This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Prodego (talk | contribs) at 16:09, 10 August 2007 (→Webpage which is a cut and paste from Wikipeda: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Purge the cache to refresh this page

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Current issues

Cleaning out the cobwebs

I've recently noticed that some users thought RFC was a formal and bureaucratic process, to the point where these people created a new process (ironically almost exactly identical to RFC) that was supposedly less formal. Since content RFCs were never intended as formal, I've taken a flame thrower to the warnings and caveats and other instruction creepy stuff on that page accumulated over the years, and making it simple again. Please copyed. >Radiant< 15:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Until(1 == 2) 18:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

*applause* rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversial AfD closure - a heads-up

A particularly controversial AfD, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid, is coming up for closure shortly. It's one of the most contentious AfDs I've seen in a long time, with over 100 !votes so far (currently with a slight majority for deletion). Given that members of WikiProject China, WikiProject Judaism, WikiProject Israel and WikiProject Palestine are heavily involved in the dispute, it's probably best for an admin with no involvement in those WikiProjects or subject areas to close the AfD, so that any claims of bias on the part of the closer can be avoided. The closer will need to have a fair amount of tact and diplomacy (which rules me right out :) as well as a strong grasp of policy, particularly regarding the nature of notability and original research, and ideally a willingness to think through the issues as elegantly as A Man In Black did in his closure of Daniel Brandt. Any volunteers? -- ChrisO 18:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look - no promises as whether to complexly merge anything! But, my word, I'd need to think about the closure, probably a day or so. Then again, maybe not. Moreschi 18:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

What a mess. Good luck to whomever takes this one on. MastCell 19:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

^demon closed it as delete. Expect an equally messy DRV. —Kurykh 19:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No doubt. I'm reminded of Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2 (ugh). -- ChrisO 19:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably... though I have to say, I was reviewing it too and I would have probably done the same thing, including offering the content for Hukou to be resurrected for use. There was some good info there, it was just supporting original synthesis and a neologism.--Isotope23 19:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

So much for WP:AGF, eh Chris? Tomer 20:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I AGF. The discussion in the AfD shows that quite a few people don't, at least in this case. We don't need yet more controversy and drama in this affair; that's why I suggested that someone wholly uninvolved in anything to do with the wikiprojects or subject matter should close the AfD. Believe me, I've been there with another article and I'd hate to see another admin facing the barrage of crap that I did. -- ChrisO 20:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You're suggestiong that no editor from WikiProject China, WikiProject Judaism, WikiProject Israel and WikiProject Palestine should not be allowed to close an AFD that involves those WikiProjects. That doesn't strike me as assuming good faith. You and I have very different ideas of AGF. FeloniousMonk 22:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

What I got from the post was that in having the closing admin be not from one of those projects, any disagree-ers wouldn't be able to use the argument "The closing admin was biased". I thought this was just an attempt to get somebody to close the discussion that would have the least likelihood of being called biased. Nobody suggested no allowing members of those projects from closing the discussion. Sancho 22:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. They could have closed it, but they would have got a load of abuse from one side or the other if they had. It's better all round to avoid that. -- ChrisO 22:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No, actually, ChrisO, as a member of none of those projects, is setting himself up as a neutral party to close the relevant AfD as he sees fit, and is seeking approval here for his doing so...meanwhile directly impugning the reliability of any admins who contribute to those projects. The vacuous support in favor of this maniacal scheme is astonishing, to say the least. ChrisO is setting himself up as the pretended arbiter of neutrality, and people here, in what I can only believe is mind-boggling ignorance and gullibility, are proceeding to give him carte blanche to do so. If anything, this sort of lunacy should call into question the competence of those who go along with this moronic idea, and simultaneously call for ChrisO to be prohibited from having anything to do with the closure of this or any related discussion. Tomer 06:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a fair request designed both to mitigate complications at the inevitable DRV and (perceived or real) COI. I fail to see the problem with the request. --ElKevbo 23:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a fair call. Until(1 == 2) 20:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, not really, knowing the history there. FeloniousMonk 22:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. It seems this mess isn't over yet - I've just come across Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba, an AfD on a sister article which involves many of the same editors and all of the same set of arguments. It likewise needs closing. Again, I suggest an uninvolved closer for this one to avoid any claims of bias. -- ChrisO 01:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Closed that one. f anyone wants to discuss the close, feel free. Viridae 02:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I find it reasonable. The rename fixes most of my concerns, at any rate. >Radiant< 09:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if you mean Viridae's recommendation to rename the article, or the act of renaming which I performed earlier - the article is now at Tourist segregation in Cuba. Which did you mean? And do you have any thoughts on the new title? -- ChrisO 18:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Aaaaaaaand here comes the DRV - Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Allegations of Chinese apartheid. By the way, does anyone else find it really inappropriate that Leifern attempted to delete (!) the co-closer endorser's statement from Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid? () -- ChrisO 07:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I would recommend a warning - although co-closers arent the norm, they arent disallowed, and therefore have no reason to be removed. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 07:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The circumstances are quite amusing - from Hemlock's user talk page: "There was an edit conflict as I submitted my closure. I contacted ^demon on IRC to jokingly complain, and another administrator suggested I do an endorsement." It's actually quite fortuitous because it shows that two admins, operating independently, came to much the same decision simultaneously using the same policy arguments. -- ChrisO 07:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to pat the admins on the back for this one. While a DRV was inevitable, at least a clear, thought out, and substantial reasoning was put in the close so at least there is less to contest. David Fuchs 19:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You'd think so, but the opposing comments are getting steadily more insane - it looks like I've been fingered as "one of the ringleaders" (sic) of TEH CABAL. Apparently the rest of you are my sockpuppets, or something. It's sour grapes all round - not much good for producing anything other than a little whine. -- ChrisO 20:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO, how can you possibly believe these remarks are w/in the bounds of either WP:AGF or WP:CIV? To say nothing of WP:NPA. True, you're pontificating here to a "general audience", but in the process you're effectively besmirching anyone who happens to disagree with your rather disagreeable views and actions. If I were a British Parliamentarian, I'd probably yell "Shame, good sir, shame!", and with good reason. You are incredibly out of line. Tomer 05:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

After the 4th administrator showed up to endorse I was waiting for the cabal claims to start. I should start telling fortunes.--Isotope23 20:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

