User talk:Daniel/Archive/53

Spiffier triple crown, new awards available
Hi, I've been sprucing up the triple crown awards. Here's the new version of the imperial triple crown jewels you've already earned. Feel free to replace your old one with this if you like the new version better. I've also introduced two new triple crown awards for editors who've done a lot of triple crown work: the Napoleonic and Alexander the Great edition awards. If you're active in a WikiProject, check out the new offer for custom WikiProject triple crowns. I'll make those upon request if five or more editors qualify. See User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle for more information. Thanks for your hard work, and cheers! Durova Charge! 22:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Your post on my talk page
Thank you for your post on my talk page. However, when you posted it, I already had stopped posting and logged off. Imagine my surpise to bring up my account an hour later to see that I was blocked. I'm not happy about the block. On hindsight, there were better ways to bring attention to what I was posting. But I do not see how blocking me after responding immediately to the requests on my talk page was justified. I would appreciate your reconsideration of the matter. Thanks. -- Jreferee    t / c  01:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't block you, and my personal opinion is that the block was placed slightly too eagerly (you hadn't edited since my message requesting discussion before further postings). However, I figured that unblocking would cause more drama than good, given the block was for fifteen minutes. blocked you (I wouldn't have personally, given you hadn't edited past the last request to initiate discussion), so you probably need to contact him about it. Cheers,  Daniel  01:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Which I see you have done. My comment was merely to try and grab your attention, because (as I said) I didn't want you to get blocked over this, and was looking more and more apparent that you would. Fortunately you stopped (as a result of logging off) after my message, however it seems a block was placed anyways.  Daniel  01:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your attempt to contact me and I know I would do the same for you. The more I think about it, the more I regret raising concern for my actions in other admins. Sorry for the anxiety. -- Jreferee    t / c  01:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ernie Toshack
Toot.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 01:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Toot-fucking-toot? :)  Daniel  02:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Usernames
Ahh, I see. Thanks for clearing it up. New York Dreams (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Korean cuisine mediation
I apologize, I realize now that I needed to put in a request for arbitration. Could you go through the denial process and remove the mediation request please, thank you.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 07:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your comments, which will surely help speed up the process of fixing this situation. I've never dealt with any issues like this before so the learning process comes from making errors and learning in the process.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 07:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No problems — always happy to chime in :) Cheers,  Daniel  12:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Imperial Napoleonic triple crown
Your Imperial Napoleonic Majesty, great work! Do you think the Australian WikiProject would be interested in a project-level award? Warmly, Durova  Charge! 08:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! With regards to a national award, possibly - I'm not sure. I don't know how to introduce it or explain it, though, but if you'd care to post at the Australian noticeboard you may get a wider range of responses. Cheers,  Daniel  12:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Page protection
Thanks for doing that for me, however, I was inspired by 's protection of pages with expiry times that he did a few months/weeks back.

As regards Paris Hilton, well, it should have an expiry date set, rather than indefinite, in my opinion. I can understand George W. Bush being protected indefinitely, but for articles like Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan it should be expiry-protected.

No harm done though, all I was trying to do was help. Anyway, what articles you working on?? I haven't had much time to edit due to being on the road! Thanks, -- Solumeiras talk 12:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If you wish for a second opinion feel free to relist it with a link to this as approving a second opinion (otherwise other administrators may reject it as "too soon" or "see below"). I'm more than happy to have other, more cultured eyes pour over requests if there's a disagreement.
 * With regards to my editing projects, the two main active ones are 1947 Sydney hailstorm and 1893 Brisbane flood, although there's a full list of works-in-progress at User:Daniel/Sandbox. Cheers, and keep up the good work,  Daniel  12:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, I'm not trying to get a second opinion. I'm not criticising you either, as you do an excellent job I don't want to cause a wheel war either, as like most admins, wheel-warring is to be avoided. It's the wiki equivalent of someone opening and closing the Warburton Toll Bridge (near the Manchester Ship Canal, to give a real-life example. As regards the editing stuff, I'll see if I can help with any of the stuff in the sandbox - I edit anything and everything. The 1947 Sydney hailstorm I can probably help out with, as I remember vaguely doing stuff about that in geography at high school once. I'll leave a message on this page when I've managed to have a go at it. Thanks, -- Solumeiras  talk 12:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for everything! Any assistance you can give will greatly appreciated :) Cheers,  Daniel  01:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Rename
Thanks Daniel!  E LIMINATOR JR  12:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No problems — last thing we needed was an out-of-control User:EliminatorJR account :) By the way, you might want to update your signature or SineBot may tagging all your posts. Cheers,  Daniel  12:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Done :)  B LACK K ITE  13:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

