Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia: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 opening a close appeal, 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) Start a new discussion

Current issues

Controversial AfD closure - a heads-up

A particularly controversial AfD, Wikipedia: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 ^Talk 18:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

What a mess. Good luck to whomever takes this one on. MastCell ^Talk 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 Wikipedia: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 ^talk 19:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

So much for WP:AGF, eh Chris? Tomer^talk 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^talk 06:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? The AfD was closed four days ago - three days before you posted this - by two uninvolved admins. Don't tell me you posted this nonsense without even bothering to click on the link to the AfD? -- ChrisO 17:59, 10 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 Wikipedia: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^Talk 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 - Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid? ([1]) -- 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 ^(talk) 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^talk 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 ^talk 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 ^(talk) 04:03, 8 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^talk 05:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, um, nice to meet you too? --Hemlock Martinis 04:36, 12 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^talk 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 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Allegations of apartheid. -- ChrisO 08:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Two days late, eh? Tomer^talk 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 ^Talk 15:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've asked Tomer to retract his statement, which I regard as a nasty smear against several conscientious editors and admins. I'm not holding my breath though. In the meantime, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid has now opened. I've added some proposed findings of fact and evidence which may be of interest to editors who've contributed to this discussion. -- ChrisO 19:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 ^(talk) 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 ^Talk 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 Wikipedia: 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 ^Talk 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^Woohoo! 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 ^Talk 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 ^(Elkspeak) 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 ^Talk 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 ^(talk) 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 Wikipedia 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 ^Talk 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 Wikipedia: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 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest a proper MfD be conducted, as other have said above. It removes all controversy. David Fuchs ^(talk) 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 ^{Talk to me} 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 ^Talk 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^Charge! 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 Wikipedia 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. ^Ariel♥Gold 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^Charge! 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 Wikipedia MMO and grind their way to adminship.) User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

So, everyone's comfortable with a redirect to Wikipedia: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: Wikipedia 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^Charge! 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 ^Talk 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^Charge! 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 ^Talk 09:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

OTRS. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, MfD'd. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit (2nd nomination). Moreschi ^Talk 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 Wikipedia administration look foolish to create so much turmoil over this venue at this particular time. Durova^Charge! 14:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The users from OTRS that edit the articles watchlist them for future problems (I personally do that, but I am not sure how others will do it). Plus, OTRS users are administrators anyways, so we can lock pages and block users if needed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. If someone files OTRS about how many watchlist entries does that typically generate? Durova^Charge! 18:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

At least one, but we have other methods, such as IRC channels and mailing lists, that monitor OTRS related actions so we can observe changes made. Mailing lists are generally used for wide attention stuff. But I don't expect OTRS to do everything, plus people don't like it being all secret and stuff. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I really didn't think the MFD was needed right now, especially with Durova's mentions of the news article which names this Wikiproject specifically. After a reader finishes this article and comes to the CVU page; it looks a little controversial that the project is being run through an MFD. Not exactly the best impressions of editorials which praise Wikipedia.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:12, 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 ^{(Return Fire)} 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 ^melmac 10:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Saw a comment above that bothered me a bit: "So, everyone's comfortable with a redirect to Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol?" (empahsis mine) What everyone are you referring to? You slap a declaration on an administrators noticeboard that a project is inactive, and suddenly this becomes truth? No input from project members who might not happen to be spending all their time scrolling through noticeboards to find such decisions being made? It disturbs me that the result of a non-publicized discussion on a noticeboard may have an effect on a Wikiproject like this. As was said above, this entire discussion basically belongs on the talk page of the project (which is NOT inactive by the way: please stop saying it is!) Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 21:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:SNOW

The discussion is around 80% keep. Any other outcome looks very unlikely. Snowball close, anyone? Durova^Charge! 00:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Working on it now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Done now, I went ahead and closed it as no consensus. My reasoning is this; there are some who want the project to be gone. There are some who want the project re-named or re-focused. (I like the refocus idea myself). A lot of the keep voters mainly wanted to keep it, because they think someone is going to restart it or that vandalism never dies, neither should we. I faced a similar experience when I tried to delete the Belarusian portal, my own creation. Using all of that, I closed it so the discussion going on the talk page of the CVU now can just continue without the cloud of deletion hanging over their head. That will, IMHO, cause for saner discussion and not having to worry about the Zerg-rush (sorry) of many clamoring voices. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Durova's latest article about Wikipedia