We should prolly remove the mop icons and admin cats and all mentions of adminship from our user pages. Of course, then they would still hunt us down and claim we were an even more secret cabal, so I guess that wouldn't help either... I am actually amazed I didn't realize how much crap admins got when I got nominated back in the day. David Fuchs 04:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

What ChrisO conveniently neglects to mention is that he and his "cabal" are not a group of admins against a bunch of anonymous trolls. This is a dispute between ChrisO and his opinionated and misinformed gaggle of know-it-all admins in opposition to a bunch of other admins, a number of whom happen to be Jews. This is something that becomes obvious when the relevant discussion is read in full. It is not without cause that there are numerous charges of thinly-veiled antisemitism that have been made in the various relevant discussions, not only against ChrisO, but against a significant number of other editors, including a merry gang of uncharacteristically deletionist admins. Tomer 05:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but now I'm horribly reminded of this. --Hemlock Martinis 07:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That can only be possible if you truly have no concept whatsoëver about what's going on here. Tomer 05:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Since we're discussing this business anyway, I feel I should mention that the issue in general is being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Allegations of apartheid. -- ChrisO 08:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Two days late, eh? Tomer 05:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Tomer, you need to stop accusing other editors and admins of anti-Semitism unless you have some reasonable evidence of this. I mean something beyond the fact that you disagree with them. Right now. I'm not kidding. MastCell 15:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff AfD

| The Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff AfD is being plowed by anon ips and suspected spas. I don't know if Mrs. Seelhoff (she created her own article) is trying to make one side look bad, and disrupt the discussion, or if there is a person with the intent to bring her down, but it's getting out of hand. I think someone should take a look. James Luftan 19:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That is an ugly mess. No time to deal right now. I considered semi-protecting the AFD, but wasn't sure if I should. GRBerry 22:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

There seem to be 15 comments by IP editors in the AfD right now, which compares with 60 or more edits by logged-in editors. Unless the AfD closer is half-asleep, shouldn't he be able to sort this out when he closes? EdJohnston 23:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: Poindexter's analysis may shock you. Discretion advised http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Poindexter_Propellerhead/Sandbox/Afd James Luftan 03:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Images

Remember the Claire Danes image discussion from this board a few days ago? Good news: Claire Danes has a professional photo now.

Wikipedians often hope more celebrities would release images through GDFL. I'm in a position to communicate that to the PR folks and I'd like your help. If your volunteer time focuses on images, please contact me via e-mail. Tell me the things you wish they knew. Durova 20:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

(refactored) LessHeard vanU 21:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Huh? This has nothing to do with releasing anybody's phone number. I'd just like to double check proper procedures for attribution, see what types of images are in particular demand, and common mistakes to avoid. Durova 22:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

What's with the Photo courtesy of Robin Wong Photography caption and an external link? I thought that this sort of stuff belongs on the image description page, but not in the caption of articles. Take Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome, and the image with a very similar license. Why no photo credit in the caption there? Perhaps that could be an incentive to get more photographers to donate their work (or release it under a 'free' license) by saying we'll link to them from encyclopedia articles. However, I don't think we are at that point, and was wondering if I was missing something by wanting to remove the photo credit/weblink from the Claire Danes article.-Andrew c  00:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's one question I'd like to ask: how appropriate is that caption? If consensus would prefer a different credit format then I'd like to know. The Claire Danes image issue is an example of what I'd like to explore. I'd like to explain what methods are compliant with consensus. Durova 02:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Attribution of the image is found on the image description page -- we needn't reproduce attribution everywhere the image appears. It's redundant, distracting, and smacks of advertising. I've removed it from the Claire Danes and MuchOnDemand article, and will probably poke around to see if other links like that have cropped up. -- Merope 12:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't like seeing attributions and external links in the caption either and usually remove them. I think attribution on the image page should be sufficient. The thing that concerns me most is that it has the real potential to become a problematic form of spamming articles. Sarah 11:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can upload with a CC-BY license that requires those using the image elsewhere to attribute the creator in the manner specified. For instance, the owner can request attribution by name with a link to their web page. This doesn't look like advertising in Misplaced Pages, but if somebody copies the image from Misplaced Pages to use elsewhere, the owner will get a publicity benefit, as well as a bit of search engine optimization via the additional link. Jehochman 12:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally I would prefer not to see image captions in articles cluttered with photo credits. I have no problem with the image description page having detailed information about the photographer (name, address, phone number and web site) as a form of attribution and to give the photog something in return for their donation. (I have no idea what actual policy is, but since policy comes from what we do, rather than the reverse, it should be no big deal.) Thatcher131 14:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

So what can the business community do to facilitate image use compliant with Misplaced Pages policies? Releasing more stuff via GDFL or compatible copyleft seems to be tops. Have there been other common mistakes you'd like to make them aware of so they can correct? Or particular requests that would be to their benefit as well as Misplaced Pages's? Durova 15:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

They could select a mildly lower quality image amongst the press kit to release under a copyleft license of some sort. That way, it wouldn't be abused commercially, would still be satisfactory for web use, and it will please the free content community greatly. It's not like they don't want those image to be reused anyway. Circeus 22:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Videmus Omnia has just written a fabulous essay on this topic. It's a must-read and does a particularly good job explaining how to deal with imprecise or insufficient licensing statements from copyright holders, such as "the photo is free for everyone to use" or "here's a photo for you to use on Misplaced Pages." We really need people to explicitly agree to a specific prefab license (such as the GFDL, CC-by, CC-by-sa), or to release the work into the public domain. It's also important to ensure that they understand the terms of the license, including the fact that it is irrevocable and can not be contingent on a flattering article, attribution in the caption, retention of a watermark, etc. You need to adjust your language based on who you're talking to; remember that to many people, even the word license means nothing except driver's license, and perhaps what James Bond has. ×Meegs 22:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Minor capitalization issue

Could someone with Foundation access please capitalize the word "internet" in http://wikimediafoundation.org/Board_of_Trustees? Yuser31415 00:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, you may get a faster response if you post on feedback page. Majorly (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done but please request it on the feedback page in the future! The English Misplaced Pages admin's noticeboard has nothing to do with that site! :) However, thanks so much for the heads-up! Cbrown1023 talk 03:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and apologies! (By the way, this is my new username.) -- Thomas H. Larsen 04:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

What was the reason for the request? As I noted on the feedback page, the actual change made was to lowercase some occurences, which I believe is a good change. Capitalization would not, in my view, be appropriate. ++Lar: t/c 11:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody please shut down Betacommandbot?