1999 Sydney hailstorm
Just noticed that it reached FA status. Congratulations! Well deserved in my opinion. Cheers, CP 05:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * All thanks to my FAC comments, right? Dihydrogen Monoxide  ♫ 08:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you for your various input at some point in the history of the article, and also congrats to you Paul for your successful RfA :) Cheers,  Daniel  09:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the Month
NCurse work 13:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Football (soccer)
Hello, Daniel. Would you mind unprotecting the said article? There's some edits I'd like to make on it, and when I asked on the request page and was told to speak to you. Thanks. Redrocketboy 00:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It had been semi-protected for a while (since the middle of the year), so it's probably worth giving it a go without semi-protection and seeing how it holds up. Cheers,  Daniel  00:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Redrocketboy 00:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Project level triple crown
Durova Charge! 01:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi again
Hi again. I've been looking through your contributions (yes, I'm bored :D), and I saw your edits on requests for adminship. I've done quite a bit of reading of policies and guidelines in the past two days, so when I saw the large text on the said page, I didn't particularly want to read it all again. Would you be so kind as to sum it up briefly, as you seem highly experienced. I'm vaguely familiar with what admins do, having read the page on them (well, I skimmed through it), but I'm more interested in the process to becoming an admin. Thanks.

P.S. I also like your userpage. I set up one myself, but I can't figure out "wikitext" very well - would you mind if I used parts of yours to help me along the way? Cheers.  Red rocket  boy  23:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The process of becoming an administrator is basically you gain a good amount of experience (there is no set amount of time/edits), across all parts of Wikipedia (editing articles [the most important in some eyes], interacting on talk pages, participating in noticeboards and other discussions), and then list your name (or wait for someone else to nominate you) at WP:RFA. Wikipedians then have seven days to comment on your candidacy, and at the end a bureaucrat will close it as either successful or unsuccessful.
 * As I said, there's no fixed time or edit amount that one should wait, although waiting for a nomination from an experienced and respected administrator is often a good move. I, for example, waited around eight months before I ran successfully :) However, you don't have to be an administrator to take part in RfA discussions about other users — (basically) every editor can do so, you included! Cheers,  Daniel  23:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * With regards to my userpage, I'd suggest that if you haven't really got the hang of Wikicode quote yet, it's probably not a good one to copy - trust me, the code is extremely fickle (although not as fickle, I bet, as User:Gurch...). Pages like User:Riana or User:Anonymous Dissident are far less messy and easily created/modified, yet still look very good :) Cheers,  Daniel  23:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Dihydrogen Monoxide is by far the best userpage on Wikipedia though :P Dihydrogen Monoxide  ♫ 02:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Oddly familiar...
? :) ~ Riana ⁂ 00:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: GA Sweeps
Yes, that's a systematical bias in the GA system. Everyone can list/delist GA at the blink of an eye. Many articles are promoted wrongly by inexperienced reviewers (like Union Pacific Railroad), some articles became GA prior to the establishment of GA criteria (like Water, Chinyingi)and a few degraded after they are promoted (like Edmonton). These articles went under the radar after they are promoted.

Now, we know those articles shouldn't be promoted. So what can we do? We're going to sweep every single article on the GA list. We don't want to overload GAR by listing every single article on GAR, nor do we want to go back and repeat our mistakes. The point is to "target articles that have 'fallen through the cracks', so we can't have any fall through the cracks during this." The initial sweep is by invitation only, but afterwards will be open to everyone.  OhanaUnited  Talk page  03:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