Durova's recent article The Right Way To Fix Inaccurate Wikipedia Articles got 762 Diggs. It's wildly popular. Many, many people read this. - Jehochman ^Talk 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^{Need help?} 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^{Need help?} 06:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I moved this up here so this is with the actual section it belongs to. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 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 Wikipedia. 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 ^Talk 06:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I still disagree, there is not a darned thing I as an admin (with the buttons that is) can do. But hey, thats just my humble opinion. :) I would really suggest that this whole thing be moved to a page where non-admins are more likely to see and take action on.... Village pump or the old Community noticeboard (before it got changed into the community sanction noticeboard >.>). —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 06:09, 11 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 16:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Durova has some really fervent fans out there, judging from the comments section of those articles, and a couple of related ones. *headshake* Great articles, from what I've seen, and hopefully the spam community reads them and realizes how things can work for them around here. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

For some reason I can't fathom, when a non-Wikipedian complaining about an error or statement in Wikipedia is told that anyone can edit it, they often react with some variation on "Why should I?" As if complaining should be enough to make things happen. In a way, I've been spoiled by Wikipedia, & often find myself wishing I had the ability to fix typos and misspellings I see on many websites. It beats writing up a suggestion & hoping someone will act on it in the next few days! -- llywrch 22:50, 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^{Need help?} 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 ^talk 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)

Actually there are a few rare exceptions (and a process for exempting), see WP:FUE. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I resolved those that were on subpages of Portal:Trains by removing them from there. Please let me know if there are any others that pop up on this portal. Thanks. Slambo (Speak) 18:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Eagle 101/FU for updated information. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 06:08, 11 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 ([2]).

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" ([3]). 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 Wikipedia.

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)

Raul, you're in the wrong here. Pointing out a history of blocks by you suggests that you are not above abusing your powers to block those who disagree with you. David Fuchs ^(talk) 16:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong on all counts. 4 different admins have blocked Uber on 5 seperate occasions over a period of several months. So it's quite obviously not a personal vendetta. He's a long term problem user - a troll. He gets blocked a lot. No surprises there. See also this previous thread where he is taken to task by the community for general trolling. Raul654 17:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in that thread I asked you to show evidence to support your attacks. Not surprisingly, you had none to show. Today, you still have none. Just give up trying to ban those you dislike from Wikipedia. You've failed each time you have tried. Go on, pursue some other activity than user bashing. Thank you. ~ UBeR 18:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I did show evidence - your hit list, your harassment of WMC, the general POV pushing. You simply chose to ignore the evidence and now claim none was provided. Raul654 20:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. I replied to your accusations in a three paragraph response that could not even been addressed by yourself. You simply went on, stating that I am a POV pusher and that anyone who spoke against your meritless attacks and accusations was also a POV pusher. I presented all of my edits to global warming during that time, and asked where the POV was. Of course, there was none. Again, you're wrong. Give up and apologize and everything will be fine. Thank you. ~ UBeR 21:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Raul defines evidence as either 1- his opinions, or 2- material found in newspapers/magazines [4]. Fortunately for my carreer, I have never built my cases like this. --Childhood's End 21:59, 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)

To answer Alabamaboy's request, here are a few diffs that could count as personal attacks [5] [6], per WP:NPA#What is considered a personal attack? ("Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done"), but I will trust the judgment of the administrators involved here.

Anyway, I'd agree to close this down, but Raul chose to bring this now to the Community Sanctions Noticeboard, so I guess this will not end here... --Childhood's End 17:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems pale after being called an idiot and troll countless times by this user. ~ UBeR 19:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Not that I want to push this affair any much further, but only as a matter of closing it for good, addressing any remaining issue and/or for my own information, I'd like to know how the following statements by Raul654 were not "personal attacks" as the concept is understood under WP:NPA :

• "Here's just a sampling from the BS you have been planting all over this talk page" [7]
• "Childhoodend's actions have made it quite clear that he is not editing in good faith. He is a POV warrior through-and-through, and mediation is not going to fix that." [8]
• "it's not rant to collect your asinine comments and point out how they differ from reality - and that every word you write is a lie, including "and" and "the" " [9]
• "He is a anti-science POV pusher" and "don't take my word for it that he's a hopeless POV pusher" [10]