It keeps messing up Template:Wider attention list (look at the history) and it's really annoying me.--P4k 04:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Instead of trying to stop the bot you should have looked into the human factor, and the usage of {{watt}} and {{wider attention}} you would have seen that on the emo talkpage there was a human typo that was generating that error. β 14:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

PS the complete text of {{wider attention}} is bot created and human editors will just get reverted. β 14:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That strikes me as a WP:OWN problem. You're suggesting that your bot should be the only account allowed to edit the page, and backing that up by reverting everyone else who tries. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No its not OWN, that template is automatically generated from users use of certain templates. {{Wider attention}} & {{watt}} if you see a problem on that template its not because of the bot, its an error with the use of the template somewhere. you need to find and fix that. β 05:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No, Beta is suggesting that this is an automatically generated log page. We have several more of such pages (e.g. the PROD list, or the ArbCom election tally) and yes, all of them will be automatically overwritten whenever the bot that generates them runs, that's pretty much the whole point of such pages. >Radiant< 12:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Couple of very small interface changes

Hi. For the sake of consistency, could some admin please modify the interface of Special:Preferences to lowercase the word "If" in "Raw signature (If unchecked ...", and change Special:Watchlist/raw to lowercase the word "Watchlist" in "Update Watchlist"? Cheers, -- Thomas H. Larsen 05:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

... and the caps in "please use the Sandbox" when editing an article as an IP. Fairly minor, so I won't complain if these changes aren't made. -- Thomas H. Larsen 05:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the IP message, but for the raw signature it's the start of a sentence, even if it is in brackets. Also for the raw watchlist it says "Update Watchlist" on the button (with the capitals). I'm not sure how to change the button text, I think it needs a developer. It's not that vital anyway. Here are some links incase anyone is planning on changing anything: MediaWiki:Watchlistedit-raw-explain, MediaWiki:Tog-fancysig and MediaWiki:Anoneditwarning. Trust me, it saves time rather than sorting through Special:Allmessages. James086 08:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Member Missing

I'd like to call attention to the disappearance of User:Guy (also know as User:JzG). His page has bee deleted, (CSD G7: Author Requests Deletion) as well as his Talk Page. As you all should, know he is a valuable member of our community, and I'd be grateful offer any information that could easy my concern. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 07:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

See the current thread at WP:ANI#JzG -- Flyguy649 _contribs 07:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheers! Dfrg.msc 07:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection of Chocolate Rain

I would like to unprotect Chocolate Rain so that I can add a legitimate article there that I think meets WP:MUSIC, and I'd rather not go through the bother of another DRV. I would just ask ST47, who protected it, but he is on wikibreak right now (I should also note that I closed the last DRV for this article as keep deleted). Does anyone have an objection to this? Thanks! IronGargoyle 08:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No objections raised, so I have gone ahead and unprotected. IronGargoyle 15:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Re-deleted. With both the AfD and the DrV showing strong consensus to keep this deleted, you really should have known better. Take it to DRV if you must, but without STRONG new evidence that additional notability/verifiability has shown up since the last DRV (which was just a week or two ago), it has no chance. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I salted it too, since it's been recreated far too much. --Deskana (banana) 15:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I would like to point out that I used new and reliable sources that were not available at the time of the last DRV. To quote from CSD G4: "the copy substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes to it do not address the reasons for which it was deleted". I don't think that was the case, and I invite you to look at the deleted revisions. Best, IronGargoyle 15:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the deletion at this point, although I was one of the people arguing for it earlier. The authors and proponents of the article at first claimed youtube and google as sources and evidence of notability, both for the main article and mentions in other articles. When told these were not verifiable or reliable sources, they objected to Misplaced Pages policies and basically called us a bunch of nitwits for denying what they considered obvious. People repeatedly vandalized various pages with mentions of Chocolate Rain. In the deletion review some calmly repeated our position that rules must be followed, whereas others who were apparently fed up from dealing with the unruliness of newbies said the video and other Internet memes can never be notable no matter how much coverage they get. I and others prevailed on the editors to go away and come back when they could find newspaper articles about the phenomenon, and they dutifully complied. The new article, though not perfect, does have multiple verifiable sources. As such, I feel like a hypocrite for having told them they can write Misplaced Pages articles if they will only do things the right way. It is untenable, and breaks NPOV, to say a topic is non-notable per se due to its subject matter, even if it has multiple reliable sources and fits all the other criteria. Notability and sourcing are there to enforce process and quality, not to shield us from articles on subjects we don't like. I have no idea why some feel so strongly that the video needs coverage but they do. There is a lot of interest in this. We're setting a bad example, and perhaps proving right the accusation that we're biased, if we categorically refuse to listen. Like it or not, it is a major Internet phenomenon and articles are rapidly beginning to appear. I haven't read these in depth -- that's the job of people who actually want to write the thing -- but I see substantial-looking mentions in Gaming Today, Daily Telegraph, Minnesota Daily, Undercover Music News, Ashland City Times, The Sun, MTV.com, Business Standard, and the New Zealand Herald. That is more sourcing that most music articles have. Most or all of these articles appeared after the deletion and subsequent review. It's only a matter of time before it gets mentioned in USA Today or CNN. Whatever threshold you may have for sourcing the article will likely cross it, whether today or next week or a month from now. Wikidemo 16:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It was also a topic on VH1's "Best Week Ever". Chocolate Rain isn't Tay's best work, btw. That would be Edelweiss. OMG, the young man needs some real musical training and to sing opera. He's got raw talent there. Kyaa the Catlord 16:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a casual google indicates that this article may now be sourcable. We should be less into "sticking to our guns" and more into realizing that situations change. With a topic of recently-exploding popularity, it's entirely reasonable that a few short weeks may drastically change what sources are available. This should be unsalted, etc. It's a shame that such tripe becomes popular only for being so horribly bad, but it's not really up to us to judge. Friday (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need a shrubbery if the new article meets inclusion standards. G4 is for substantially identical versions. Until(1 == 2) 16:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if someone wants it we should give a user the article to put on userspace until it can be slam-dunk verified and notable? David Fuchs 18:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That's where it was until I moved it. I thought it was pretty much a slam-dunk. Apparently it got slam-dunked into the trash bin though. I have put it into my userspace again (sans image) so that editors may, more easily, evaluate it. IronGargoyle 19:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I copy-edited the article for language and encyclopedic tone just before its latest deletion, and saved a text version of that if anyone is interested. I didn't add or remove any major points or references, just cleaning up. I thought I was doing a favor to people....I don't want this nonsense in my user space but if anyone is willing to host it, I'm happy to post it back there. Just let me know. Wikidemo 19:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

An edit of my draft? Or the one that was DRVed a couple of weeks ago? Either way, feel free to make any edits to my draft that can add to the encyclopedic tone. Sourcing has always been a stronger point of mine than tone. IronGargoyle 19:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, done. I added some section headers, took out words like "perhaps" and "however" and "admitted," and removed the attempt to show notability via the number of parodies, covers, and views -- that just seems a little forced. Once it's notable people will know it from the references. Is the matter closed for now? Come back once you have a few more sources, which will inevitably come? I don't know how much more you want this to gestate. A major publication reference? A detailed article somewhere? A Congressional Medal of Freedom? However did I get sucked into this... Wikidemo 19:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not closed as far as I'm concerned. I'm seeing if this thread attracts any more attention, because right now there seem to be a good number of editors who seem to support its recreation now (I have a hard time seeing how this does not pass at least two criteria on WP:MUSIC (or WP:WEB). If somebody else doesn't take the initiative and unsalt it themselves, I will send it back to DRV. IronGargoyle 21:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

A DRV should quickly determine that G4 did not apply. Agathoclea 21:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if G4 applied or not, but a DRV would still have to be performed for inclusion (particularly one where an admin went forward and undeleted the article himself)—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't undelete. I re-wrote from scratch. The only issue was the unprotection and no one objected for 7 hours (the salting admin was on wikibreak...and I closed the DRV, so the salting order comes from my lips anyway) so I thought I was fine. IronGargoyle 21:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted

I have listed Chocolate Rain on DRV per the new draft and the addition of new and reliable sources. IronGargoyle 22:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Maroonpup27

I first noticed this page because of the use of images in userspace. After looking at it, I thought somebody else might want to review it. 24.6.65.83 08:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Riana deleted it. Acalamari 21:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Requesting a deletion

Oh mighty administrators, I hereby humbly request that you delete the page Executory interest, which formerly redirected to Executory interests. I request this because I wish to move the latter page to the former name, to give it a proper, singular title. If you have and questions, please contact me at my talk page. --Eastlaw 09:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Done ;) >Radiant< 09:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• For the record, you can tag it with {{db-move}} instead. (That way you don't have to beg.) Hut 8.5 17:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Kiev/Kjiv, User:Kyivukraine, and avoiding COI

I just blocked User:Kyivukraine for edit warring related to the naming of Kiev, and suspect him to be a sockish SPA on the issue, but after blocking him realized that this may create the appearance of a conflict of interest on my part as I once expressed an opinion on the name of Kiev. It isn't my intention to ever use my admin bit as a club to push my own POV, this was normal disruption and I think the block should stand, but I'd like to make a note here in case anyone feels differently. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Chocolate rain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Chocolate rain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) points to a nonexistent article, which was deleted and protected. I'd put a {{db-r1}} tag on Chocolate rain, but the page is protected, so I'm asking here at WP:AN instead.

I suppose I could ask for adminship so I could do things like this myself, but self-noms are supposedly a prima facie indication of power hunger, and RFA is a circus anyway. --Elkman 18:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Aw come on... you know you want the constant abuse for making decisions that someone, somewhere will find to be wrong... Come and join the dark side my padawan and together we will rule the galaxy!... or not.

I deleted the dead end redirect. I didn't salt it as I'm not overly familiar with the main issues pertaining to Chocolate Rain, though if someone else feels it necessary they can do so.--Isotope23 18:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

See the discussion "unprotection of choc. rain" a couple of headers above this. David Fuchs 18:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as Chocolate Rain is deleted, so should Chocolate rain.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review outcome: Restored by User:Friday per overwhelming consensus. — Edokter • Talk • 20:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Block review

I have username blocked User:维基百科不欢迎中国人!百度百科万岁!. This is not because it contains non-Latin characters, but because it translates from Chinese as "Misplaced Pages does not welcome the Chinese people! Baidu encyclopedia hell!" I feel this is both too long and unnecessarily combatitve for a username. Thoughts? Leebo /C 13:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's disruptive, in violation of point 3 of WP:UN. The block is appropriate. --Eyrian 15:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not "Baidu encyclopedia hell", but "Long live Baidu encyclopedia". I endorse the block. Kusma (talk) 06:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

So... does that mean the characters for "hell" and "long live" are similar? Pinball22 14:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Confused and sometimes upset

Alright, maybe this isn't the proper forum for this, but I find myself frequently thwarted by the three revert rule while trying to maintain the encyclopedia. Oftentimes, users will insert material that is in clear violation of policy (particularly original research), and keep forcing it back even after I comment it out or delete it with an explanation. I find this very discouraging, and it seems to me that it really gives the upper hand to the people who insist that such things are present. Now, I am well aware of the fact that I should not consider my judgments about policy to be perfect. I am generally happy to allow other editors to take care of such things, but sometimes they're not around. Should I let inappropriate material slide by just because the person putting it in is persistent? Should I run to some other high-traffic forum and try and get someone else to do it? I really don't think that I should protect the page. I am... dismayed... by what I see as an unfortunate concession to people who insist on material that violates Misplaced Pages's policies. --Eyrian 15:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Or you could call for help. Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard are sort of designed to deal with this. Moreschi 15:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed - if several editors are involved in an article, usually you can rely on other editors to keep the material out as well - a non-responsive editor will always "lose the 3RR war" against two or more editors. Or try filing a request for comment to get assistance. WilyD 15:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

My concern is that RfCs are too large a process. And some articles I watch aren't overseen by very many editors, certainly not very frequently. And I don't want inappropriate material to remain longer than it must. I will however, look into WP:RSN and WP:FTN. Thanks. --Eyrian 15:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Depending on the article in question, it can be helpful to involve a relevant WikiProject to get additional experienced eyes on the topic. Of course, that also depends on how solid the WikiProject is. But I will agree that I'm occasionally frustrated at how easy it is for a dedicated single-purpose account with an axe to grind to singlehandedly stall an article. MastCell 15:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

