Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive179

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Unblock-en-l help needed[edit]

We could use some fresh blood on the unblock mailing list. Any admins that would like to help can sign up at https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/unblock-en-l. John Reaves 00:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help (though I'm not around that much), but is there any way to prevent duplicate responses and make sure all emails are handled? Is there an unblock-en-l manual somewhere? Making people use the unblock request template seems a lot easier, for us anyway. --fvw* 00:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, the confirm-i-am-a-wikipedia-admin special:emailuser link on the signup page doesn't work for me (the </a> and </div> are in the wrong order, which causes opera to not link). Probably not the source of the lack of volunteers, but it can't be helping either. --fvw* 00:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Link fixed. Prodego talk 00:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oops, that wasn't actually the cause of the problem (I thought it awfully picky of opera), there's a stray " in the <a> tag, just in front of the href. --fvw* 00:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
(ec) There isn't a way to prevent duplicate responses, but they aren't too common because you are supposed to cc the list on every reply. I've alerted the site admins to the problem you described. John Reaves 00:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Fixed again. Prodego talk 00:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Fvw, there's not really a manual as such, but the closest thing would be this - m:User:Isotope23/Sandbox. Sarah 03:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
There's also a link I just added at the bottom of that page to a Google documents page User:Crazycomputers wrote which contains some email templates people can use when replying to emails. Sarah 03:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Must be more Kentucky dialogue: "I would like to subscribe to the Unblock-en-l mailing list, and am an administrator on the English Wikipedia. I have applied on the main page, and am sending this email to identify my username." :) seicer | talk | contribs 01:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

213.197.27.252[edit]

I see that 213.197.27.252 (talk block log) is blocked for a month because the SixXS's IPv6Gate automatically appends ".sixxs.org" to all URLs, breaking pages. Couldn’t we instead blacklist sixxs.org or remove it from edits with a bot? That would protect the project without the collateral damage. (If the bot solution is used, the bot should give a special edit summary so that it doesn’t look it was correcting vandalism.) —teb728 t c 01:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, technically it's an open proxy if I've read their description correctly. On the one hand I'm all for encouraging ipv6 adoption by making vandals get it so they can vandalise, but on the other hand I do kind of like our block open proxies indef policy. Your suggestion would be the very least yes. --fvw* 01:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Indef blocks on IP addresses are not policy but an ongoing cleanup task. I think I read a different description for this service, and the IP's admin seem to take abuse seriously. The real solution here is for the IP's admin to fix the problem, and I have been in contact with them to that effect. -- zzuuzz (talk) 03:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, of course the ultimate solution is for SixXS to fix the problem at their end. But unless that solution is immanent, why not make a more targeted fix at our end than to block all SixXS users? —teb728 t c 10:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
They have only recently been made aware of the problem, and their response seems promising. The quickest and most effective way to get the problem fixed, with the least collateral, in my view, is to block the IP and ask them to fix it. The majority of its edits would not stick if it was allowed to continue. Your proposals are definitely interesting though. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Underage User, uploaded self image[edit]

Resolved: User blocked indef, file deleted on Commons.  Sandstein  17:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Ricky_Oliver (Currently a SSP), claims to be 14 years of age and has uploaded an image of himself which can be located here. I don't know what to tag it as. Requesting immediate delete of the image. I have blanked the userpage and stated why I did it in a way the user could see. Rgoodermote  02:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Ehmm... Why? He's been vandalising yes, but I'm sure we have plenty of wikipedia users who are under 18 and have pictures of themselves on wikipedia. In fact, quite a few of our articles have pictures of under 18s on them too. --fvw* 02:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I honestly just do not trust this particular account. I myself had one from when I was 16. But that isn't the case. Because it is suspected to be a sock I am leery as to whether this is truly the person in question. You guys can decide that one. I just want to get back to being a gnome. Rgoodermote  02:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
The image is at Commons, here, so you'll have to request deletion there. We generally delete personal information related to minors on Wikipedia, but I'm unaware of Commons' guidelines on this matter. Cenarium (Talk) 03:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Is there even a guidelines here for this? I know of an essay. Rgoodermote  04:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Misread your comment. I went to commons and brought it to their attention. Rgoodermote  05:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Went ahead and indef'ed the user. Clearly, his pattern of edits (after running a comparison tool) indicates that he's Nimbley6. seicer | talk | contribs 05:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, should I tell the editors at commons this? Because I really do not like the image name and I do not trust that that is the editor. Rgoodermote  06:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I would.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
FYI, a very swift google suggests that the editor is who he claims to be. DuncanHill (talk) 14:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
One of the previous socks made it appear that the person was another child of similar age with the surname Nimbley. All we know is that the i.d. we have here (rickyoliver) seems apparently consistent with a person who can be found on google with similar characteristics, just as it was for Nimbley, who had a very different name of a child (the surname was "Nimbley" in that case, not "Oliver" as this person claims). However, we don't know whether the person behind the i.d. here (rickyoliver) is really the same as the person behind the person uncovered in this latest google search, let alone "Nimbley", whoever that person is. Given the similarity between editing behaviour that others have pointed out, and the apparent age of the persons involved, I think we need to err on the side of not wanting an image name of the sort that Rgoodermote is drawing our attention to: this isn't some kind of social-networking site, and so any description of oneself that includes "sexy" as a descriptor in the name needs some attention, particularly with the age of the person involved.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Creating a page which is blacklisted[edit]

