Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive6

I've written up a new policy proposal, with assistance from Ed Poor, to set out some guidelines and basic principles for dealing with naming conflicts of the Gdanzig type. It's at Wikipedia:Naming conflict - comments welcomed. -- ChrisO 00:37, 2 July 2005 (UTC)

If there's any admins about, it would be great if the front page In the news box could be updated to mention the Live 8 concerts taking place now. Dan100 (Talk) 15:40, 2 July 2005 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates This link is Broken 15:43, 2 July 2005 (UTC)

I did that, thanks though. I was trying to get someone to actually make the change! So thanks to Violetriga. Dan100 (Talk) 16:28, 2 July 2005 (UTC)

I put over 100 articles up as a group for deletion under VfD (at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Karlscherer3), the result of the VfD was a 90% majority to delete all of them. Obviously, this is quite a lot of articles to delete, and I think it would help if it wasn't just the VfD-closing-admin who had to delete them, as it is probably going to take ages.

The full list of articles should be in Category:Alleged spam by Karl Scherer (this is mentioned on the VfD, just in case you are tempted assume it is only the articles listed in the includes (but not limited to) list on the VfD that were VfD'd. It is also verifiable on the relevant article histories that the VfD tag was added and correctly linked - given the nature of the VfD it was a bespoke tag I created).

~~~~ 20:41, 2 July 2005 (UTC)

Could an admin please add {{Vprotected}} or Category:Protected against vandalism to Category:Pelican shit so it stops showing up on orphaned category lists? Thanks. --Tabor 00:17, 3 July 2005 (UTC)

Done. --cesarb 01:06, 3 July 2005 (UTC)

I just made a list of admins by edit count, and noticed a couple anomalies

• User:Shallot (0 edits) is an unused version of User:Joy, and both are admins.
• User:Timshell (0 edits) and User:Tim Shell (58 edits 3 years ago) are unused versions of User:TimShell, who is apparently not a sysop, though listed at Wikipedia:List of administrators.

I suggest User:Shallot and User:Timshell should be de-sysopped. Additionally, perhaps adminship should be transferred from User:Tim Shell to User:TimShell. dbenbenn | talk 03:24, 3 July 2005 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. Everyking 03:37, 3 July 2005 (UTC)

User:TimShell is not a frequent editor - let's desysop and put him on WP:RfA to sort this out. r3m0t ^talk 11:43, 3 July 2005 (UTC)

He may not be a frequent editor on en, but since Tim is on the Wikimedia Board of Trustees, it might be nice if you asked him what he would like. Dragons flight 11:53, 3 July 2005 (UTC)

I didn't notice. Since the Board has total and final power (I think) over WM projects, we can leave him as admin - assuming he was not later removed. r3m0t ^talk 14:04, 3 July 2005 (UTC)

I like the idea of transferring the adminship to the active account. It just makes no sense for him to have three accounts and the only one he actually uses is the one that isn't sysopped. Everyking 14:33, 3 July 2005 (UTC)

It would be better to ask first. He could have a legitimate reason for wanting his main account to not have admin priviledges (much like I sometimes use a secondary account which doesn't have them). --cesarb 20:14, 3 July 2005 (UTC)

wpvfdhide hides VfD discussions which are already closed on demand. This is useful both for finding unclosed entries in the logs and for finding things which weren't speedied in the current VfD day pages. The latest link to it is always at User:R3m0t and it requires Firefox and Greasemonkey. r3m0t ^talk 14:04, 3 July 2005 (UTC)

I feel that Template:TOCright is an abuse of templates. Templates are not there to change the default look of the website - which this is being used for! I feel like removing it, but have added it to WP:TFD. However, I'm putting it out here that the template should be speedied. What do other admins think? Speedy or keep on TfD? Incidently, check out Intelligent Design and an old verion of W. Mark Felt with this template. I know I wouldn't want it on Exploding whale or Windows 2000!!! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:16, 4 July 2005 (UTC)

Chill, dude. I don't think such a trifle calls for words like "abuse" or that many exclamation marks. Rl 08:28, 4 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey :-) long day, what can I say. However, abuse of templates is quite a common phrase, used by many long term Wikipedians. I do believe I saw Jiang use it ages ago. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:30, 4 July 2005 (UTC)

Won't be speedying it. On thinking it through, it's definitely not in the speedy criteria. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:46, 5 July 2005 (UTC)

I've created a section of WP:LA currently titled "Semi-active" (between "Active" and "Inactive") and have moved administrators with approximately 10 edits per month or less from the "Active" section to this new section (not quite finished with this, but I will be soon). There has been some discussion of this at Wikipedia talk:List of administrators. The point of this notice is to let everyone know, and to suggest that if you change your editing habits (in either direction) you might want to move your entry on this page from one section to another (I'm hoping someone will automate this, I actually may myself). If you have comments about this, please add them to WP:LA's talk page. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2005 (UTC)

I have a script at User talk:Dbenbenn/List of administrators by edit count that could easily be modified to identify "semi-active" admins. I'll be happy to update the list of semi-active admins at WP:LA on August 3. dbenbenn | talk 15:48, 5 July 2005 (UTC)

Copied my comment from the Jack Johnson (musician) talk page:

Just a query - is it really ethical to discuss bootlegs of Johnson's music, and to have separate articles on them too? Is there a law, or Wikipedia guideline, against promoting illegal goods? Harro5 12:03, 5 July 2005 (UTC)

Is it proper to have stuff about bootlegged albums on a musician's article? Is it OK to have articles on these (see J.O.A.T. and T.R.I.P.1 in this case)? Thanks. Harro5 12:06, 5 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it crosses the line only if we talk about how to obtain these bootlegs, or if we actively encourage people to get/copy/trade them. Describing their existence as fact is perfectly legitimate. --khaosworks 14:07, 5 July 2005 (UTC)

• I'd agree with that. Several bootlegs are collectors items, which would make them notable. We have articles on a number of illegal activities (Burglary, Arson, you name it). Of course, setting up your own bootleg marketplace in your userspace would be crossing the line, but I doubt you were suggesting that :) Radiant_>|< 21:36, 5 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the clarification guys. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't waltzing through some back-alley operation in that article :). As for the idea of setting up a bootlegging shop, we've still got eBay haven't we? Harro5 05:30, 6 July 2005 (UTC)

Could an admin please add the following comment to the first line of the protected template {{PD}}?

<!-- comment to force linebreak -->

This is needed because the text box bleeds into another text box. Please compare the first line of the PD template with the first line of {{GFDL}}. Thanks. --Deathphoenix 21:38, 5 July 2005 (UTC)

• Done. Hedley 21:41, 5 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks. It didn't seem to fix the problem, though (see this for a page with the bleeding problem). I've looked further into it, and I found out that I had to add "margin: 0 auto". Could you (or someone else) replace the PD template with the code in my userspace (here)? In case you're wondering what I changed, take a look here. Thanks again. --Deathphoenix 13:51, 6 July 2005 (UTC)

The category link in Template:Split has gotten mistakenly set to the wrong category, and the template is protected to stop an fomratting edit war. Could an admin fix the category (it should be [[Category:Articles to be split]]). Thanks! JesseW 08:31, 6 July 2005 (UTC)

I've fixed the category for you. Thryduulf 11:24, 6 July 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:New features

After a suggestion on wikien-l, Tim Starling has changed the behaviour of blocks: a blocked user can still edit their user pages. If the user starts filling the page with technically-challenging content, there's always the option to protect the page as well. Keep in mind when blocking - David Gerard 7 July 2005 22:10 (UTC)

Of course, protecting a talk page is not a thing we'd usually want to do... But look at this and this. What can I do, other than protecting the talk page itself? I think there should be a way to either turn off this feature selectively, or block the page selectively. I fail to see a case where the change isn't a turn for worse. --cesarb 10:55, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Not only that, but

• It seems to ignore the IP autoblocker, even if it was triggered by a different account
• It doesn't seem to trigger the IP autoblocker

What a brain-damaged misfeature. --cesarb 11:04, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to defend it, I'll leave that to the people who promoted it on wikien-l and elsewhere. I'll disable it if that's the solution favoured by the community. -- Tim Starling 11:59, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

I just don't understand the reason for the change, even after reading the mailing list thread. If a blocked user needs an outlet to complain about the block, they should email an admin, use the mailing list, or IRC even. With this feature, we also have to beware of removals of {{sockpuppet}}. -- Netoholic @ 15:44, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

• I thought the feature only allows editing of the talk page which would not permit the removal of such notices. --Phil | Talk 12:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I just thought of another problem. I (or someone else) will have to unprotect the user's talk page, by hand, when the block period finishes. --cesarb 15:56, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Only if the users abuse their talkpage. Most probably wont. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:01, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it depends on the user in question: vandals may well continue their vandalism on their talk page; revert warrriors will just complain on it. It does seem that this feature needs to be thought out a bit more, though it does have potential to be useful in some cases. --rbrwr^± 21:36, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Can blocked users create new user pages, like User:BadUser/page1, User:BadUser/page2, ..., User:BadUser/page∞? If so, I could see that also being problematic. JYolkowski // talk 20:27, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

No. -- Tim Starling 20:39, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Leaving edit access to the user talk page encourages the blocked user to communicate openly. Many of the complaints that we see on IRC and wikien-l suggest that the user feels that they being victimised by a clique. In my opinion this feeling is likely to be mitigated by open communication. —Theo (Talk) 21:31, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea and well worth a trial. It makes much more sense any dialogue between a blocked user and admins on the user's talk page, where it is recorded and visible to all, rather than on the mailing list. And I don't think manually unprotecting protected talk pages at the end of a block will be a problem–frankly, if someone carries on in a fashion which requires their talk page to be protected, make the block permanent, I say. Also, for purely selfish reasons, I have no interest in 99% of the aggrieved trolls who complain about their blocks, and would rather see their whining on a talk page that I'm never going to read than flooding my mailbox. —Stormie 00:06, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it's worth a try. As Wikipedia continues to grow, this will help to stop WikiEN-l from turning into IDemandYouUnbanMeNow-l. - Mark 09:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

OH GOD YES PLEASE - David Gerard (another wikien-l admin) 11:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I like the idea myself, in terms of keeping a communication channel open. Particularly as we're having to block a lot of querulous rubbish from the blocked to keep the list readable. Concur with Stormie. If the feature is having problems, it would best be tweaked rather than switched off - David Gerard 11:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, my main objection to this misfeature is: it causes a talk page (and not any common talk page, a user talk page) to be protected, which makes harder for other people to add to it (while before only the blocked user was prevented to adding to it). Do you have any idea on how to prevent that situation? --cesarb 14:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

How about letting them edit a subpage, instead of their actual user talk page? Say, Special:Mytalk/Unblock me please. -- Tim Starling 16:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a good feature myself -- one particular advantage is that the wiki page history preserves evidence of behaviour, good or bad. I just see one problem with it as far as an "open means of communication": there's no guarantee that anyone will see the user's edits!