I am not sure how this can escape WP:NPA but perhaps someone has a clue for me. To be honest, it has not been easy to face such derogatory attacks during the last few days, but I think I can say that I kept my cool and faced the tide against a very angry administrator trying anything to bring me down. Just asking for a follow-up here. If nothing's warranted, I'll abide with. Regards. --Childhood's End 03:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Webpage which is a cut and paste from Wikipeda

The following webpage [11] has apparently cut and pasted information from every article on American military ranks on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 ^talk 16:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

See also WP:FORK#Non-compliance process. Newyorkbrad 16:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for being so observant, OberRanks. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It's been my experience that these sites just ignore such requests.Rlevse 23:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Well if they do you can enact the DMCA though the ISP. Prodego ^talk 18:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hence we need to be very careful when deleting our pages as "copyright violations". Check, check, and check again, that we copied them and not the other way around. Carcharoth 15:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Not breaking the 3RR

I try to be pretty careful about not violating the three-revert rule. A brand new editor is making typical brand-new-editor, unencyclopedic, poorly written edits in a low-traffic article that's not on many editors' watch list. The edits are not vandalism, they are just bad edits. I've already reverted them twice and attempted to explain to the editor why the edits cannot remain. I am aware of WP:DR steps, but this isn't exactly a dispute. What do I do next? I don't want the unencylopedic language to remain in the article. I'm not necessarily asking someone to revert the edits for me; I'm generally asking what the appropriate step would be in this case and similar cases.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've had this same problem. See #Confused and sometimes upset, above. --Eyrian 18:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'm going to see if WP:RSN is of any assistance, as suggested above.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Another good suggestion, if it's a lower-traffic page, is to put a note at Wikipedia:Third opinion. This can help bring in uninvolved individuals to help correct errors that may be more complex than simple vandalism. (ESkog)^(Talk) 00:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations

Due to a very productive new bot (thanks User:Coren) we need more admins and experienced editors working on Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations, pretty badly. If you can handle text copyrights, there will apparently be quite a few to handle there... just delete, tag, deal with, etc. Thanks. --W.marsh 18:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

But as always, check, check, and check again that we copied them, as opposed to them copying us. See the section just above this one. Carcharoth 15:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah -- I've been editing this page for a while, and Coren's bot is very productive. However, there are zounds of edits, and since I don't have admin buttons, there's a limit to how much I can do right now. Plus, I have work and stuff -- more help needed! --Haemo 00:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I am on wikibreak, but it is good to see SCV growing :-) -- ReyBrujo 01:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Account termination - GH

Hello there. I am requesting that my account be terminated as soon as practical, so it cannot be logged into. Enjoyed my stay here, and thanks to all good admins an nice folk at WP. GH 11:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Dont be heading away GH, why not go away for a week or so and think about it.--Vintagekits 13:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Accounts cannot be terminated, for licencing reasons. However, you can add a {{db-user}} tag to your user page, and you can change your password so that you cannot remember it, if you wish to permanently leave Wikipedia. Sandstein 14:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You can also scramble your password. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Or... you can simply just not log into it. There is absolutely no need to do anything if you make the choice to not come back. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Questions about deletion

Hello, I had asked some questions about deletion on the policy talk page, but didn't get many answers, so I would like to ask a few questions here, as they concern administrators also. In this diff, Cbrown1023 is saying the closing decision for an AfD can be based on a vote count. I thought I had seen somewhere that AfD specifically did not work by vote count, which one is true ? I am asking because of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragonfly CMS, what I don't understand is that there are no third party links in that article, it's undeniable, as far as I can see. Yet the AfD still closed as Keep even though nobody gave any indication of notability. Also people are saying that article is still being written, yet it was started over 2 years ago ?! In the case of companies or products, if they can't provide proof of notability in over 2 years and nobody in the AfD proves notability, how come it is not deleted ? I have heard of how "I DON'T LIKE," is not a reason for deleting, is "I DO LIKE", a valid reason for keeping an article ?
I know about WP:DRV and have read most of the policy pages relating to deletion. I am not asking for anything to be done, just for some answers if possible please. If you don't like me asking questions, please don't ignore me, just tell me to stop asking questions. Thanks. Jackaranga 14:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it qualifies under Speedy Delete - A7. I have marked it as such. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be marked as a speedy deletion candidate or a prod candidate unless there is a reasonable expectation that the deletion would be uncontroversial. This article went through an AFD where there was a split among keep and delete comments. That indicates that it does not meet the 'uncontroversial' criterion for speedy deletion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I think since there was so little feedback the admin should have relisted the AfD rather than a simple 'keep' for vote tallying sake. David Fuchs ^(talk) 00:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

