QUOTE
* 08:05, 27 May 2009 Jehochman (talk | contribs) deleted "David Boothroyd" ‎ (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion)
* 07:54, 27 May 2009 Jehochman (talk | contribs) deleted "David Boothroyd" ‎ (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Boothroyd (3rd nomination))
* 20:46, 23 May 2009 Jehochman (talk | contribs) deleted "David Boothroyd" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Boothroyd (2nd nomination))
Now usually, arbcom would have a fit if an admin even thought about doing the same thing more than once.
QUOTE(Fys)
eulogizing Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez
But they
Ain't Dead Yet, #*%$@!!QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 27th May 2009, 12:59pm)
Er, but how does he get to retain administrator status with a block record like that. And he got to be admin as both Blacketer and Dbiv/Fys? Don't understand
Well he passed RFA
almost unanimously the first time but lost it a year and a half later (for unblocking himself, and for protecting the
Peter Tatchell article following his revert of Irishpunktom's edits). While I haven't studied it at length I'm not aware of any administrative misconduct on his part prior to that.
He passed the second time (despite being opposed by yours truly over something I hardly remember) mostly because nobody knew it wasn't his first rodeo, or because anyone who did know felt he had The Right Stuff and was happy to see him return.
Not sure which case it was, but like I said before I'll get back to you on that.
QUOTE
Support I'll cite the "I thought he already was one" cliche. Based on the answers, I trust Sam's good judgment, and I know he won't act too hastily in a confrontational situation that may arise. YechielMan 03:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
LOL, but some things do make me wonder.
QUOTE(One @ Wed 27th May 2009, 1:43pm)
Someone should make a FAQ for this. How many people have reached the reasonable but incorrect conclusion that he unblocked his sock? Stupid name changes.
Yeah, I noticed the incongruity and figured I'd explain it early on but who reads the whole thread, seriously?
QUOTE(Random832 @ Wed 27th May 2009, 1:54pm)
If only the log table had a "target id" field - this could be a user id for blocks, and a pageid for other logs that still have similar trouble through page moves. Tracking the history (move logs and protect logs) when a page has been the subject of a naming dispute can be a ridiculous headache.
I think for a page-move there should be two entries, one visible at each title, or at least one entry that somehow shows up in both logs.
As far as I know a pageid can only be used to look up the name of a page that exists (whereas user accounts/id's may be renamed but generally do not stop existing).
The ability to able to protect a red-link, for example, depends on using the title string rather than a page-id... unless you want to pre-emptively assign a number (which I guess the article would inherit if it is ever created?) but even then if the article gets created and moved, it would misrepresent which article-title some admin had originally deemed inappropriate.
I doubt there's an easy answer to this, short of re-writing everything from scratch.
Personally I think it would be less confusing if log entries and such always remained the same regardless of page-moves and renames that people of the future would see things as they actually happened. However that wouldn't work either as a vast number of renames are motivated by privacy concerns (not that this is a very effective way to address them).
This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb: