank you. I appriciate that. Tājik 16:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Gene Baur

Thanks for changing the tag; it made it pop on my watchlist. I completely forgot to unprotect this when the checkuser case that prompted this protection closed...--Isotope23 17:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. _→AzaToth 18:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Tito Ortiz

Hi, I'm a relative newbie when it comes to the issues with page protection etc. I'm wondering, what is the purpose of the full protection on the Tito Ortiz article? I've seen articles before under heavier vandalism frequency than this article, and the route has been to only semi-protect the page. Is it because of the sock-puppet? Are there not user blocks that could solve that?Sancho (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a sockpuppet problem, in this case User:Verdict _→AzaToth 17:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

So, then is the page just protected until we track down all of the sock puppets of that user? Sancho (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, or when he just get tired. _→AzaToth 18:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That's unfortunate... I'm surprised there isn't a way to just ban the IP regardless of the user name that logs in from that IP. Do you know why that wouldn't work? Sancho (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

SpongeBob SquarePants

Hello, just wondering why you changed the temple. Responde to my talk page. TheBlazikenMaster 19:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Further responde on my talk page. TheBlazikenMaster 20:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Reza Shah article

Please check the addition I made to the Reza Shah article's discussion page. The troll User:Artaxerex that was attacking the editors and vandalizing related articles has been confirmed as a "puppetmaster" who's sockpuppets regularly vandalized and instigated Personal Attacks against all editors. [[3]]

I believe the article can and should be safely unlocked now so that vandalism can be reverted by the editors. Mehrshad123 20:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

{{protected}} and {{pp-dispute}}

RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ awards this Barnstar to AzaToth for patient explaining of obvious things to someone who should know better. Not that I mean me or anything *coughs*.

Hi Aza! I'm notoriously slow on following updates and changes in policy etc, so forgive the ignorance of the following: what's the difference between {{protected}} and {{pp-dispute}}?

Sorry if it's obvious or something an admin really should know. The fact is, I live most of my life in a haze of not-quite-understanding-what's-going-on and sometimes this overlaps into Wikipedia more than it should :o) RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 20:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

{{protected}} has always been only for disputes, not any other sort of protection, as of the overhaul of the protection template system, it looked better to call the dispute template for dispute, and to have a generic template called pp-protected. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:VPR#New_protection_templates.2C_take_2 _→AzaToth 20:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for the links, which (belatedly) I will now read :o) Although, TBH, I stumbled upon this article and its weird edits and don't quite know if it's vandalism, dispute or just lunacy. Such a terribly fine line... Thanks again. RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 20:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If non of the pre-made templates works, you can use the generic: {{pp-protected|reason=weird edits and don't quite know if it's vandalism, dispute or just lunacy}} _→AzaToth 21:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Even cooler! Saved on my desktop. And I've removed the template, lest people start having kittens over it being here. RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 21:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Templates

Hi Azatoth, I notice you're changing templates. [4] I think it's important not to mess around with these without good reason, because people are very familiar with them; the ones you want instead involved more letters to type; and it's hard to remember templates when they keep being changed, which is a source of some frustration. Can you say what the need for the change is? Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

There has been a long discussion about the protection templates, so the new templates are the result of the discussion. First the naming scheme was inconsistent, second the style of the templates was inconsistent, third the parameter usage was inconsistent. _→AzaToth 22:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Sierrasnowboard

Hi. I left a message for Sierrasnowboard about their username, and they have continued to edit and add to their userpage since. They are obviously representing their own company on WP from what I can see, is this a blatant violation of the username policy? -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 22:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Tajik

Thank you for unblocking my opponent/friend Tajik. Cheers! E104421 23:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the deathly Hallows