So is vote counting one way of choosing the outcome of an AfD? If there are not enough policy related arguments I guess they have no choice but to listen to the majority. Jackaranga 10:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I would have closed the debate as delete despite the fact there wasn't a single delete vote. Ceyockey - It qualifies under speedy delete. Clearly. The fact that 3 people at AFD miss that point dosn't change anything. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Refs formatting policy

Somewhere back I started on Wikipedia in April 2006, I looked up our refs policy and somewhere read that when formatting an online citation with no author, to place the website first. Now, I must have read this before September 2006, because when I wrote Jake Gyllenhaal I was already using this format. But I've been asked twice now during FCs where this policy is and I can't find it in any of our CITE pages. Did I dream this? Has it been deprecated? Am I looking in the wrong place? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't require administrative buttons - you might take future questions like this to the Wikipedia:Help desk. You might be looking for Wikipedia:Citing sources, or Wikipedia:Footnotes, or possibly the guidelines on a specific references template such as {{Citeweb}}. Mak (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I tend to find the help desk as useful as a chocolate teapot, and my question requires a deep knowledge of policy, so I thought that admins might be better qualified to answer. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree the help desk may not be the right place, but this isn't it either. I would suggest either the talk page WT:CITE or the policy village pump. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

(Now that I've added 'useful as a chocolate teapot' to my repertory, I must be careful not to wear it out with overuse.) --Wetman 00:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

See, this is the sort of thing that gets me a little frustrated. I hate it when people get so hung up on citation templates and the order in which these things go and reflists and what have yous, to the complete detriment of any actual work on the article. This is rather wankerish (see #20). Why not just IAR and let people do what the devil they want? Moreschi ^Talk 11:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Gaimhreadhan

According to a close associate, Gaimhreadhan (talk · contribs) passed away after a long illness (see here). I have noted this on his user page and protected it, and invited an editor familiar with his work to write a brief memorial at WP:RIP. However, I seem to remember it was once policy to block the account of deceased editors. I can't see find anything mentioning that now though, is anyone familiar with the proper course of action in such sad circumstances? Rockpocket 01:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Upon the supposed death of HolyRomanEmperor, he was indef blocked, but it doesn't appear that there was any formal discussion undertaken. I'm inclined to think that, whilst there don't appear here to be many of the questions of veracity that ultimately plagued us with respect to HRE, we might do well to err on the side of not blocking; I can't imagine that there's any immediate grand danger of Gaim's account's being hijacked, and we usually don't, after all, block the accounts of users who have departed (although the reasons for that don't necessarily apply here). Once we are sure that Gaim isn't returning (perhaps we already are), there's really no harm in blocking the account, I guess, and some (perhaps exceedingly minor) benefit, but time is not of the essence, I'd say. Joe 04:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Joe is not wrong. There is absolutely no danger of Gaimhreadhan's account being hijacked. As one of the two executors of his estate (the other executor is not a Wikipedian), I think I am in an authoritative position to state that fact with absolute confidence. However, there were (and are continuing) unresolved issues of puppetry here.

I have requested that a non-anonymous, senior administrator or bureaucrat e-mail me to resolve these issues. After that issue has been resolved - (ie. I have established my bonafides, and EPA,) I will be able to state with authority that Gaimhreadhan's User page should be protected, but that (perhaps as a fitting memorial to his inclusionist philosophy and efforts at bringing the disparate communities and POV's together in a collegiate manner,) G's User Talk page be left unprotected' (but actively monitored to remove personal attacks and vandalism in line with usual Wikipeida policy.

I am sorry to be so "German" about this, but the correct time to protect Gaimhreadhan's User (as opposed to Talk page) is after the "non-anonymous, senior administrator or bureaucrat" has received the certified copy of Gaimhreadhan's death certificate from me giving the official date and time of death. That is the correct order, timing and procedure and anything less would be insulting to the happy memories I have of my friend and former colleague.

Right now, today, would also be an appropriate time for User:Tyrenius to either

1) apologise and retract her continuing snide comments or

2) put up the "smoking gun" e-mails that she claims (mendaciously/mistakenly) to have sent both me and G. Gaimhreadhan has already challenged her to do so several times (so there can be no issues of confidentiality) and I publicly repeat the same.

Personally, I have a strong preference for the latter - since that would demonstrate the flimsy basis on which she imposed another 13 day block for sockpuppetry on both G and I, but I can understand why she may be reluctant to reveal the truth.

However, if neither an apology nor the e-mail(s?) are forthcoming today then I formally request that she is de-sysopped and blocked for a period of 28 days for disrupting Wikipedia and/or WP:NOT#ADVOCATE

Lastly, it would be hypocritical if I did not also apologise for the drunken post I made on her user talk page. It does not excuse the language and I am not proud of my post, but it has been a very stressful period for me and, unlike G, I do drink from time to time. Frank.  W. Frank ✉  05:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Userpage unprotected as per your request above. Having spoken with you in person now, I understand the importance of your request here - Alison ☺ 05:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so there is obviously a larger issue here I was unaware of. Perhaps an administrator who is fully aware of the issues should liaise with Frank deal with Gaimhreadhan's pages when these issues have been resolved. Rockpocket 06:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I can do that as we're already in touch. Check your mail, BTW - Alison ☺ 06:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I had a look, but I haven't had any mail today which makes me think my mail server is on the blink (or I am very unpopular). I have changed my wiki-email to another address for the moment until it gets sorted out. Perhaps, if nothing arrives by tomorrow and its not too much trouble, I may ask you to resend. Incidently, there was something about death in our blocking policy for a while [12] (I was beginning to think I made it up). Rockpocket 06:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Just pmail me your email address. The one I have has a certain domain in it. - Alison ☺ 06:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Rockpocket 06:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Some help needed (image tagging)

If you accept it, your mission is to clear the following pages of deletable images by deletion, tagging or editing the image page and/or the image itself.

• Category:Publicity photographs with missing fair-use rationale - thousands of images with missing rationales, half rationales and/or no source. May also be replaceable.
• Special:Uncategorizedimages - untagged images, empty image pages for images on commons, vandalized pages
• User:Gmaxwell/orfu - pile of orphaned fair use images
• User:Gmaxwell/possibly evil images - images containing egregious amounts of metadata, may be deleted under CSD I2 especially if unused

Have fun! MER-C 07:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Haha, you forget what we will have to post a bit later today after everyone tags... == Some admin help needed (images) == and we have to spend time deleting or otherwise addressing the concerns by the tags! :) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 18:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:This broken?

Resolved

 – Template appears to be working again. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be selflinking e.g. on Squirrel. Ewlyahoocom 07:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It's fixed now [13]. Ewlyahoocom

It looks like it's still broken on that page to me. Wierd; because it works fine on {{This}}. --Haemo 07:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Everything looks fine to me... EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Advertising using Wikipedia pages

Is this what I think it is? It seems to be a (possibly cybersquatted) site with lots of adverts with Wikipedia content (see bottom of page and hover over the 'view full page' link) being used to draw people there? Carcharoth 16:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hah, that's rich. Don't think there's much we can do about it, though... EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

They really should be giving credit to Wikipedia. Until(1 == 2) 16:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You're supposed to send the webmaster a GFDL notice. I bet the cybersquatter webmaster doesn't care about the legality of his site, so it's an action in futility. Sean William @ 18:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless you pursue the notices to the webmaster to the point where you can send a DMCA takedown notice to the ISP. Prodego ^talk 18:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been seeing junk like that buried on the lower end of Google searches for a while. Not surprised that the 'view full page' link explains it. Go ahead and attempt contact with the webmaster. I hope that yields fruitful results, but get back in touch with me if reasonable efforts fail. I write a column. ;) Durova^Charge! 18:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Eh, its simple, talk to the webmaster, if that fails, DMCA takedown will solve it, rinse and repeat for any future sites. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 18:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, one should remember that only he/she who holds the copyright to (at least some of) the material has a valid DMCA takedown claim; if, then, you've not edited (non-trivially) the WP:NOVELS text that appears to be copied here, for instance, you've not really any cause of action. In general, though, yes, any Wikipedian might do well to send a we'd appreciate your compliance with the GFDL letter, at least to those websites that one might reasonably expect to be interested in compliance (see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks for a general discussion, and Wikipedia:GFDL Compliance for information on the enumeration of possibly problematic sites). Joe 22:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for explaining. I'm not going to be doing anything, though... That's why I posted here. For someone else to do something about it! :-) Any volunteers, or anywhere better to report things like this in future? Carcharoth 20:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

So how do we contact this site? I did some navigation and a Google search and couln't find any feedback or e-mail address for it. I suppose they sell ad space somehow, but how? Durova^Charge! 02:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Animal liberation POV pushing by admins

Fishing expeditions may be a pleasant way to spend a vacation in Baja California, but please don't ask me embark upon one at Wikipedia unless you're treating me to the other kind too.

There is a group of powerful admins pushing an animal rights agenda here at wikipedia. It is hurting wikipedia. Please help. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture. Thank you. WAS 4.250 18:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I see two comments. One by you accusing people out of the blue, and one by Cerejota, who isn't even an admin. Please explain this disconnection. —Kurykh 18:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Your comments both here and on that AfD page strike me as seriously inappropriate and unnecessarily hostile towards Cerejota. I'd suggest that you tone down your language. -- ChrisO 19:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

There sounds like there is alot more to this, but you'll need to explain the issue further Was 4.250. You can't expect us to do all the digging. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Factory farming has the dispute in all its nitty gritty. Slim Virgin and her friends are the powerful admins. If they stay out of this, then all the better. Cerejota claims are a puppet like match for SlimVirgin's mistaken claims. I don't pretend to know who is or is not a sockpuppet or a meat puppet or a follower or just a like thinker. But this behavior (animal rights POV pushing) has been going on for too long and it is disruptive. This latest effort is just that. It is part of a larger POV effort that extends back months or years. I believe that some of SlimVirgin's first efforts were in animal rights articles (there are allegations of some oversighting here; but I haven't looked). Interestingly, the actual SlimVirgin edits I've seen on animal rights pages look fine to me. It's slim's edits on agricultural articles that I have a problem with. And her friends like Cerejota appear to me to blindly support her edits and strategies. For all I know, Slim and her actual close friends have decided to back off and the latest effort by Cerejota may be just him left twisting in the wind. I really don't know, and consider SlimVirgin a great asset to wikipedia except for her blind spot in the area of animal rights. I think if enough disinterested admins actually read the articles and talk pages all will work out just fine. That's what I'm hoping for. WAS 4.250 19:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I would still like to see some specifics and not continued generalities. No one is going to take the time to look into this if you don't take it serious enough to spend your own time gathering specifics. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia building requires reading encyclopedia articles. I claim Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture is POV motivated. Cerejota claims the article content itself is POV motivated. I ask that people here read the article and make up their own minds. This would be a content dispute except that the claims are either a personal attack on me by him or a personal attack on him by me. Which is which depends on whether the article is as he says or not. That judgment can only be made by reading the article. Please read Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture and let us know who needs to apologize to who. Thank you for your time. "So this is all about who is to apologize. Stop wasting our time and both apologize." No No No. That's not it. Once you have helped with choosing what constitutes NPOV here; this will help at Talk:Factory farming with its ongoing months long off and on again revert war. WAS 4.250 20:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not claim that the contents are POV motivated, I claim[14] the article is a POV fork, and that the contents have various issues, mostly WP:SYNTH/WP:OR, and geographical bias (i.e. {{globalize}}. Please do not further misrepresent my position. Thanks!--Cerejota 00:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Specific diffs, please. Durova^Charge! 00:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I note that I started this Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:WAS_4.250 because I had no idea this existed, as WAS has not informed me. I would have appreciated if he would have had the same courtesy I had with him in informing the involved.

My posting said:

In Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Challenges_and_issues_of_industrial_agriculture User:WAS 4.250 once again launched an uncalled for personal attack against me, including a series of unfounded accusations, and an unspecified call for a ban, simply because I have argued for deletion of an article he started as a POV fork.

In the past I have placed another Incident report here on this very user, and it was ignored, however this is the second time the user does this, and this is extremely unacceptable and uncivil behavior.

In response to my AfD request, he says:

Cerejota, your outrageous personal attacks and biased wiki-lawyering to further the goals of the animal liberation movement are harming wikipedia. You and your fellow travelers should be banned from wikipedia. WAS 4.250 17:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I see no personal attacks from me to him, and I have not wikilawyered in any significant fashion (in an AfD one HAS to state policy violations as part of a nom), and I am not part of animal liberation movement, nor do I have fellow travelers (I have actually been on the other end of editing disputes with User:SlimVirgin another active editor of Factory farming).

His accusations are false, uncivil and calling for a ban of a fellow wikipedian on no grounds at all is extremely bad behavior. I leave remedy up to the admins, but I just want to know why I can't go to ArbCom with this extreme example of unwarranted personal attack.