More CU's

I know this was asked about a month or two ago, but WP:RFCU is getting backlogged badly. Personally, we could use one or two more, but I would like to get a little more community consensus here before formally asking arbcom to invite some new ones. Kwsn 16:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

A few users asked arbcom for checkuser status, independant of each other. I was one of them. We've not heard back yet. You could e-mail their mailing list, but I'm not sure what you'd say. can't imagine "Hurry up!" would work :-) --Deskana (banana) 16:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, we'll have to wait and see. I know arbcom has a pretty large case load at the moment, but who knows right now. Thing is, on the RFCU page, for "You want access to the checkuser tool yourself" it says "You may contact the Arbitration Committee, but due to legal and privacy concerns be advised that such access is granted by invitation only." That may be part of the problem, no offense Deskana. Kwsn 16:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, and asked and spoke to an arbcom member about it, and they didn't say no, but they've not said yes either. So we'll just wait and see. --Deskana (banana) 16:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That statement may be misleading. We consider requests, but anyone who watches RFAR knows full well how swiftly things get decided. Mackensen (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed that. Although VoA hasn't been around lately, and he usually handles a lot of them along with Dmc, who also has been inactive. But hey, least the logs are sort of getting cleaned up now. Kwsn 20:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Misplaced Pages:Counter-Vandalism Unit

Note: Zscout370 went ahead and revived the page with the historical tag placed on it.

Recently Moreschi had decided to deleted the Misplaced Pages:Counter-Vandalism Unit because he felt the page was a bit defunct and encouraged a "para-military" stance toward handling vandalism. I sort of agree with Moreschi sentiment but honestly feel that this is a project that many Wikipedians may be concerned about if deleted with no discussion what-so-ever. Rather than wheel-war and restore the page, I feel that a little discussion on this board with other admins would help ultimately decide whether to keep this project page or not. According to the previously deleted talk page the deletion results of this Wikiproject were as follows:

This page was previously nominated for deletion:

• Speedy keep, 23 June 2006
• Speedily deleted, 29 August 2006
• Deletion overturned, 2 September 2006.
• Keep, 10 September 2006

¤~Persian Poet Gal 21:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I would have liked to have seen an MfD for this first, it's not covered by any speedy deletion criteria and many users would not want the page deleted. I'm all for being bold with things, perhaps this was just a little too bold. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think anyone will much care. Do you? It seemed pretty dead, as of late. People can speedily restore the CVU if they want - I don't mind - but I would prefer that they didn't unless they felt it really has a place on enwiki. IMO it had outlived its purpose. The place seemed nigh-on dead, anyway, so I don't think we're missing out on much. (AFAIK it also used to be Essjay's personal fiefdom, and it's always attracted controversy). Personally, I never saw it do anything useful, and WP:RCP seems to cover everything your budding vandalwhacker needs to know. Moreschi 21:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I would most probably comment to delete on an MfD, but many others will probably disagree with me. I would just like to see a bit of discussion here before we delete a wikiproject that many users claim to be members of. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree. The page is still linked to by a large number of pages in both Misplaced Pages: and user: namespaces. Circeus 22:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Then remove the links. Majorly (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, people, it's not that hard! If you really, really want the CVU back, just restore it! But if you don't, then we don't need it. So, I didn't tick every box I'm supposed to. Big deal. If you want it back, fine. If not, process for the sake of process is evil. Moreschi 22:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

To me, that sounds like...so I didn't follow process...who cares! Process is there for a reason. It's not generally accepted to delete pages just because you personally don't find them useful or that you find that it has outlived their purpose. That's not your call. It's the community's call. Attitudes like this is what leads to wheel warring and the idea in ordinary user's heads that admins are unchecked power hungry users. --Woohookitty 05:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This was a bad call- we have WP:MFD for a reason. Mainly to cut down on the amount of drama caused by the deletions out of process. In the end they cause more drama and process than that which they seek to avoid. And the attack on a departed editor is completely unnecessary. WjBscribe 22:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Come on, you have my express permission to wheel war! No need for DRV! No need for teh drama! If you want it back, restore it - though I notice that no one here has expressed a deep love for the CVU yet. Moreschi 22:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I find it odd that no-one has actually objected to the summary destruction of the CVU, but rather that it was deleted without an MfD. Frankly, if no-one actually cared about the continuing existence of the CVU, than an MfD would simply have turned into a fight between all the sane sensible people who saw an organisation who outlived its usefulness, and all those who invariably vote "Keep - is harmless". Such MfDs always cause bad blood, and if one could be avoided without bitter recriminations from the organisation's members, then that is great. Moreschi did the right thing. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The MfD for Esperanza was an unlimited fiasco all the way around. As far as the CVU is concerned, anyone can fight vandalism at any time. Belonging to the CVU (and advertising it) was just people's way of attracting attention to themselves. --Elkman 22:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, exactly. If someone wants it back, just restore it. I'm not fussed! But does anyone? Really? What relevance did the CVU have? It was virtually dead. Other pages have the relevant information. Does the CVU really belong here, in the modern enwiki? Does everyone love it that much? Moreschi 22:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

How about restoring it, and tagging it as historical then? --Deskana (banana) 22:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That's brilliant Deskana, I see no problems with that.¤~Persian Poet Gal 22:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