Hi. I noticed that you had semi protected this article, although there is no mention on the page that it is protected. I only discovered by accident, and was rather surprised. I'm not surprised that people want to add information to the page, because there has just been a new publicity release about the book. I am a little puzzled why this merits protection. The article has recently been fully protected fo a month or two supposedly because of a dispute over the 'meaning of hallows section'. I was rather bemused by this. I do not believe that there would have been outright war on the page had it not been protected at all. It seems far more likely to me that people would have engaged in their three reverts a few times and then settled down as consensus became clear. If a revert war is never allowed to run long enough for a few different people to show where they stand on an issue, then it never will be resolved. In this instance, the article was locked for a month while we argued about it, to no real conclusion, then was unlocked and settled down without the issue having been resolved. Then as a newcomer started another spat, again the issue was never given enough time to resolve itself before the page was locked. This is a high traffic article, with lots of people adding to it, but while their edits may be hasty, it is not clear they are vandalism. As often as not, someone adds something which is already present somewhere else on the page already. It may inconvenience people to keep sorting it out, but surely that is not the point? 88.108.99.56 23:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC) User: Sandpiper, I had to log out to check the page was protected, and now the auto log in is screwed.

no, my mistake I think. Got the wrong entry, it was not you sir. Though I still havn't figured out what happened. Found one request which seems to have been declined, yet it was protected? Sandpiper 00:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheri DiNovo and Sylvia Watson protection

Why have you changed the protection level of the Cheri Dinovo page? It is subject to a high rate of vandelism, that's why Bearcat reinstated the protection in the first place. Please revert the protection.Abebenjoe 00:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing has changed, it's just a change of template. _→AzaToth 00:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Excellent. What's new in the template?

Pp-usertalk is too vague

for the purposes of covering unblockabuse and the list of links provided are overkill. Do we really need RFA/RFB? --  Netsnipe  ►  05:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

no, we don't need rfa/rfb, they just was already included in the template I used, I'llk see if I can fork it itno something better. _→AzaToth 15:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I also update the template to be less wauge. _→AzaToth 15:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The Freecycle Network change to pp-dispute

Heya Azatoth. Why the protection change on The Freecycle Network page? I read your description above for the protection differences but in this case there still remains an unresolved AMA and ongoing unresolved dispute. I'm planning on following up on both shortly. Dharmaburning 08:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The semantics between pp-dispute and protected is none. _→AzaToth 12:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response though it's troubling. Given your description above, that pp-dispute is used for "reason=weird edits and don't quite know if it's vandalism, dispute or just lunacy," I don't understand how this is an argument of semantics. Based on your own description the two usages have vastly different applications. Your response here begs the question, back to my original question, if there's no difference between the two applications, why then did you make this change to the page? I don't believe you make random changes for no particular reason, so I'm curious what's up. Thanks in advance. Dharmaburning 22:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Sprotection of April Fools Day

Heeeelo. Don't mean to patronise, but the protection policy says that sprotection should not be used pre-emptively, like you did on April Fools Day. I was wondering if you'd consider unprotecting it? You never know, people might not vandalise it. --Deskana (ya rly) 15:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Unprotecting it just so someone can reprotect it tomorrow morning seems a bit pointless, especially as it was already getting vandalism. – Steel 15:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There was already major vandalism, and I assumed it would rize to next level coming day. _→AzaToth 15:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

My fault for just reading your explanation rather than looking at the page, I guess. Apologies. --Deskana (ya rly) 15:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Template:Usercheck

The point of the "graylinks" in {{usercheck}} was that, even if the subpages titled with that username do not exist, there may be a mention or #anchor of that username on the main topic page, for instance:

• If there is no WP:RFARB/John Doe, that may only mean the case hasn't been accepted for arbitration yet; the case may be on the main topic page, as WP:RFARB#John Doe, or even possibly under a heading with several names or an article name. The "graylink" looks for WP:RFARB#John Doe, and otherwise leaves you at WP:RFARB to do a text search.

• If there is no WP:RFCU/John Doe or WP:SSP/John Doe, that means he hasn't been reported as a "puppetmaster"... but maybe he's been reported as one of the "sockpuppets". The graylink takes you to the main topic page so you can text-search.