What now?
Please see Requests for mediation/Premier of the Republic of China. Thank you! &mdash; Sebastian 22:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm recused in this case (as noted on the page), so is acting Chair :) I'll copy-paste this message to his talk page for you. Cheers,  Daniel  23:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Famine
Beat me to it over there. I've asked Domer48 for an explanation. Given that Domer48's original research was considered disruption by arbcom, and worthy of special notice (FoF 1), I'd think that making stuff up would be a serious issue. Anyway, I'm hoping there's a perfectly reasonable explanation. We'll see, Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed it would. Regardless, the revert warring after my warning was off-the-cards (regardless of the merit of the edits prior), so I have banned Bastun from editing the article page for ten days. I have also reverted the page to prevent an onset of martyrdom or similar tactics. Cheers,  Daniel  00:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry about that - didn't see the warning not to revert before my reversion, just was in the process of catching up on this discussion and was too late to self-revert. Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 00:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Although I am amenable to assuming good faith, there is one fact that prevents me from accepting your version and lifting the ban. The revert that you made would have required you to open the history. In doing so, my revert (and warning) would have sat atop the history page, and you would have to have read it on the way down to find the version you reverted to. In addition, I presume you have the page watchlisted (hence your speedy response to the situation that was developing), so you would have presumably seen both my warning on the talk page and my null edit to the article page. I'm inclined to just leave the 10-day ban in place to avoid setting a bad precedent (as it shouldn't affect you too much, given you haven't edited the article in any other part recently), but I am always willing to listen to your explanation. Cheers,  Daniel  00:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I had a disconnect between seeing User:Vintagekits edit and looking at the page history to find a "good" version to revert to; and actually making the edit. Did see the "null edit" edit summary, but made my change before going to read it.  My bad.  No problem leaving the article ban in place - as you say, I don't edit there much lately. Cheers, Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 01:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply
Hello Daniel. I thought that User:Spebi forget to bold 'Oppose'. I also have a question: Can we edit other's text? Regards, Masterpiece2000 05:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You generally shouldn't — see WP:TPG. I strongly counsel you not to edit the comments of others, formatting or anything, especially at RfA.  Daniel  05:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A good rule of thumb is to ask yourself the following question: "did I write this?" If the answer is no, you shouldn't edit the comment. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 05:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Masterpiece2000 13:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello there!
Hi! Cool, I get to break in your new talk page. I decided to come ask you for some advice, mainly because of the amount of experience you have, and also because I've seen you around a lot before, just never talked to you (I think). Sorry, I'm being tangential. I was wondering if you could give me some pointers on what you think I could do to improve myself as a Wikipedian; at the moment I'm trying to maintain a balanced level of contributions to various areas of the encyclopedia. However, I'm interested in becoming an administrator in some time in the future, and was wondering if you could give me any tips for improvement (my first RFA was here. You don't have to, and I'll understand if you're too busy to. Thanks a lot, and cheers, Master of Puppets Care to share?  05:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I honestly thought you were an administrator. I will certainly look over and advise you, but it probably won't be until either later tonight or tomorrow when I'm finished typing up my response. I hope that's OK. Cheers,  Daniel  05:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, I've had many people tell me that they thought I was an admin. I still think it's because the acronym for my name (MOP) is, well, suggestive, heh. Oh, and there's no pressure at all; indeed, I'm about three days from my next final, so I'll only be on Wikipedia for an hour or two daily in the coming two weeks. So no rush! Cheers, Master of Puppets Care to share?  05:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections
Hi Daniel. I really appreciate your comments and find them very constructive. I just want you to read my addendum where i explained explicitly my position. I hope receiving a feedback from you. Thanks again. --  FayssalF   -  Wiki me up®  16:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Your Warning
Hi You forgot to introduce yourself but it seems you are watching me closely! This is the exchange you chose to warn me about:


 * Snip; no need for pasted discussions.  Daniel  00:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

So, you reckon a response to "stop amateurishly manipulating my suggestions through half-truths to get your own way" consisting of "frankly, you lecturing about "half-truths" brings to mind the old "glass-houses-and-stones" proverb. Please cut out branding Irish contributors who contribute in good faith" is in some way breaching something? Are we in Kafka country here? Is the establishment (as I have been warned by email) that anxious to get rid of me? (Sarah777 (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC))


 * Talk:Great Irish Famine was introduction aplenty.
 * As I said in my comment, I had decided that this discussion has taken a turn and was warning anyone who infringed such past that point of my decision. You are correct that the other comment was improper, but it was before my point of intervention — trust me, anyone who makes similar comments in the future will be recieving a similar warning and (potentially) similar enforcement. I could go backdating my warnings even a short while and end up with a whole clump of stale warnings.
 * Furthermore, if you continue your bad faithed accusations that I am acting on the whim of the claimed "establishment", you will force my hand.  Daniel  00:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Force my hand" is a euphemism - I prefer plain, clear English. As an Admin you would be abusing your Admin powers if you blocked me out a fit of pique. (Sarah777 (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC))
 * You would force me to implement the decision of the Arbitration Committee. And no, it wouldn't be pique — it would be disruption and violation of the remedy set down by the Arbitration Committee.  Daniel  00:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So, where is your censure of User:sony-youth and User:Mackensen? (Sarah777 (talk) 01:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC))
 * Ah, see the talk page? As I said, Mackensen's comments were actually helping, and Sony-youth hasn't edited since I started enforcing this earlier today. However, it's all moot, as there's a generic warning to everyone on the talk page now.  Daniel  01:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I could hardly disagree with you more on Mackensen, but I'll have to say that here now for fear of falling foul of you over there! But I think it important to point out that his reference does not support his claim that I called him a Nazi. (Have to make that point somewhere). (Sarah777 (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC))
 * I care little for the content dispute or its' history - my role is to follow the instruction of the Arbitration Committee and, using the power of banning they gave me, try and keep this dispute in check.  Daniel  01:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

First of, thanks for the intervention, it was timely, and you probably saved me from my self. I would only add, that I agree totally with Sarah, and the comments above. --Domer48 (talk) 01:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The above is history, really. The present is that all comments must follow the three criteria I laid out or page bans will be used. It's sad that this must be so draconian, but the problem would only worsen if it wasn't overcorrected.  Daniel  01:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Helpful list
Hope you don't mind, I updated it.  Red rocket  boy  01:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, danke.  Daniel  01:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK
Hey, can you handle the new DYK update if you see this (the one at time of writing in "next update", begining with surface diffusion)? It's currently 11am, and the earliest time was 9am - and I think we're about a day behind where we ought to be, with at least one more update to get out of November 30th, so it'd be good to speed it up a little. I'd do it myself, but am at Uni. Adam Cuerden talk 11:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Must have just missed me :) — "Time since last update: 1 hour. (verify)" Cheers,  Daniel  22:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Amazed: No consensus, yet you think so
I am amazed at how you can end this Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Prester John (2nd nomination) with a consensus for delete, when it is quite obvious from reading the text that people go both ways – with numerous votes to the contrary. --Law Lord (talk) 09:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:DRV if you disagree. I'm not changing my close, and it's not a vote. You give me no reason to doubt that I'm right.  Daniel  09:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Prester_John. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Law Lord (talk) 09:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Good luck (note to self: link to exact page).  Daniel  10:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you 100% that luck is what decides the outcome of any such discussion. People here just call luck consensus instead. --Law Lord (talk) 10:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I also want to add that I personally found the contents of the deleted pages revolting and upsetting. Not the point, however. --Law Lord (talk) 11:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We'll wait and see.  Daniel  23:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Faulty link
On meta:User:Daniel/Accounts is clicked on English to Meta and received an error message. --Law Lord (talk) 10:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Updated, thanks. The old link is in the now-deleted history of User:Daniel, hence why it's unaccessable.  Daniel  10:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK archives
Hi Daniel, and thanks for updating the DYK so promptly.

I was just perusing the DYK archive though and I noticed that at least one page is missing, a page from 5 December which included, amongst other things, my own submission for Owasco class cutters.

Do you know what went wrong, and is there a way to fix it? Gatoclass (talk) 10:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll do so tomorrow when I'm more awake :)  Daniel  11:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Sorry for the delay :)  Daniel  23:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Mediation info
Thanks for informing me - I appreciate it.

--Skyelarke (talk) 23:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No problems.  Daniel  23:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Rollback comments
In reply to this, there are two main differences which are the cause of concern:
 * The fact that rollback shows up in Special:Contributions/Daniel (and undo doesn't), which could allow for one-click no-look reverting. This is generally bad, and especially bad if used on anti-vandal bots etc.
 * Rollback is automatically marked minor (meaning it doesn't show up in many recent changes patrol tools), and can't be used with an edit summary. Both combine with the no-look contributions reverting to create a not-so-great mix.