An excellent choice and likely to create less drama than a 5 day MfD and any subsequent deletion reviews. Nick 22:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That would work well, if there's any issues with it being tagged, then we can move to MfD. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we've had enough problem with organisations being tagged historical and then warred over for months that we should realise deletion is always the better option. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I realise this isn't what you mean at all Dev920, but I see a problem with this. Deleting it hides it from admins. Sure, it may reduce the drama, but it may also seem like administrators trying to supress things in such a way that non-admins can't do anything about it, which could cause drama on its own. --Deskana (banana) 22:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The only drama currently being raised here is by admins claiming that non-admins will be annoyed (I am certainly not). I have yet to see anyone, admin or non-admin, who has objected to the end of the CVU. Maybe we should wait until someone is actually annoyed and there is a problem before we start trying to propose solutions? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's only been deleted a few hours. There are now objections now, but there may well be later. --Deskana (banana) 22:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly, yes, it is a problem when Misplaced Pages appears to be run by a process of individual fiat, "I decide, deal with it" followed up by cat-calls to sink to the same level. The only thing missing is "It's okay, I discussed it on IRC!" (which, by the way, he did). To quote Moreschi himself from his co-nomination at the Esperanza MfD, "True or not, the fact that such a perception could exist is perturbing." It also seems odd that you're complaining about an edit war you helped to create, ahem. If you're waiting for someone to be annoyed, count me. That said, I support Deskana's proposal and Zscout370's implementation of it. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not fair: discussion of the CVU on IRC happened only after I pressed the delete button. My decisions are mine and mine only. Moreschi 08:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Why would it seem odd? I hated every minute of that dispute with Ed, as did everyone who had the displeasure of dealing with him, and its precisely because of that experience, and precisely because people such as yourself have deemed me an edit warrior because I refused to let someone extremely persistent disrupt the consensus of everyone else that I emphatically do not want anyone else to suffer the same. That fight happened because Esperanza was marked historical, against my advice, and if we're going into pre-emptive solutions, ouright deletion solved a heck of a lot of foreseeable problems. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a fair point. My obvious reply is probably the usual "takes two to edit war, go to dispute resolution blah blah" speech that tends to get thrown at people, but that assumes I understand everything about the past situation (I don't), and somewhat misses the point you're making. Hopefully we can avoid having that happen again, if we know what to look for. Apologies for the offense. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Accepted. Though I should point that we did go to dispute resolution, and consult the community several times, who came down on my side every time. Even the mediator admitted Ed was being disruptive. But water under the bridge and all that - he's no longer editing under that name, the page is stable, and there's so many interesting things to do... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I support the deletion, but I don't particularly support the method. About all the redirects- could they be pointed at Misplaced Pages:Recent changes patrol?-Wafulz 22:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Do we redirect all the CVU subpages back to the main page? —Kurykh 22:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No. I restored the page, marked it as historical, and since the last 50 or so edits were vandalism and reverts, I locked the page to admin only edit and move. I also put a note saying if people still wish to help with vandalism issues, they should read the RC Patrol page. User:Zscout370 22:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest a proper MfD be conducted, as other have said above. It removes all controversy. David Fuchs 22:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually an MfD might cause more controversy, with the same ultimate result. —Kurykh 22:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If anyone objects to the historical tagging, by all means, we'll MfD. An MfD is not a requirement in any way to tag something historical, you just do it, and if someone objects, you discuss it (at MfD or elsewhere). AMA actually went out with a whisper after going inactive and being tagged historical since no one really cared enough to fight it, I think the case may well be the same here. That's what the historical tag is for. (I do think at least for the moment the page should be unprotected, however, so that if someone does object they can actually remove the tag. Protection might give the mistaken impression that the matter is already done and decided.) Seraphimblade 23:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The CVU has outlived it's usefulness and is basically unused. Delete or tag as historical, both describe the current situation, MFD for MFD sake is a waste of everyone's time. Why ratchet up process where none is needed? RxS 23:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Several past MFD's has shown lack of consensus to kill this project, but that doesn't mean that moer MFD fun is needed. I've changed the {{historical}} to {{inactive}} as is the way projects usually start to go away, and will seek input from other project members; if noone is using it anymore then {{historical}} should be atainable without more MFDs. I've started a section at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F to discuss this with the project, rather then trying to hash it out on AN. — xaosflux 23:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've restored to the July 23 version. Now before anyone starts steaming at the ears, please hear me out. In a column I wrote for Search Engine Land that got published this past Tuesday I recommended that project as a point of contact for editors who had a conflict of interest to request help with vandalism and watchlisting at pages they had qualms about editing directly. "Why would anyone hesitate to remove vandalism?" you might ask? Well, have a look at this news report from last month and this scandal retrospective.

It's relatively simple for us Wikipedians to watchlist that project and respond to requests as they appear, but it's bad form to delete the project and then mark it historical two days after that piece runs (and to do so with hardly any discussion at all). By and large that business community regards Wikipedians as a bunch of fickle kids. And today - to anyone who followed that link - that's exactly what we look like. Since we want these people to respect WP:COI let's show some consistency about how to comply with our guidelines. Durova 00:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that the name "Counter Vandalism Unit" may seem a bit... harsh, military, etc. And I'd support redirect to RC Patrol page. However, I feel there needs to be a place that new editors delving into the vandalism front are able to go for assistance or advice. I would certainly hate to see the entire "group" of people who have devoted their time and pledged to help clean up Misplaced Pages be "disbanded", but I do understand the concerns about the name, and questions about the usefulness. Whatever is decided, I hope something fills the gap. My biggest concern is the "vigilante" actions that seem to be taking place, with brand new users less than a day old, romping around placing level 3 and 4 warnings on pages for first offenses, without any regard to the offense type, and with no research into the user they are warning. Much of the time it is simply a new user's basic mistake, lack of knowledge, or simple experimentation. In some cases, it is established, valuable editors, and they certainly don't appreciate that kind of treatment. Certainly they are edits not worth of a "Stop now or you're getting blocked" message. That bothers me greatly, and without a community for people who want to learn how to handle vandalism properly to go to, I fear that may become more and more commonplace, and I wonder just how many potentially valuable editors have been (or will be) lost because of it. 03:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd have no objection to a rename/redirect. In the longer term it may be a good idea to put together a COI wikiproject - someplace where people who have COI can come for assistance when they want to participate in accordance with site standards. I've been brainstorming ideas with a few editors toward that end. Durova 04:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The name isn't the problem (I know it is supposed to be a play on the CTU unit that is on the American show "24.") While I have no feelings either way if the project lives or dies (I was invited to join the CVU when it first began, but passed) and I still don't see it as Essjay's little playground. If many of the users who are doing this now are gone or going to be on a break, and just duplicating the efforts of the RCP, then I think the groups should be combined. (About the new users who are doing the vandalism warnings too early, we can't do much to stop them. Even if we are not here doing this, they will still do it to play the Misplaced Pages MMO and grind their way to adminship.) User:Zscout370 06:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

So, everyone's comfortable with a redirect to Misplaced Pages:Recent changes patrol? --bainer (talk) 05:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