• If the user hasn't been reported/nominated at all, you may want to report/nominate him yourself. The "graylinks" help you do so.

I have been using {{usercheck}} not only to help discuss proposed community bans, but also to research existing community bans that had been logged at WP:BANNED without links to the relevant discussions.

Your changes have disabled parts of {{usercheck}} that I was using.

If you want a template with "disappearing" links, may I suggest {{vandal-m}}, which already has them? That way you can have what you apparently want, without destroying the research tool I was using.

Making {{usercheck}} redundant to {{vandal-m}} only makes it a good candidate for TfD. Why have two templates that do the same thing?

Oh, and "count" was next to "contribs" because they are two ways of looking at the same thing: the user's contributions history. They were grouped by topic, not by the server on which they were located.

I would like to be able to continue cleanup on WP:BANNED. May I have back the research tool I was using to do that job? Please? I would really appreciate that. Thank you. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 17:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know about that template, it was for {{pp-usertalk}}, I'll just revert it then, and use the other template, thanks for pointing it out. _→AzaToth 17:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

My Userpage

I'm very glad I didn't have any drink in my mouth at the time...I definitely got a good chuckle out of that. And to think, I didn't go because of my watchlist, I just happened to click on my username and noticed the great big pink padlock. It's gonna stay there for the time being. If you can think up a good caption, by all means add it. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, done. _→AzaToth 20:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

QXZ Ads

Sorry to bother you...I notice there are a couple other queries about this on your talk page already; just a quick question or two: 1) Are you (still) involved with the rotating ad banner? and 2) If I designed an ad for the Graphic Lab, would it be possible to have it inserted into the queue? Thanks. -YK Times 22:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

1. I have been busy with other things latly _→AzaToth 23:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
2. The template is not protected, so you could add your own if you want. _→AzaToth 23:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed it wasn't protected, but I thought I better check first. Thanks for your time! -YK Times 02:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

sprotect-banneduser

Alright, but we still need a template that can add Category:Semi-protected from banned users. Also, edits by banned users aren't necessarily vandalism, and the template also survived TfD in the past. Khoikhoi 00:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think I understand, I though all activities by banned users where to see as vandalism. I'll make a new template then. _→AzaToth 00:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, great! Thanks, Khoikhoi 01:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

{{pp-usertalk}}

... has an extra bracket in the line:

{{vandal-m|<includeonly>{{{user|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}</includeonly><noinclude>Example</noinclude>}}

after PAGENAME; there should be five, there actually are six.

This shows up in actual use, for instance on User talk:JB196.

And actually it would be even simpler to NOT EMBED the "user" template and the rest of the complexity:

{{vandal-m|{{BASEPAGENAME}}}}

... all by itself, does all you want. Try that! -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 05:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

{{vandal-m|{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACEE}}|User_talk|{{BASEPAGENAME}}|Example}}}}

works too: username if posted on the user's talkpage, "Example" if posted anywhere else. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 07:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll fix that, but the user parameter should be left, as there could be reason to point to another user than the actual user. _→AzaToth 12:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Banner request

I posted this question to User:Qxz's userpage, but someone said he appears to be retired, so please visit User talk:Qxz. Since at least one of those questions is about the banner program you share, perhaps you can help me instead. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

E104421/Tajik

Hello, thanks for dealing with E and Tajik. I didn't know about that "mediation" page. Maybe it's worth a try; you may have seen I was beginning to discuss some such solution with E myself. The trouble with these two guys is that they keep getting into these conflicts time and again on many different articles. The conflicts are all related (basically, it's about defining medieval central Asian ethnicities in terms of cultural influence and continuity with present-day Turkic and Iranian nationalities) - but they keep finding new places where to quarrel over those issues. So, what we need is probably a long-term solution, not just a mediation of a single conflict. Something like a mediator-cum-mentor-cum-arbitrator. A place where they are required to go and discuss in every instance they have a disagreement (under observance of 0RR), under the eyes of a mediator. And I think we might also need something that's rather uncommon in Wiki dispute resolution otherwise: a content tie-breaking mechanism, in case they simply can't agree. We need the mediator to have the power to actually impose an outcome to the debate, i.e. to tell either or both of them to stop and leave an issue alone. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a totally new things, and is in trial period, and I thought we could give it a try, the users seems to be good editors, they just cant stop disagreeing with each other. _→AzaToth 15:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Twinkle rollback links?

My rollback links from twinkle have just disappeared frmo contribs, history, and watchlist pages. I see you have recently made big modifications to twinkle. Was this intentional? If so, why? Those were extremely useful. —dgies^t_c 19:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It was just a bug, test again. _→AzaToth 20:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes they're back now. Thank you. —dgies^t_c 20:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You might want to consult with the other involved admin.

Slightly before you protected the Essjay controversy page, your fellow admin User:WikiLeon ruled that since the dispute had nothing to do with the subject of the page, it was simply trolling and disruption to even bring it up and that doing so again would result in a block for disrupting the article (which is otherwise stable).

Your two opinions are currently at odds with each other, to say the least. So you might want to consult with him about whether protection will be helpful or merely engender more disruption by forcing further discussion of the unrelated Wikipedia foundership dispute. --tjstrf talk 22:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:CEM

One of the trainees jumped the gun on the proposal. I'll take a look into this. Durova^Charge! 23:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That's no problem, and as for the case, I believe they really want to get along. _→AzaToth 23:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll wait to hear from both of them. Durova^Charge! 23:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Protection at Essjay controversy

I'm afraid that a full protection of this version is only going to exacerbate the situation. If you look over the Essjay controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) logs and talk page, you'll see that the current round of dispute was engendered by two tendentious editors -- QuackGuru (talk · contribs) and Bramlet Abercrombie (talk · contribs)-- who have repeatedly reinserted claims deprecating Jimmy Wales's founding role in Wikipedia, and campaigning for Sanger's "co-founder" status in unrelated articles. Protecting this article is not the way to reach consensus on this issue-- it was already arrived at on the article's talk page. Block individual editors if they breach 3RR, but don't penalise those who have been working in good faith on the article prior to the Bramlet's sudden arrival to promote his particular POV.--Leflyman^Talk 23:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you, --Leflyman^Talk 23:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

E104421 and Tajik

You've now reversed for of my blocks in the last few days, the same two users, twice each, and have not communicated to me a single time, or asked the input of any other admin, or attempted to find consensus on another noticeboard. I find this extremely disrespectful and unbecoming of an administrator. None of these nblocks were emergencies, in which you could not have first attempted discussion, and it appears to me that you acted without full knowledge of the situation. After repeated blocks for the exact same behavior for a period of months, after repeating the behavior after you unblocked them the first time, it is not a reasonable expectation to think they will suddenly become constructive editors. At least, if it is your expectation, it is not one that should be acted on unilaterally when another administrator has already blocked them for the offense. Dmcdevit·t 23:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I unblocked them so they could begin mediation, I warned then thay they are not to do any other edits during the time. I'm sorry if I didn't notified you about it, I'll remember that next time. _→AzaToth 23:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

And the second time? When they each ignored your warning to stay away from each other, and were reblocked, what purpose do you think unblocking them again with no discussion served? To warn them that you might warn them again? Dmcdevit·t 01:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

In any case, I indicated to you why I thought mediation (much less involuntary mediation?) wouldn't work, and your response was "I unblcked them so they could begin mediation" without addressing the substance of my remark. I'm taking the two to arbitration, since I think that's the only way to solve the problem, not mediation, and they are unblocked now. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#E104421 and Tajik. Dmcdevit·t 04:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)