I often watch the page of someone I'm warning with {{test}} etc, but not always, and it's not required; and a new user is not likely to be on anyone else's watchlist. You might end up with people repeatedly editing their page (with or without "LOOK AT ME" edit summaries) just to bump it up on Recent Changes to try to get some attention. Perhaps if the user's talk page were automatically added to the blocking admin's watchlist? Or some other kind of public log for other admins to follow up on? We know most of the responses are going to be useless, tiresome and vicious ranting, but if we're going to allow them to complain at all they shouldn't be sent off to an empty room to do so. — Catherine\^talk 20:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Perhaps we could have a special page that shows changes to talk pages of currently blocked users. Bovlb 14:43:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd rather the page stay at their normal talk page rather than an "Unblock me please" page. The Unblock me please page will be harder to find, less likely to be watched, and implies that requesting an unblock is the only communication a blocked user is allowed, when there might be other messages they want to put on that page which don't say "Unblock me please". Angela. 20:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Presumably if Tim's other feature, the block-from-specific-page, comes online, this would allow the user to be blocked from even the talk page for a short time (say ½ hour) whilst they calm down. Obviously if this fails to bring them to their senses they can be sanctioned more permanently. --Phil | Talk 12:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

This misfeature catchs another administrator off-guard. With this I can already count at least three instances where this has confused people, and zero instances where it helped (that I have seen). --cesarb 18:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

You're the only one complaining, and only about "Dr. Weasel". Since he's just fooling around here, I have no problem with locking his account AND user talk page.

Let's do a tally somewhere, to keep track of how many contributors support/oppose this new feature. Uncle Ed 16:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Please weigh in at blocked users' talk page. Uncle Ed 16:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not keen on this feature, though I appreciate Ed had the right idea in asking for it, because it helps people to communicate and it keeps it off the mailing list. The downside is that we now have talk pages turning into obsessive diatribes against the blocking admin, or against the editors involved in the dispute that led to the block, not a good thing to be on the receiving end of. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• In my opinion, this is a helpful feature that may help to resolve problems. Twice I was blocked by Admins who violated Wiki procedures and who did so based on edit content. If this feature were in existance, I would not feel helpless when abused by Admins. In addition, any complaints I made on my User page may permit the Admin to rethink their actions. As it was, I waited 24 hours (once longer because it was a strange 55 hour block) and then informed people about the Admin abuse. If this feature were in effect, then the Admin would have the opportunity to change their position, or at least know the User's complaints, when the unblock goes into effect. --Noitall 17:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Wow, someone who was blocked is actually talking about the feature rather than re-protesting their block. I think this proves that Tim's feauture opens up communication! Uncle Ed 17:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The GNAA article has been added to VfD again, not because I want it deleted but because I want to see if voted on properly so we can lay the whole VfD thing to rest. There are some conditions: no votes are to counted for editors with less than 100 edits (add them to discounted votes please), no personal attacks will be allowed (delete on sight!) and the vote must not be closed before the end of 7 days. As I am the administering admin, I will do the closing. I'm not doing this for any personal power, I am merely doing it so that I know everything is all above board.

I'm sorry that this article has cropped up again, however I see no way around the controversy by any way other than resubmitting it and conducting it in a transparent manner with well-defined rules to all participants. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:21, 8 July 2005 (UTC)

I recommend making it a minimum of 100 edits as of the start of the vote. This will discourage sockpuppets from making tons of edits over the next week in order to become eligible. Carbonite | Talk 03:53, 8 July 2005 (UTC)

No, if they make legitimate edits in that time frame, then I believe their vote should be counted. It would mean that they are a legitimate part of Wikipedia and are doing their part to make our project a success. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:19, 8 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I have to disagree. If we count edits made after the start of the VfD, we'll be in the position of having to decide what "legitimate" edits are. It's not hard for sockpuppets to make 100 edits in 7 days by making minor changes. Limiting the vote to users with 100 edits as of the start will greatly help with the sockpupper issue and will affect very few legitimiate editors. Carbonite | Talk 04:25, 8 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, have given this some thought and I'll accept this. So long as it's above board, I don't mind. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:39, 8 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, sorry to keep flipping between decisions here, but how are we going to know this? Kate's tool only gives current votes. I think that it should be counted from when they submitted their vote, and check straight away. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:41, 8 July 2005 (UTC)

Go to user contributions, set it to display in groups of 100, then click the new "Earliest" button. It will display the first 100 edits someone has made (assumming they have that many), and you only have to read off the date of the top one on the list to know on which day they made their 100th edit. Dragons flight 06:30, 8 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to keep it the way it is. It's still fair, and if we change the criteria much more it may invalidate some votes or cause people to yell "unfair!". I want to avoid this at all costs. On this note, this weekend I am not going to be able to monitor this vote due to lack of a computer. Any admin will do, however, as I have laid out the basic groundwork. I will be back on Monday to continue monitoring what is going on. Dragons flight, you are an impartial and fair admin. Are you able to keep an eye on this vote? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:12, 8 July 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the compliment, but I am not an admin. Dragons flight 07:29, 8 July 2005 (UTC)

This WILL affect legitimate editors, merely leaving the page where it is would be 'laying the whole vfd thing to rest', the vfd process has been followed 5 times previously, this seems alot like double standards for articles you find offensive. Adamn 08:46, 8 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

Kate was kind enough to create MediaWiki:Searchsize. I am unable to edit that page. I would like to change '$1KB ($2 words)' to '$1 kB ($2 words)'.

It would then

• match the Wikipedia guidance to put a space before the unit symbol
• match the case sensitive SI prefix by using 'k' rather than 'K'.