I do admit being involved in previous editing conflicts with this user, however he has declined several calls for formal Mediation around the articles in question, and continues free and unwarranted attacks. He must be brought under control. Thanks!--Cerejota 23:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Besides this, I must state I am not an admin, and that he re-stated his personal attack here [15].

I must also state that I apologize if he feels I have launched a personal attack, as this is not my intention, however, it would be useful if he described in what fashion I have attacked him, as I can honestly not see any personal attack in my contributions and comments.

I also repeat my request that someone tell me why I should or shouldn't raise this to ArbCom. The user seems unrepentant, and this is not the first time he does this. He also repeatedly refuses to engage on all other steps in WP:DR. If he is not made to understand why his behavior is unacceptable, then ArbCom is the only answer I can think of. Thanks! --Cerejota 00:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW, SlimVirgin and I do agree a lot on these pages, however we have had some less-than-pleasant encounters in the past. Claims of meatpuppetry are beyond the pale and extremely worrying. This is not even fishing. This is out-and-out poisoning the well to protect the POV fork page Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture from being deleted. Thanks!--Cerejota 00:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed proposel

this one needs views from a wider audience. Please feel free to go there and comment. Regards, Navou ^banter 19:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

So basically the proposal is to switch from "4 days" to "4 days and 20 edits"? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Its all there in the talk page and proposal page, but I think so, yes. Comments are welcome there. Regards, Navou ^banter 22:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Help needed re: Allegations of French apartheid merge

There seems to be a consensus to merge Allegations of French apartheid into Social situation in the French suburbs. Could a neutral admin please review the discussion at Talk:Allegations_of_French_apartheid#Proposal and Talk:Social_situation_in_the_French_suburbs#Merge_proposal_Allegations_of_French_apartheid_.3E_Social_Situation_in_the_French_suburbs and, if there is consensus, merge the articles? Allegations of French apartheid has been protected for almost two weeks so an admin is needed for this. Also, given the controversy of the entire "Allegations of apartheid" series it would be preferable if an uninvolved admin did the merge, particularly one who is not a member of Wikiproject France, Wikiproject Israel, Wikiproject Saudi Arabia, Wikiproject Brazil or Wikiproject Palestine. Lothar of the Hill People 20:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid merge

Looking at Talk:Allegations_of_Saudi_Arabian_apartheid#Proposal suggests a preference for merging by a margin of 9:3. Since the merge looks pretty straight forward (as much of the material is already in the target articles) I've done a partial merge by adding material to the target articles without removing anything from the "source". I wonder if a neutral editor (ie not involved with Wikiproject Saudi Arabia, Israel, Palestine etc) could review the talk page discussion and, if he or she agrees there is a consensus for a merge, redirect the article to Human rights in Saudi Arabia#"Apartheid"? Lothar of the Hill People 21:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Bouncing an idea

I've written a user space essay that might be a good addition to WP:NOT. Please see User:Durova/Wikipedia is not an experiment in consensus reality. Feedback and improvements are welcome. Durova^Charge! 02:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with its content, though I might title it, "Wikipedia is not on the cutting edge" or something. The point being, as Durova has articulated, that Wikipedia changes in response to changes in human understanding, not in anticipation of them. I encounter this problem often enough that I'd support adding something to this effect to WP:NOT. MastCell ^Talk 03:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Turning page RFC into a virtual Arbcom hearing

I protest the turning of a neutral request for comments on an article into what is essentially an illegitimate arbcom complaint. See here. This is totally not appropriate. If editors want to make comments about text on an entry, that is one thing, but the RFC on me as an editor has just been delisted. It is outrageous that there now is an attempt to circumvent this by turning a page text review into an attack on me and my editing.--Cberlet 02:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the RFC was delisted once and this is just an attempt to sidestep that. I'm not familar with the issues here but I'm tempted to delete it unless the creator User:Thedagomar moves it into his or her user space. RxS 03:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagreed with the deletion of the user-conduct RfC, as did several other admins. However, starting a content RfC and then hijacking it to focus on the conduct of specific editors is a misuse of process. I agree with Cberlet and RxS that the content RfC is being used inappropriately, and deletion would be in order. I wouldn't encourage moving it to userspace, because a page like that in userspace (i.e. outside of the dispute resolution machinery) is essentially an attack page. MastCell ^Talk 03:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)