A soft redirect, maybe. -- Ned Scott 05:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Moreschi just redirected the article, which I've undone. He cited consensus here (I see none, and there's certainly no consensus for such a redirect at the place where this discussion should be taking place: Misplaced Pages talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit#Inactive?) Waggers 08:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In one of the links above the vandalism wasn't recent at all. It sat on the page for four months until the congressman's staffers went to the press in desperation. CVU makes sense as a separate entity for situations where RC misses stuff on the first pass. Remember John Siegenthaler, Sr.... Durova 08:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Durova, the CVU is a virtually inactive project. Nothing happens there! You'd have been better off pointing the people who read your article to ANI, or even WP:ASSIST. Moreschi 08:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that the CVU actually does (or did) what you think it is good for? Kusma (talk) 08:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you have a better place to send people then by all means add a soft redirect to the better location. The basic question is, if some company sells widgets and RC misses some sneaky vandalism, where can that firm's PR folks go to lodge a legitimate, "We don't want to step in and muddy the waters, but would some people please cleanup and watchlist this?" And I guess I should add, it can't hurt to wait a week or two before implementing a change to see whether things pick up over there. Durova 08:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, I came across something vaguely similar a while back. Some troll from a sports forum was adding very nasty stuff about the moderators to the article on the forum. On that occasion, the moderators turned up, very politely, at this place, asking for help - which of course I gave. Strikes me ASSIST could deal with similar scenarios? Moreschi 09:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

OTRS. User:Zscout370 08:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, MfD'd. Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit (2nd nomination). Moreschi 09:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Zscout, OTRS was the first resource I described. OTRS, however, doesn't watchlist articles to guard against future vandalism or issue userblocks on long term sneaky vandals. The two examples I highlighted were both U.S. congressional representatives, both incidents made statewide news, and neither article was getting watchlist attention. The one from South Dakota not only flew under our radar, the same IP vandal still causing trouble a year later and hadn't been blocked until I checked it out while researching the piece. Sure, there's a BLP noticeboard, but that only covers biographies. I respectfully request that you withdraw the MFD, Moreschi. Put this on the block in a month if things don't pick up - I've no objection to that - but it makes Misplaced Pages administration look foolish to create so much turmoil over this venue at this particular time. Durova 14:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

CVU versus RCP iconography, compared

• Stop! No Independent thinking allowed. The Ruling Class knows best. You will be assimilated!
• ♪Cleaning up the chess board♪ ♪Cleaning up the chess board♪ ♪Cleaning up the chess board♪ Hi!

El_C 06:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if this matters for the debate above or not, but I am sure we can change the iconography if needed. The CVU logo was changed a few times to excise Foundation-held trademarks and symbols. User:Zscout370 08:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well obviously Wikipe-tan is mopping up with with the usual CVU combo of mustard gas and BZ (aka me-get-busy), the mop handle as anyone 'in' the unit will tell you, disassembles and converts into an AK-47, the extra clip is in the pinney, but how exactly that encourages a para-military stance toward handling vandalism, I really don't know :p--Alf 10:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Durova's latest article about Misplaced Pages

Durova's recent article The Right Way To Fix Inaccurate Misplaced Pages Articles got 762 Diggs. It's wildly popular. Many, many people read this. - Jehochman 05:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a better place for this then the admin's noticeboard? I really don't think this needs admin attention/intervention or help of any kind. Secondly you should link to the actual article, not to dig. In any case, please find a better place for this. Congrats to durova for getting your theory published ;). —— Eagle101 06:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh its mentioned above by durova, I'm going to move this up there so it makes sense I suppose. Revert if you wish. —— Eagle101 06:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I moved this up here so this is with the actual section it belongs to. —— Eagle101 06:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this exactly needs administrator attention. I've posted here because this article demonstrates a way that we can help improve Misplaced Pages. Many of us are playing whack-a-mole with spammers and COI-impaired editors. Durova has found a way to fight spam and COI through public awareness and education. If you're not familiar with Digg, getting 762 votes is a huge accomplishment. I appreciate all that you do with automated spam detection systems, but that's only part of the solution. Social engineering to prevent spam at the source is also a valuable strategy. Our administrators need to be aware of this. That's why I've posted here. - Jehochman 06:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Minor note: the article refers people to the Counter-Vandalism Unit, which appears to be defunct (it was just deleted and restored as "historical"). MastCell 16:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops, never mind. It's being discussed above and at WP:MfD, and Durova has commented about the link from her article there. MastCell 16:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Eagle 101/FU

I just started listing all fair use images found outside of mainspace (see the non-free criteria). Basically they all need removed from the pages. As quite a few of them seem to re-occur since last time I ran the bot, I'm not going to automatically remove them, but allow interested people to work on it. Feel free to remove items of this list when the issues have been addressed. The list goes up to the letter D, and the rest is being generated as I speak. —— Eagle101 23:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Some of these images are in the Portal: namespace. What's the policy on fair use in Portal: space? Is that considered article namespace? WP:FUC doesn't say. — Edokter • Talk • 10:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If fair use images aren't allowed on the Main Page, I don't see any reason why it'll be allowed on portal... --DarkFalls 10:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images aren't allowed anywhere than the article namespace. Period. If WP:NFCC doesn't clarify on the Portal namespace, we should fix it to reflect this understanding. — Moe ε 14:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about WP:CEM

I have started a discussion at the talk page of this dispute resolution tool's talk page located Wikipedia_talk:Community_enforceable_mediation#Experimental_phase. Regards, Navou 00:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

A small favor requested.

Can someone please take the "protected from recreation" notice off Mega Society, and have it redirect to High IQ society? At least some information on the subject might be useful to new readers, if not the thing itself (I haven't looked it over to see if notability could be established, and I don't want to get into that either), compared to an ugly "prevent recreation" page. I'd be fine with leaving protection on the redirect, I just think it's weird to not have that page point people to anything useful. --Lucid 09:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. --DarkFalls 09:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedians by political ideology categorues.

I found a bunch of Wikipedian by politics categories and nominated all of them for deletion. I cannot see any use of the categories other than canvassing all editorial discussions. Please discuss the proposal at its CFD. Alex Bakharev 13:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I've moved the discussion here. DrKiernan 14:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Childhoodsend

Can someone keep an eye on user:Childhoodsend? His edits to global warming and related articles have been uniformly negative. Other good contributors have to constantly take the time to respond to his false comments (I started making a list here). He edits wars on the topic, and generally is a negative influence on the articles. Raul654 13:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that William M. Connelly, one of our best editors on the subject, agrees fully with my assessment that CE is basically a huge time waster for the people who do productive editing on that topic. Raul654 14:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Raymond Arritt, another one of our best global-warming editors, posted his take on Childhoodsend's role: If people would ignore CE's provocations he'd likely go away and find his fun elsewhere. Unfortunately there is a steady stream of people who haven't twigged his MO, and keep reacting to him. He's a strong net negative but clever enough to stay just within the rules. Raul654 14:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think a community ban for CE from global-warming related topics is in order. What does everyone think? Raul654 14:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Consider bringing that suggestion to Community Sanctions Noticeboard with supporting differential edits however, dispute resolution might be a preferred route in this case. Best regards, Navou 14:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

So much for Noam Chomsky... "If you're in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech" (1992)

I dont want to get involved in such a witch-hunt, but I would like to point out that my "negative" contributions have nonetheless led to reclassify at least 2 statements listed in Scientific opinion on climate change as well as to insert/re-insert valid opinions in Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, among other things.

Oviously, I have not always been right, and some discussions I have raised or fueld have shown me to be wrong in the end. But then, who is always right?

I wish such a request by a WP administrator could not only be turned down, but declared improper to Misplaced Pages and its spirit of community and reconciliation of diverging viewpoints.

In any event and for whatever happens following this, my regards to all. --Childhood's End 14:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a forum for unregulated free speech. Until(1 == 2) 14:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and I fully agree, but to deny this was not the point nor the essence of my previous edit. --Childhood's End 15:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, your previous edit is not contradicted by my previous statement. Until(1 == 2) 15:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Raul654 and personal attacks

(This thread and the thread above are not intertwined, whereas they essentially follow from the same issues)

Raul654 is a very passionate editor about global warming and has indeed started to call me a liar on the grounds that I am on the opposite side of his views or that I object to using op-eds in partisan publications as to support what he calls "reality" (see the very link that he provides above, for instance ().

You will find no evidence of any serious edit war in which I have been involved (except for Raul's latest personal attack which I will discuss below), and that Raul's view of the negativity of my edits is usually constructed upon his strongly held opinions. Raul has lately labeled me as someone who "spreads lies all over these talk pages" (). I attempted to remove it twice, but he reverted. I took the initiative to address this issue on his talk page but failed to have him retract anything.

Raul654 is an administrator and just like any other editor, he at least bears the responsibility to act responsibly and not to let his emotions take over.

I know that I am bold sometimes and that I have contrarian opinions on a few subjects, notably global warming, but this kind of bullying by an administrator is, I hope, out of place on Misplaced Pages.

Can the personal attack be removed and Raul be encouraged to make at least an apology or to temper down his emotions? Sorry that I had to bring this up here. --Childhood's End 14:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Dispute seems to stem from content issues, where Childhoodsend may be a lone voice. This is not necessarily an impossible position from which to find consensus, but it is an easy way to dispute. On his talk page, I've invited Childhoodsend to find an univolved third party to help work out a resolution. I've also invited him to calm down, as it'd be shame to walk into a block for lack of civility and disruption. --Dweller 14:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, thanks again for the advice about finding an uninvolved third party. But.. where have I been uncivil?! I've been called a liar and someone who spreads lies all over the talk pages and I think I stayed calm nonetheless, but perhaps I missed something? And wasnt this attack at least uncivil? Please help as I obviously dont understand something... --Childhood's End 14:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. I have no axe to grind. Amended. --Dweller 14:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with CE here. He has made some very fair points on the GW talk pages. Raul has responded with personal attacks and an attempt to get CE banned. As an admin Raul should know better than this. Iceage77 14:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that Raul654 has made a number of personal attacks in the past, often on misguided vendettas or emotions, as Childhoodsend states above. It should also be mentioned that Raul654 is a partisan in the global warming topics (unfortunately, with little knowledge on the subject), and has been blocked in the past for edit warring over such topics. ~ UBeR 14:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I was blocked once, months ago, for going over the 3rr limit without realizing it (The only time in 4 years of editing that I have been blocked). On the other hand, Uber has been blocked plenty of times for his trolling and POV pushing on the subject. UBeR is one of the the anti-science POV pushers on the topic. Raul654 14:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? I've been one of the few editors who have argued that only scientific sources should be used for scientific claims. You link comments made by yourself because you clearly have no ground to support your baseless claim. It has always been this way. You're wrong. Period. Just retract your statements and live your life knowing you did the right thing, and that'll be the end of it. As for the blocks, most of them come from you without any chance of review. Surprising. ~ UBeR 15:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

As an admin not involved in editing these controversial articles, I looked through the edit histories and didn't see evidence of any severe personal attacks. I did see some minor civility issues on the part of Raul, but nothing that's worth an administrator intervention. If any diffs can be provided to actual personal attacks, please provide them. Otherwise this appears to be an editorial disagreement and I don't see why an admin needs to get involved.--Alabamaboy 15:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The thread at Childhoodsend's talk page indicates to me that this pair of threads can be closed. Indeed, doing so is the best way of ending disruption, as further disruption is likely to be limited to these two threads. --Dweller 15:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive 3RR violations by Bason1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his socks

Check out recent edits by Bason1. He's basically edit-warring against multiple editors. I've filed an AN3 report here.--Endroit 14:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

He's also been filing bogus AN3 reports & there's also a CheckUser ongoing. He's also immediately removing warning messages from his (two known, serially used) accounts and has some strange POV thing going on regarding Korea and Japan and the order in which names associated with them appear - Alison ☺ 14:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just blocked Bason1 (talk · contribs) for 3RR violations on Islands of Korea, as well as a number of other articles - Alison ☺ 14:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Webpage which is a cut and paste from Wikipeda

The following webpage has apparently cut and pasted information from every article on American military ranks on Misplaced Pages. I have found sections cut directly from the articles on General, Colonel, Major, Captain, Airman, Airman First Class, First Lieutenant, and General of the Air Force. The danger is that people might think its the other way around and that Misplaced Pages editors have been taking stuff from this website. We already had a case where an administrator deleted General of the Air Force because it was a "copyright violation" against this webppage. Not true at all and its the other way around...this website has taken our material and posted it as its own. Some kind of notice should be put up so we don't have mass deletion of pages that editors have worked hard to create. Thank you! -OberRanks 14:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Send them an email explaining the GFDL and what they have to do. WP:COPY#Reusers' rights and obligations has a simple explanation of what needs to be done. I've restored General of the Air Force, based on the page history I agree with you. Prodego 16:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards