Wikipediocracy

I can think of one that I've seen. This 609435118 (note that the OP in that thread wrote "it's own merit" when they should've written "its own merit") struck me as completely gratuitous at the time, given that the guy was just asking a question. I'm not sure if this is the kind of thing that Zoloft ...

I think he meant participating in the arbitration case, not in Wikipedia as a whole. I feel the same way.

To answer your question as worded, no, admins are not allowed to redact block logs, except to redact particularly nasty usernames (usually throwaway socks). The relevant policy, if you're into that sort of thing, is here . To answer the question you may have intended, log entries--including block lo...

Many (though not all) of Kww's filters were made public as a result of the drama surrounding him and TRM, which has culminated in my filing of an Arb case about the matter; Kww's use of the edit filter is a contributing factor to that drama, and so there's interest in looking at what he's done. (In ...

Is that really the question though? (Original) Scott was in good standing and Wikipedia doesn't suspend accounts for inactivity. Let (current) Scott be "Scott3" or "The Real Scott" or "Scott to Trot" or something like that. (Original) Scott might've stumbled across his old password cheat sheet and ...

Generally speaking, I'm actually not sure anymore; it's no longer possible to rename a user locally (part of the fabled SUL finalization), so the process will have changed, and to be honest, I never bothered to keep up with the changes. S'why I'm not a bureaucrat anymore. It's somewhere on Meta, I'd...

Yup, I was about to say that I i think you're misremembering, Triptych. The "Scott" account (now Scott (usurped)~enwiki ) had only 21 edits when we usurped it for Hex (then Scott Martin), and all were in 2001, so I doubt your scenario is particularly plausible. (For the record, it had nothing to do ...

What would a truly non-profit WMF look like? I ask because, to a casual observer who's completely uninformed in such matters (like me), the WMF seems just like any standard for-profit business: they have revenue, they spend it on their own salaries and operational costs, they (I guess) save surplus ...

I happened to be passing by and saw my name mentioned, so for the record: the only two revisions that were in the page I deleted were a redirect to the page User:Technical 13:Requests for adminship/ , a leftover from Technical 13's move of the page to that location (as noted in the quoted log), and ...

Did you see that a dewiki admin deleted and restored the page to remove superprotection (protection settings aren't preserved through deletion), and that Erik then personally restored the protection? Restless indeed; there are "fun" times ahead, I think.

Well, to be consistent, I guess this means we have to put one of those templates up for everyone who's ever edited Wikipedia (T-H-L) onto its talk page. I'm far too lazy to make the templates look nice, though.

Its funny that WP brass think that WO is toxic, yet you guys never deal with the utter cesspool that is IRC. It is funny; I had a conversation once with someone (on IRC, appropriately enough) who wasn't a fan of Wikipediocracy; they complained that, among other things, WO members with advanced perm...