Would anyone be able to make the change for me? Bobblewik  (talk) 8 July 2005 18:51 (UTC)

I did. r3m0t ^talk 21:40, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Bobblewik  (talk) 10:07, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Article apears to be locked. However no lock msg or template present. I don't know, requires some attention though? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 12:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Do administrators have the power of "deleting" a user account? User:Newbies is not an active account (as stated in the talk page), and its creator, User:Fvw, seems to have left Wikipedia (last edit in April). The account of User:Newbies is preventing anyone from viewing both Special:Contributions/Newbies and Special:Contributions/newbies, which used to show contributions of newly registered users. This is quite odd, because the special contributions of newly registered people was working fine approximately a month ago, and now whenever I click on it, it takes me to the contributions of User:Newbies. Thank you for taking a look at this issue! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 16:16, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Administrators cannot delete user accounts- they can only block them. Although a developer should be able to, Wikipedia:Account deletion says that "It is not possible for your edits to be removed entirely." It is also against policy to do so. I'd say it's much easier to just fix the bug than delete the account. Is there anything to stop somebody from creating the account again? -Frazzydee|✍ 16:40, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for the info! I really don't mind the account being there, but the Special contributions for newbies used to be a great tool for leaving welcome messages to new users. Is there any way I can still access that? Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 16:56, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

P.S. What if the user page of User:Newbies and the anon IP page that he edited was deleted? Those are his only edits (2 to his user page, one to an anon IP page). Would admins be able to remove the account, or would the link to Special:Contributions/newbies return to the "right" one?

I deleted both, and no dice. It does not seem the "cascade through" to do a real listing of newbies' contributions. We may have to report this bug to developers. Fuzheado | Talk 21:59, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 01:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The English "Contact Us" seems to have a bug of sorts. For some reason, apparently random snippets seem to pop up in the Improving articles portion of the page. I've tried to remove the "static" and rewrite the section a little, but it has reverted to buggy version.

Could someone have a look at this?

It looks to me like you've fixed it just fine - thanks for doing that! If you were seeing the old bad version showing up even after your edits, perhaps it was an issue with your browser cache or something? But it certainly looks good now. —Stormie 03:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

This discussion has been purged into the page history (see diff). As it clearly says at the top of this page, this page is not for content disputes. If someone wants to recover the dispute from the page history and move it to the appropriate discussion page, it is allowable to provde a link to the discussion here. Rossami (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

There is a proposal (by SimonP) to move templates such as "AID" and "Expansion" to talk pages instead of articles. This is discussed at Template talk:Expansion. SimonP is currently unilaterally moving the templates on random articles. ~~~~ 12:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Template locations. --cesarb 15:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Recently (very recently, I think) the status of the 3RR warning seems to have changed. It used to be that one would expect a warning to be given if the offender was a new and inexperienced editor, or if other circumstances suggested that a warning was necessary. Now it seems to be being treated as a condition for applying a block whatever the situation — however experienced the editor. If this is something that people are happy with, then that's fine, but shouldn't it be made clear that the policy has changed in this regard?

• Pro: it would probably cut down on requests to this page.
• Con: it would vastly increase the number of 3RR warnings on user pages. After all, one normally assumes that an experienced editor will stop after three reverts (I've recently been savaged by an editor for daring to place a 3RR warning on his Talk page).

There are doubtless many other pros and cons; perhaps other editors would care to add them above? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we should need to warn editors.

1. it is only a short time.
2. we might offend users who have reverted three times, and have no intention of doing so four times.

I got blocked half a year ago, without warning, and sure learnt about the rule (which I did not know about). I have no hard feelings for not being warned.--Wiglaf 19:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I have the oppostie view. I do think warnings, at least for a first offense, are a good idea. It is simply a matter of basic courtesy to give people some warning before they are blocked. A warning is often as effective as a block in stopping a revert war, especially for experienced users. - SimonP 19:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that for the most part a warning is a good idea. Sometimes in the heat of an edit war people forget themselves and act stupidly. A firm warning "hey you just broke the 3RR, don't do it again" is better IMO than a block. Of course some people are habitual edit warriors. In that case block 'em straight away. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 19:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that demanding a warning for a first offence has been pretty standard practice for a while, and there are other circumstances, as Theresa Knott says, in which an admin would draw back from applying a block when no warning was given. My question, though, concerns the blanket demand for a warning, whatever the circumstances, however experienced the User, however many times they've offended before. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree that persistent edit warriors, especially those who have ignored warnings in the past, should be blocked as quickly as possible. - SimonP 19:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Well in that case no. We don't need a warning everytime. Admins should just use their best judgement about issuing a warning first. If there is any doubt, discussing with other admins first is the best way to come to a good decision. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 19:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Quite—if we insist on a warning every time the 3RR is violated, then we've essentially converted it into the Four Revert Rule: you get a fourth revert for free (or possibly more) until you're warned. If an editor has been engaging in regular revert warring–particularly if it involves gaming the system in other ways–a block is quite appropriate.

On the other hand, if it's a new user or other individual unfamiliar with our policies and behaviour standards, often a warning is sufficient to make them 'fly straight'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:30, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

indeed. imho, new users should be made aware of the 3RR after their third revert (i.e. before they break the 3RR). Failing that, they should still get a warning before they are blocked, but that only goes for people who may be unaware of the rule. Repeat offenders need not be warned. dab (ᛏ) 20:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

In a recent situation, I noticed a new user (who didn't know of the rule) had hit the 3RR, and gave him three more reverts: every time he did one revert, I slapped the next template of the {{3RR}} series on his talk page, and if he hit the last one, I would block him. He stopped after {{3RR2}}, and started using the article talk page instead. As a result, the article in question was improved. (It was Ashida Kim (talk · contribs) on Ashida Kim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).) --cesarb 00:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Hiya, I'd be grateful if admins could take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for rollback and offer some feedback. The proposal is basically a toned-down version of RfA, granting just the rollback feature to people who request it and receive 5 support votes. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

When an article has been deleted, the admin can look at the full history showing all edits, deletions and restores by following the "undelete" button. When an article has been deleted and re-created, I can still click on the "view or restore X deleted edits" link and see the same thing. When an article has been deleted and restored, however, the pagehistory only shows the edits. The deletions and restores (and accompanying edit summaries) are not visible. Is there a way to see the same deletion log when the article has been deleted and restored? Rossami (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Special:Log/delete. --cesarb 17:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

A user using the IP 24.203.49.123 keeps adding sections calling for genocide in the "Arab" article [1]. He has done this twice so far. I'm wondering if this guy can be blocked because the stuff he's saying is far beyond NPOV and is basically a genocidal death threat.Heraclius 21:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• So far, the anon has made exactly two edits, both to the same section of that article and both immediately reverted. The two edits were made 4 days apart. You and Func both left comments on the Talk page - one for each time. The IP address traces back to a Quebec-based ISP. (I can't tell yet whether this IP is assigned statically or dynamically.) Blocking of anonymous IPs is usually time-limited and intended only to break a cycle of rapid vandalism. It doesn't look like that would be effective in this case. The block would expire before the vandal returns. I don't think there is nearly a strong enough pattern to justify a perma-block yet. I think you've done the right thing by keeping the article on your watchlist and warning the user on the anon talk page. Rossami (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

In answer to my own question it would appear not. See image:Zscout370_ribbar.png] and JacksonBrown's contribution list. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 14:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Edits to the image description page show on Special:Contributions; edits to the image itself (uploads and reverts) show on the upload log. --cesarb 16:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

More surprisingly, if someone uploads another image on top of yours, it won't show up in your watch list unless they also modify the image description page. I've also noticed that now you can fill out a reasonably complete description in the Summary box of the upload page, you are quite likely to avoid making an edit that would put the image description page on your watchlist (at least on Commons, I haven't uploaded to En for a while). There is a good chance that many new images aren't being watched by anyone. - Solipsist 17:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

This is bad, A vandal could probably do quite a bit of damage by only changing images. We need to be alert and check the logs as well as the user contributions of anyone we catch in the act. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure who usually does this or what the criteria are for what gets put on the archive and what gets thrown out, but both this page and AN/I could use some snipping of outdated threads. Radiant_>|< 21:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I would ask TBSDY. I have a hunch he knows how to do it. --cesarb 23:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I've done it a couple of time I just cut and paste the lot.Geni 01:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I used to do all the archiving, but I recently hit the wall and found myself unable to force myself to do it any more. It was using up so much time I didn't have time to work on articles, and I really wanted to be able to do that. I've just posted a request on the Talk: page for someone else to take over. Noel (talk) 02:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I have been trying to handle a request for immidate removal posted by a certain Tex Rexin. I have contacted him and have removed another section of the shoe size article per his request. He has stated that he is "considering legal action" and that is is angry over this. I replied that Wikipedia does not welcome posting of copyrighted material. I suggested that he contact Jimbo Wales. He also wants to know who posted the material.

I fear I have gotten a tad out of my depth. Any assistance is welcome. Gwk 19:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I can see nothing but the posting on Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation and the reply, and the removal itself, and it looks fine. The only edits by the anon were to that page and the article itself. Was the discussion via email? --cesarb 19:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes it was. I can send it to you, if you like. Gwk 19:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I think then it would be better take the issue to the mailing lists or even to the board. I think it has gone beyone normal administrator responsabilities. --cesarb 19:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

edit conflict - adding the comment anyway
Other than the assertion placed in the article and the complaint left on Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation, both by an anonymous editor, what evidence do you have that this is, in fact, a copyright violation? Looking at the version added to the article on 6 May 2005 and the external site named by the anon, I see quite a few differences in content, format, layout, etc. Many of those changes are quite minor but some seem significant. This was clearly not a simple cut-and-paste addition of copyrighted material into Wikipedia.

The information itself is a compilation of material in the public domain. I find the anon's assertion that "The chart and other materials is the result of extensive and difficult research" to be of low credibility. I can look in any number of publicly available places for shoe sizes and how they match up to alternative measures. A google search for 'shoe size conversion' returned many hits, almost all relevant and very few derivative of his website. From our copyright article, "Compilations of facts or data may also be copyrighted, but such a copyright is thin; it only applies to the particular selection and arrangement of the facts, not to the particular facts themselves."

I'm not a copyright lawyer but it doesn't look like this guy has a very strong claim. I'd recommend reversing the edit and tell him to contact Wikipedia's designated agent. If Jimbo or his team find that a real copyvio was committed, they can pull it and also clean up the article history. Rossami (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

This discussion has been purged into the page history (see diff). As it clearly says at the top of this page, this page is not for content disputes. If someone wants to recover the dispute from the page history and move it to the appropriate discussion page, it is allowable to provde a link to the discussion here. Rossami (talk) 04:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

As an aside, If you click on the link to this section in the edit history then it gives a dodgy URL. Anyone else noticed this? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

This whole crapfest has been reproduced at Talk:HKT, where it is almost equally inappropriate, and where it was immediately used as a platform for trollishly attempting to start another poopchute "conversation". Tomer ^TALK 06:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me? I did what Rossami suggested. Please refine your Wikipedia:Wikiquette. TheUnforgiven 06:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

( this section is refered at bugzilla:02831 – 21:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC) )

Category:Geography has been locked for over two months due to petty vandalism back then. However, I think it's time it is unlocked because no other main category pages are locked (they don't need to be) and us geography people need to do some work on the page and update it with the new services for geographers and writers. We have been planning to revamp this entry page somewhat and make it more interesting on the discussion page but not admin has come by to unlock it. We hope somebody here can help us! --komencanto 02:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Done. It was protected since May 11, so I think the vandalism has ceased. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 02:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The GNAA have found a new way of causing disruption in Wikipedia. Any pages that look like this must be editted to remove the HTML that is causing display problems and permanently locked. Please do not forget to add the {{vprotected}} tag to the page, add a note to the talk page and list the page on WP:PROT. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying there is nothing that can be done about this kind of vandalism? That makes no sense to me...couldn't they then vandalize every user page, and indeed every article, and we'd be helpless? Surely there must be a way it can be removed. Everyking 06:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

It is very difficult to remove. Rollback cannot be done because the text is positioned over the rollback button. The text will just be put straight back again, and I'll have to spend more time reverting senseless vandalism. Not to mention that it violates WP:POINT. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Uh, is it just me or does this sound incredibly dangerous? Vandalism that you can't get rid of? What's stopping these guys from trashing the entire encyclopedia? Everyking 08:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

It's a bit of an exaggeration - you have to modify the URL you get to to view the history, then you can do a manual revert, or you can view the history and get the user contributions for the user/ip who added the text, then do rollback that way. Talrias (t | e | c) 10:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Or you could modify the URL to edit directly by amending &action=edit on the end of the URL. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 13:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Uh, just hit alt-E. --SPUI (talk) 10:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

So why do the affected pages have to be protected indefinitely? Everyking 10:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Maybe tbsdy didn't realise that it was possible to do it this way. Talrias (t | e | c) 10:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

This is correct, I did not know this. However, it is not the reason I believe the page should be locked indefinitely. These are clearly the pages of trolls, if we do not block them indefinitely they at least should not be able to add that HTML code to their user page. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

<scouse accent>calm down calm down! </scouse accent> (apologies to non british, who wont get that) What harm does it do? It's not as if they vandalised articles. I've modified the css so that it doesn't break the page. I haven't unprotected it , but I recommend that we do. Otherwise getting user pages protected will become a new troll game. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 12:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

If consensus is to unlock, I will not oppose. However, if they keep on doing it... then I'm not sure if I have the time to revert back these edits... it's all a bit of a pain really. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Uh-oh! It sounds like somebody has been assigning duties to themselves! That's a step on the road to Wikistress, my friends. Ta bu, if you don't have the time, then just don't do it. Somebody else will. Problem solved. Wiki is simple. JRM · Talk 19:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Or you can use the Opera web browser, which makes it very, very, very, very easy to turn off the offending CSS style: you just click the button that switches from "author mode" to "user mode", turning things back into regular, unformatted text. --Carnildo 20:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I have a better solution to the problem. As I understand it, mediawiki blocks all but a (small) whitelisted set of html tags. Why not just have a dev remove the offending tag(s) from the whitelist? →Raul654 *** 19:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Because this particular vandalism uses cascading style sheets to effect the style changes. There's no way to check for "appropriate" use of stylesheets, barring some very complex analysis. Conceivably some contorted scheme could be implemented to sanction only "proper" style (e.g. style only allowed on protected templates, or something silly like that) but I doubt the devs want to go to the trouble just for some vandalism.
There may be some merit to seeing whether the UI templates can't be made more robust, though. Ideally no user-supplied style should be allowed to override anything outside the page boundaries. Maybe someone into CSS wizardry can try their hand. JRM · Talk 19:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Just to let you know, there is some CSS wizardry going on - you can't use the url attribute to use images, for example. Using it means the style="" attribute is completely ignored. I think these annoying templates rely on absolute positioning; that could be disabled. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I looked at the diff url listed at the top of this discussion with w3m without any trouble. The changes mostly consitsed of adding text in a font container with inline style sheets containing font-size:1000px position: absolute; It seems to me that it should be easy to prohibit font size changes beyond, say, 30pt, and prohibit absolute positioning completely. These kinds of things IMHO should never be allowed in any wiki page. Absolute positioning should only be in an actual css file, not inline. --ssd 15:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Hello all. Can some admins please look into this? I claim that a number of Wikipedia users (some admins, some not) work in concert toward forcing their POV into certain articles. This cooperation includes banning of users who stands up to their abuse. I am not saying this just because I am one of their (probably many) victims, I say this because based on examining their history I see a pattern. I will not bother you with too many links, I believe whoever bothers to look into this can simply start with the following and investigate it further as necessary: User:Jayjg, User:HKT. And the history logs of these articles for example: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.

Who has been banned? You? And by whom? Everyking 06:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• The author of the above, User:194.57.138.99, has no edits other than here. On the block log, I see no recent improper blocks by Jayjg. I'm not sure what the anon above is getting at. Radiant_>|< *** 07:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Mansour

and ...... Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Jayjg

Large claims require large evidence to back them up. You've made claims, but choose to ignore the part about providing the evidence. After reviewing the above two links, it looks like Hadal was a little slow in blocking Jayjg, but did so anyway. It also looks like Jayjg did not stoop to the level of personal attacks that Mansour did, so there wasn't quite the need. So if you would like to provide evidence, that will be acted upon. If you don't want to, don't bother complaining. Also notice that the place for gathering and presenting the evidence is the link you were given on the 3RR page: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Use_of_administrator_privileges - Taxman ^Talk 19:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'd like to know whether I should remove the comments I've sprinkled through the article. I haven't done it to be a megalomaniac (an increasingly common accusation of my good self it seems these days), but only to warn GNAA/etc members not to modify the article to make it more likely it will be listed on VfD. I think we should keep the comments, but will defer to other admins if there is a consensus to remove them. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Almost single-handedly Raj2004 (talk · contribs) (sometimes working without logging in) has created an amazing number of articles concerning this minor offshoot of Hinduism. His Wikiskills (and English) aren't too hot, so much of what he does needs considerable cleaning up (page moves, disambiguations, merges & redirects, copy-editing, etc.). He seems to be speeding up, if anything, and though a couple of other editors have started pitching in, the project could do with more (especially admins, for some aspects). Among other tasks: he's created a poorly-named category (Category:Ayyavazhi Related Topics; I've asked about this at the category pages, but received no response yet); he creates duplicate articles under slight variants of names; he adds his Ayyavazhi-related text to the top of articles sharing their names (I've just corrected Nathan, for example; see also Sivan), including disambiguation pages (I've just corrected Mayon). I don't want to discourage him from contributing, I just need help cleaning up after him (and if he got a word or two of advice from a variety of editors, that might help too). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

oh dear... now if we could convince him to keep working on a few articles, trying to get them to FA level, rather than stub-spamming all over the namespace. My experience is that with every ten minutes he spends on WP, about half an hour of cleanup work and reference checking is required. But that's how WP evolves, I suppose. dab (ᛏ) 08:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I need help on the talk page of List of warez groups. There are a whole bunch of opinionated idiots running around there , and vandalizing my talk page. The actual page is protected. We need a lot of people to come and help out. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 01:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Personally I don't see the encyclopediac value of that article, and I see it as an essentially POV listing. There's no sources, for one thing. Perhaps you could remove any warez group which has not been mentioned in a news article as a source? Then you would kill two metaphorical birds with one stone. Talrias (t | e | c) 01:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The way I see it we have two options...:

1. Delete the article
2. Start over from scratch with only notable groups (what you said)

either way, I'm just about to snap. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 01:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I listed it on VFD. :) Talrias (t | e | c) 01:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I saw that, thanks. I voted delete. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 01:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I voted delete as well. I got your back, man. :) --Woohookitty 02:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I voted a conditional keep, and noted something that Ilyanep might find interesting... - Ta bu shi da yu 03:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I hope they like prison food. --Deathphoenix 12:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

;). A news article does not necessarily tell us where a certain warez group is, but it is an interesting comment. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Flacus would like his bot account reactivated. I don't know if he has enough understanding of English to run an interwiki bot. The last time he ran it, it caused problems by changing interwiki links that it should have not been touching at all. Furthermore, it caused problems by removing interwiki links. I have clearly pointed out to him that he must have community support from well-established users posted at Wikipedia talk:Bots before his bot account can be reactivated. (See 1.) But again, he does not seem to understand English well enough to comprehend that. Furthermore, he or someone else attempted to falsify that his bot account was wrongly blocked by creating another user account of User:FIaBot (with an i [as in Igloo]) and running the same program under that user account. He soliciated the help of Administrator Mindspillage who believed his story about a vandal impersonating his bot account and that the bot account was accidently blocked. See User_talk:Mindspillage#Re:FlaBot as well as AN archives. Personally, I no longer wish to deal with this user who either:

1. Is not listening to what I'm trying to say
2. Misunderstanding what I am saying due to a language barrier
3. Just really wants his bot account on the English Wikipedia no matter what

There is a proposal that accepted some small approval by users that no person, with minor exceptions (proven trusted users such as Andre Engels or Angela), should run a bot account between the English Wikipedia and some other language Wikipedia without having a good understanding of English and the other language. There was approval, but not any opposition against it. One thing is that if an interwiki language bot is run, it is presumed that the user is the one responsible for making certain the bot is running correctly. Something that Flacus has not proven in the past, and something I'm not entirely wanting to trust now due to the tactic he seemed to have pulled off with User:FIaBot leaving me with a vote of no confidence in this user. However, I have expressed that someone else may put their trust in this user and let this user run his bot. Should anyone wish to vouch for this user, please do so at Wikipedia talk:Bots, and/or my user talk page. Thank you for your time.

--AllyUnion (talk) 06:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

In order to try and speed up and clean up the Requests for page protection page I've added an "old requests" section to it. I've detialed this on the talk page but a summary of what is now required is below:

• When actioning or rejecting a request, comment that the article is protected/unprotect or why you don't think it should be.
• Move the request to the old section at the bottom of the page so that only new requests and requests needing more information should be in the current section.
• If a request is in the old section and has had no new comments in the past three days then any editor can remove it from the page. Any administrator can remove a request earlier than that at their discretion.

If this doesn't work we can try a different method or revert back to what we had.