I didn't/couldn't reply on the RfC so I figured I'd do it here :) Cheers,  Daniel  03:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the clarification. I've modified my statement regarding it.
 * The more I think about the bot mistakes, errors, (and abuses) I've seen since being on Wikipedia (not to mention AWB, and the like), opening this up for general use sounds like a really bad idea.
 * Also, I think I'm confused. You said Undo doesn't show up on contributions? COuld you explain Undo, then? - jc37 04:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * When you view Special:Contributions/Daniel, next to every edit which is the most recent on the page I believe there is a [rollback] button. This, in effect, gives adminsitrators the possibility to blindly revert a lot of edits by a particular user without viewing the edit itself or the context of the page history. However, again to my best knowledge, (undo) needs to be viewed through the history of the article/page itself and not the contributions list of a particular user. This means it's far more difficult to revert one users' edits en masse (particularily important for anti-vandal bots and preventing harassment of a particular user), and also means the current state of the page and the context of the edit must be considered before (undo)-ing. Cheers,  Daniel  04:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification.
 * While you're here... (smile)
 * What do you think about giving the Bureaucrats the ability to block individual admin rights (or even individual user-rights, such as move page)? - jc37 04:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Dunno - interesting concept :) Would need strict regulation, although I fear it might just increase drama. The arguments about stewards acting outside their main project and those against partial adminship may also be relevant. Cheers,  Daniel  04:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I kind of like it because it allows "someone" to "block" problematic actions, without completely blocking a user. Examples:
 * You are indefinitely blocked from moving or creating pages, but you can edit existing pages. and everything else a registered user can do.
 * You are blocked from using the ability to block for "a length of time" (or indefinitely), due to having abused the ability to block, but you can still do other things that admins can do.
 * (WP:BAG):You are approved to delete orphaned redirects, but all other admin ablities have been blocked. (Imagine how precise the tasks bots could be approved for.)
 * What I really like about this is that the rights aren't removed, they're blocked. Which deals with many of the previous concerns about de-adminship, for example. And since it's "blocking", these could all fall under current blocking policy. Who can do what, and when, and so on. - jc37 04:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyway, these are just some ideas : ) - jc37 04:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Clarify: Essentially, any admin should be able to block any "general" user-rights of an anon IP, and a registered account. And a bureaucrat should be able to block any admin user-right. (Stewards can remove anything, so they should be able to block anything, obviously.) - jc37 04:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Only the Arbitration Committee could really authorise the removal of the ability to block, protect or delete. I can tell you I'd be extremely teed off if I lost any part of my adminship without the due process of being able to present evidence and being judged by the Arbitration Committee, a group of elected responsible users. Recent events have led me to lose faith in the Wikipedia community, or rather small parts of it, in deciding what deserves a desysopping, hence my removal from the recall category. The community as a whole, unlike the arbitrators, occasionally don't see major administrative issues in proper context or with all the facts, and I believe that incorrect decisions could result from that (in the exact same way that things are thrown wildly out of context and proportion at RfA, only worse because there's a whole group of users wanting to lynch someone when desysopping). Given bureaucrats act on community consensus, the problems merely transfer through the chain.  Daniel  04:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (De-indent) - I don't necessarily disagree with your thoughts. What I had originally added (but removed for space) was that removal should be a tool for ArbCom, and possibly in semi-emergency situations by bureacrat consensus (however the be defined), and by any bureaucrat in truly emergency situations. The same for admins and blocking general userrights. Does that make more sense? - jc37 04:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Most certainly. I could easily support the implementation of such with strict rules of use (namely emergencies equivalent to the old emergency desysopping, ruling by the Arbitration Committee, through a volunary recall procedure, or voluntary user request).  Daniel  04:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So:
 * ArbCom = removal (Through a steward request)
 * Bureaucrats (maybe) = removal; though with the "emergency"-clause rules in place, noted above.
 * Bureaucrats = Block/Unblock any IP, registered, or admin user-right.
 * Administrators = Block/Unblock and IP or registered user-right, up to and including, just generally being "blocked".
 * And Dispute resolution, as normal, per blocking policy.
 * Any issues? - jc37 04:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)