Separate from that I've removed a large number of requests that had been actioned or had (apparently) lain dormant for nearly a month in some cases. Thryduulf 15:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

If anyone is interested in assisting with a copyedit, it is in draft form on User:Ta bu shi da yu/GNAA. I figure that admins would be interested because several of us were involved on this, and after 6 votes we need to start getting involved. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

• It strikes me as ironic that after all the VFDs, GNAA now has three additional pages in Wikipedia... :) Radiant_>|< 08:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • LOL! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Maybe we should put the VFDs up for VFD then? ~~~~ 21:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Ha! I say we move this to BJAODN :-) Ta bu shi da yu 23:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Definitely. Radiant_>|< 09:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

As I mentioned above I was about to do, I have called it a day on doing the maintainence/archiving on this and the subboards (/I and /3RR). It's been a pleasure doing it, but I just got tired of keeping up with it, and I really wanted to be able devote more of my energy to working on articles (there are a ton of areas I want to seriously improve); doing the archiving really cut into the amount of work I could put into content. I'm really looking forward to working on articles! (I've installed big bookcases near my computers so the needed reference works will be close at hand! :-)

Anyway, y'all should discuss here, on the Talk: page, how the archiving going to get done now. Noel (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Following the request at WP:RFPP to protect Wikipedia beacuse it is a high profile target for vandals (I haven't protected and given a lengthy explanation why not), I had an idea to create a list of very high profile pages or pages that get a lot of vandalism, but which we don't really want protected as default. The aim would be to encourage as many people as possible to put the pages on their watchlist so vandalism is spotted early. The articles that immediately come to my mind are:

• Wikipedia
• Hello

It doesn't really matter if we get more than 10 pages, but I do think the list should be kept pretty tight. Do others think this is a good idea? What other pages would you put on this list? Thryduulf 00:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

A list like that could be usefull. Though I don't think Hello belongs there, it's not a high profile page, and doesn't get that much vandalism either from what I can see. A few high profile pages that do get vandalised a lot are: George W. Bush, Wikipedia:Community Portal, Adolf Hitler. And, of course, the article being Todays Featured Article will always be vandalised a lot that day. Shanes 01:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd add Penis and Vagina to the list. Now that I'm thinking, there's a Wikipedia:Most vandalized pages list. Joyous (talk) 01:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

For some reason that perplexes me, Antarctic krill has been subjected to a great deal of vandalism lately. Kelly Martin 03:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

It was the featured article of the day yesterday. Evil Monkey∴Hello 04:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[2]. It appears that our ineffectuality in dealing with disruptive users has cost us another good editor. Radiant_>|< 13:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I bet you could sort it all out, if only we'd let you. Everyking 13:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• What the flip is that supposed to mean? In case you didn't read up on what's happening, I'm arguing for a better RFC or RFM process (in place of the five systems we have now). Radiant_>|< 14:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Someone needs to go through the WP:AN/3 page and clear out all the old reports. I would do it but I'm off to bed now (2¼ hours later than I planned) as I can't keep my eyes open any longer. Thryduulf 01:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

As the Netoholic (talk · contribs)'s attempted mentorship with Grunt, Kim and Raul has now ended, the suspended ban on all pages in the wikipedia and template namespaces is now in force. This ban will run for twelve months from 4 May 2005. Netoholic is also now restricted to one revert per day per page. These restrictions can be enforced by any admin with blocks at their discretion. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic 2 -- sannse (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

There was a question at the Village Pump about whether or not anonymous users could blank their talk pages or erase criticism and vandalism warnings.

I've proposed a short addition to Wikipedia:Talk page specifying that non-vandalism additions to anonymous IP talk pages should remain for at least a minimum period of time (say, seven days). This would help to keep the channels of communication open, and also help admins with keeping track of warnings issued to possible vandals. The proposal is at Wikipedia:Talk page/Anonymous talk pages proposal. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

How about just "protecting" their user page? Then they can't blank it. And only admins would be commenting anyway, if they're "that bad". Uncle Ed 21:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I often see instances where non-admins leave "please don't vandalize" messages on talk pages. Joyous (talk) 21:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

This was one of the problems when they decided to let blocked anon users to edit their talk page. I think that it would be simple to just revert blankings. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 21:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

It's very helpful if non-admins leave "test" warnings, so let's try to keep those talk pages open. Maybe just use short protections to bring the point home to vandals who remove the warnings. Bishonen | talk 21:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Blanking their talk pages serves no purpose. If it's a vandal and if I see the link is blue I routinely check the history to see if warnings have been given. The fact that the user blanked those warnings confirms that they have actually read them. So I block 'em. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I refuse to edit this article any further, and not because of the GNAA. See the talk page, and I think it will be made manifestly clear why I am not editing it. I would suggest that admins keep an eye on this, because there has been a slow revert war brewing. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and you all might want to check out this. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I will watchlist the page. That's one of those vfd votes that I wish had been for delete. Articles like that cause nothing but trouble. --Woohookitty 08:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the two Star Wars pages, Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi and Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back can be unprotected now as the dispute has been resolved, see the corresponding talk pagesfor evidence. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 07:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Sanity appears to have prevailed, well done Sasquatch for pointing them in the right direction. I've unprotected the articles. Thryduulf 07:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Just glad to help =). Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 20:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I've noticed that page moves to correct capitalization problems in the name do not work. For ex, I need to move Theory of Decreasing responsibility to Theory of Decreasing Responsibility, but the page move says they are the same and can't be moved. I know I can work around it by moving to an intermediate page, but didn't want to make a mess. I didn't know if this was a bug or intended, so I thought I would ask here. Thanks - Taxman ^Talk 15:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Works for me. :) Talrias (t | e | c) 15:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Well :P. I got an error saying can't be moved over itself. I've gotten it before. Any ideas? - Taxman ^Talk 15:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

No ideas, but I know other people have had this problem before. I did a move for someone who couldn't fix capitalisation for the same reason as you (see User_talk:Talrias#Akwid_move). At this time he was an admin and I was not leading me to suspect that there might a bug preventing admins from doing capitalisation page moves, but I'm an admin now, which means that theory is invalid. I would suggest a bug report. Talrias (t | e | c) 15:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I have heard somewhere that some people confuse the new "reason" field with the "new title" field. Perhaps that is the cause? --cesarb 16:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes, that must have been it. The software fills in the current name and leaves a blank for the reason. I wasn't looking close enough, sorry. If you don't change the move to, it will give the error. - Taxman ^Talk 16:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)