Resolved

Hi. I am unable to create an article under the name Allan Everett as it appears to have been blacklisted. I wish to make an article for someone by that name who played Australia rules football with and coached the Geelong Football Club. Would it be possible for an admin to unlist it? Cheers. Jevansen (talk) 11:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Have we got a page name blacklist? I thought we just protected them (and the redlink you gave isn't protected). Are you sure it's not the URL blacklist you're hitting with an URL in your attempted article? If you could put the article somewhere else I'd be happy to move it to that name. --fvw* 11:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I get the following message - "The page title that you have attempted to create has been included on either the local title blacklist or the Wikimedia global title blacklist, which prevents it from being used due to abuse. If you have a good reason for creating a page with this title, or if you receive this message when attempting to edit an existing page, please let us know at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Be sure to specify the exact title of the page you are trying to create or edit, as well as a brief explanation of what you were trying to do." Jevansen (talk) 13:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Golly, we do have a title blacklist: MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. Live and learn. This seems to be what's causing the problem: ".*Everett.* # Used for harassment username and page creation - remove end Dec 2008". Could you create the article or a stub for it somewhere else, say at User:Jevansen/Allan Everett? Then I or another admin can move it into place. --fvw* 13:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
If it isn't difficult enough I'm even unable to create a page under that title lol. I've created a stub under User:Jevansen/Draft, if you or someone else could move it to the correct title then that would be great. Thanks for your help. Cheers. Jevansen (talk) 14:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Page moved. Redirect deleted. --B (talk) 14:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Only remaining problem is that the talk page remains unaccessible as the same message appears when I try and add a project tag. Don't know if it's possible to move talk pages but I you can then I've added the tag to User:Jevansen/Talk:Draft. Thanks again. Jevansen (talk) 14:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oops ... didn't think about that ... done. --B (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Alexandros Grigoropoulos[edit]

Resolved:  Sandstein  17:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Please remove the reference to the petrol bomb, it is false and defamatory. Despite being mentioned in the first reports as an 'official police statement', it was actually only a leak that later proved to be false. It was the first account of the events as told by the police guard. In his statement to the court he makes no mention to a petrol bomb and refers being attacked by "rocks, bottles, and other objects."(he wouldn't obviously forget a petrol bomb, would he? This is reported by eleftheros tipos(mainstream, conservative newspaper [1]). The radio conversation records released by the police also disproves this claim as mentioned in this article by elefthorotipia(again mainstream, left-wing newspaper [2], 3rd paragraph reads "no molotovs were thrown, there was no danger, only minor damages to the police car"). Unfortunately I couldn't find any sources in english, but you can run the articles through google's translate or ask a greek-speaking admin to verify my translation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.103.215.60 (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a content issue and does not belong here. At any rate, the (protected) article in question, Alexandros Grigoropoulos, has now been merged to another article pursuant to an AfD discussion, so I think this request is moot.  Sandstein  17:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Appealing User:Apovolot[edit]

I find it ironic that the original administrator "Doug"'s MFD decision re deletion of User:Apovolot because Doug's decision was done without regarding the fact that "no consensus" was achieved during the MFD discussion. So I appealed that MFD decison by raising WP:DRV issue re that. But in closing that WP:DRV, the administrator Aervanat used "no consensus" reason to stay that wrong ("no consensus" based) MFD deletion decision? So I am now appealing both:

a)The original (administrator "Doug"'s) MFD decision to delete User:Apovolot (because Doug disregarded the fact that there was no consensus to delete)

b)The DRV discussion decision (by administrator Aervanat) to "stay" MFD decision to delete User:Apovolot

I am requesting to restore User:Apovolot because its original deletion decision was done in violation of WP consensus rule. Apovolot (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is only one part of the equation. The closing administrator took into account the discussion and the policy implications of your page. His close was based on policy. The DRV was likeiwse based on a review of that application of policy. You are not prohibited from having a user page, just not that one. JodyB talk 23:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
For reference, the MfD is here and the DRV here. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
A DRV is a call to impel or compel an action. That requires consensus. We require consensus to delete article and user pages because we have some preference for content rather than against it. A DRV is explicitly not a content discussion but a discussion of the merits of the deletion. The conclusion of a DRV requires consensus to overturn that deletion. Absent that consensus we cannot say to the closing admin "We think you screwed up, so we are going to reverse a decision of your which you refuse to reverse on your own". The notion that "consensus defaults to keep" carries over to DRV is false and misleading. Further, absent some misconduct in the DRV, an appeal here might be construed as forum shopping. Protonk (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I would like to second Protonk's assessment here. No-consensus in any discussion should ALWAYS preserve the status quo. In an MFD, the status quo is the existance of the article. If a DRV is discussing a currently deleted article, the status quo is a deleted article, so a no-consensus DRV would keep the article deleted. There is no expectation that "no consensus = keep" in all situations. Its "no consensus = take no direct action to change the current situation"... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

But the principle "No-consensus in any discussion should ALWAYS preserve the status quo. In an MFD, the status quo is the existence of the article" was not obeyed in the User:Apovolot MfD decision - so what could be done to correct and undo that deletion mistake ? Apovolot (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

you've missed my point. Your user page violated policies. Consensus never trumps the policy. JodyB talk 18:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • CommentTo clarify two points, 1) What I believe JodyB is saying is that if consensus appears to call for a result contrary to policy it is not the true consensus, consensus is the consensus of the community, not the consensus of the five who show up to an MfD - a result contrary to policy would normally require a change to policy which can't be done by five editors at an MfD (IAR results excepted); 2) The closer of the DRV suggested this as further appeal here, so this should not be considered forum shopping by the User:Apovolot, even if it is a bit excessive. (note I'm the one who closed the original MfD and deleted the userpage) --Doug.(talk contribs) 20:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
    Five was an arbitrary number, there were actually 11 who showed up to this particular MfD I believe.--Doug.(talk contribs) 20:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

JodyB recently said in this discussion: "Consensus never trumps the policy". This statement contradicts with the FIFTH PILLAR of WIKIPEDIA, which says: "Wikipedia does not have firm rules". Also - please note as Doug mentioned - there were 11 participants in Mfd discussion. Take out the submitter of Mfd (Nsk92) and myself (due to being possibly subjective) - this still leaves the number of independent opinions to be large - 9. Those 9 were roughly split in half between KEEP and DELETE. Such 50/50 split tells me that the policy is not clear on this subject and therefore due to no consensus, the KEEP decision should off been chosen. Apovolot (talk) 03:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You have the fifth pillar interpreted completely wrong. The fifth pillar, WP:IAR, says rules can be bent "if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia" (emphasis mine). There has to be a good reason fulfilling the above conditions to suspend the rule in question. It does not mean suspending rules because you want to. —kurykh 03:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
In case you haven't realized already, simply reading WP:5P doesn't help with understanding the nuances inherent in those pillars. It only serves to depict a general picture or scheme of things. You might want to read the policies themselves rather than just rely on 5P. —kurykh 03:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by closing admin of the DRV - The reason I told Apolovot to come here is that I wasn't quite sure where one went to appeal a bad DRV decision. I guess you could file a DRV to review the result of the first DRV, but I wasn't sure if something recursive like that would fly. I figured he could come here and get some other admins to take a look, as I am open to the possibility that I made a mistake and mis-read the consensus (or lack thereof) existing in the DRV discussion. I don't really want to say "Well, DRV is the end of the line and that's it", because I feel that there should be a recourse if a DRV is closed incorrectly. If that outlet is DRV itself, I guess that's fine, since DRV is for reviewing the results of deletion discussions, and DRV is technically a kind of deletion discussion. I'd appreciate some other editors' input on where you should appeal a DRV decision.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

We have actually had DRVs for DRVs (most notably for Encyclopedia Dramatica and shock sites like that). The recursion makes for a chuckle but most reasonable discussions are given some attention. But after a while new DRVs opened with no change in the underlying article/image/page get snow closed quickly. Protonk (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I am mostly appealing the Mfd decision due to the reason that there was no consensus between large number of respondents (9) and the opinions splitted as 5 -to KEEP in one form or another and 4 to DELETE. That contradictory split tells me that the policy is not quite clear on that case (otherwise why half of the people interpreted policy in ONE way and other half - interpreted policy in OPPOSITE way ?????!!!!!). Now given that the policy is not quite clear on that case and no consensus - why Mfd closing admin desided to go with DELETE ? I understand that in Afd discussion the leaning towards DELETE is reasonable but in the Mfd discussion regarding innocent user page (as most of Mfd responders pointed out) - the tilt should go towards KEEP. Apovolot (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Why on earth are you still arguing this? By continuing to argue to have your userpage undeleted, you continue to look more and more like someone who's not here to build an encyclopedia. So far, all of your contributions to articles have been either deleted or reverted. After the articles you created were deleted, you moved the content onto your userpage, and that was deleted. If you want to look like a serious contributor, I suggest you stop arguing and rules-lawyering (at least you dropped the "free speech" argument) and actually contribute. Mr.Z-man 19:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
@Apovolot: I guess I wasn't clear. You can't appeal the Mfd decision again. I directed you here so that other admins could review my decision on the DRV, not Doug's decision on the Mfd. You already appealed the Mfd once, to DRV. You can claim that my DRV decision was in error, which I would not take personally, and the admins and editors who watch this board would probably have a good idea what to do about that error. However, the original Mfd decision is essentially off-limits at this point. I know you disagree with Doug's reading of consensus, but that is water under the bridge as far as the community's concerned. You'll have to accept it and move on. Sorry this didn't work out the way you wanted.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Block needed for Apovolot?[edit]

I had a look at this as a completely uninvolved admin. What I see is a user with only 350 edits since signing up in April--only 25 of which (counting deleted edits) were to article space. The great majority of them were to project space and talk space. Is it just me, or is this someone who isn't here to edit an encyclopedia? I was about to summarily indef this user as someone who isn't here to help the project, but wanted to seek other opinions. Blueboy96 04:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we've reached that point quite yet. He's been quite careful about following proper channels to challenge the results of the Wikipedia deletion processes. The fact that the majority of his edits have not been in article space is due to the simple fact that the articles he was first working on were all deleted, and he has been spending all the subsequent time trying to get them undeleted. This is not somebody who's wasted the community's patience yet, this is somebody that needs to spend some quality time at WP:OWN and WP:NOT, and then start poking around some WikiProjects or CAT:BACKLOG, looking for something to help out on that won't get deleted. He is not a vandal, nor does he some to be a troublemaker. He's a somewhat confused newbie, that's all. Let's not WP:BITE him quite yet.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 08:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm cool to the prospect of blocking a user indefinitely due to a lack of contributions to the encyclopedia. As arevanth says above, he isn't actively exhausting peoples' patience and he isn't being a troublemaker. We should just let this progress along normally. Protonk (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - No block necessary, user just needs to WP:CHILL and read a few policy pages as suggested above. --Doug.(talk contribs) 23:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Kwiboo[edit]

Can someone with more patience than me keep an eye on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kwiboo? I declined an A7 request on this based on an extremely tenuous assertion of notability, and am now beginning to wish I hadn't, as the National Association of Single Purpose Accounts appear to have chosen the AFD discussion as the venue of their annual general meeting. – iridescent 22:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Watchlisted.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 11:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Those single purpose accounts are probably all employees of the company trying their best to make sure it stays on the pedia. The boss will probably give them a payrise :) Monster Under Your Bed (talk) 12:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Payrise? Ha! There's a bribe of free mints going for anyone cunning enough to seize it. --fvw* 12:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Added notavote templates to this and also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Marshall (kwiboo), and added spa templates to the latter. Black Kite 01:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts requested[edit]

Could a few other people look at the discussion at Template talk:POV. I would like to make the proposed change but obviously this is a widely used template and WP:BOLD doesn't allow for my fundamental cowardice. However, if no-one comes and objects, I'll likely grow a pair and change it anyway. Fair warning. CIreland (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Plug and play[edit]

I moved the page Plug-and-play to Plug and play, however the talk page didn't move. I merged the content from the Talk:Plug and play into Talk:Plug-and-play and turned it into a redirect, but the move function still refuses to move the page so the talk page is now completely separate from the article. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Done --Stephen 23:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Smith Jones[edit]

I haven't taken the trouble to see whether any previous AN or ANI threads have dealt with Smith Jones (talk · contribs), but a number of his/her edits seem problematical. Just tonight, the user has managed to delete two other users' postings to ANI, and those aren't the only recent and similar incidents. In addition, the user has created what seems to be an inappropriate redirect, which I've nominated at RFD, and a category that seems to me inappropriate, though I haven't yet nominated it at CFD. The user's recent edits to the mainspace don't seem very helpful either, and a look through his/her talk-page archives shows what seems to be a recurring pattern of problems. Is this someone against whom any action needs to be taken? Deor (talk) 05:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I know this type of behavior has been discussed before but I can't recall when/where. It was awhile back though (at least this summer, if not before). The user does not seem to resolve edit conflicts when they occur (placing his text in favor of the old text rather than merging) and displays communication skills that make it hard to understand what's being said on some occasions through the errors. I'll see if I can find where it was discussed previously, either way (talk) 05:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I think this archived thread is the one I'm thinking of right now, either way (talk) 05:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Smith Jones can be a little hard to fathom, but he means well and in his own way he's one of Wikipedia's treasures. The "crazy den of pigs" comment alone wins him a place in the pantheon of heroes. Notice your first two examples of deleting others' postings were edit conflicts: most likely he overwrote the others' comments in confusion over the edit conflicts. I also seem to recall that he suffers from a disability of some sort, which explains his rather unusual approach to orthography. Suggest gentle guidance and correction rather than serious discipline. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
(ec, how ironic) Nonetheless, users whose edits (particularly to mainspace) have to be monitored constantly to get rid of the bad ones tend to sap the resources of other editors. I know that I am keeping an eye on a handful at the moment, and I'd rather be doing something else. (Plus, the other "inadvertent" deletion I linked to, which also had the effect of restoring an irrelevant talk-page comment, clearly didn't involve an edit conflict.) If this guy can't edit in a productive manner, perhaps he shouldn't be editing at all. It's harsh, but there it is. Deor (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I know that I've had to suggest to him many times in the past not to insert himself into random discussions on AN/ANI and make a bigger mess with his typographical errors and no knowledge of the topic at hand. He just seems to delete these from his talk page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Twice today he removed very well-sourced, non-controversial information from an article (here and here), invoking WP:WEASEL, WP:IAR, WP:BLP as his rationale, and in the process inserting inaccurate information. And with all due respect, Short Brigade Harvester Boris, I don't consider this the behavior of a "treasure" or a "hero". Ward3001 (talk) 05:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I've asked Smith Jones several times to watch his spelling and typos, though he's never said anything to me about a disability. Despite the occasional hilarity from his comments, he's not malicious just misguided. He can certainly be irritating, but he makes some good contributions and I'm not sure there's anything actionable here. AniMate 06:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
My attention was brought here by this misleading edit,[3] certainly some of the contributions appear to be more nuisance than help. . dave souza, talk 09:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I understand the frustration but ask that if anything is done with regard to blocking etc. that we do our best to leave his dignity intact. While such action may be necessary to protect the goals of the project, when doing so it costs us nothing to be sensitive and humane, especially when dealing with people who have disabilities. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how many good contributions. On several occasions, though not very recently, I've seen him come up on my watchlist due to edits to pseudoscience/paranormal articles. Convoluted, poorly explained, non-NPOV edits mind you. After clearing that, I usually sift through some of his recent contribs to clean up other articles he's edited. I don't think there's an malicious intent, but he just doesn't get it. I'm not strictly in support of a block either, I don't know what should be done here. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree he doesn't seem to get it. And let me make some comments about the disability issue, again with no disrepect to any of the editors commenting above. I am a strong advocate for disability rights. I am involved in that issue every day of my life. But I also strongly believe that attributing every improper behavior to a disability not only is a weak excuse, but that "acceptance" of inappropriate behavior is itself disrepectful to the vast majority of disabled people who live their lives without this kind of behavior. It also encourages the inappropriate behavior. I'm not arguing for or against a block or other sanction against Smith Jones (nor would I if disability was not an issue). I am stating, however, that unacceptable behavior should be addressed and dealt with rather than swept under the carpet. If he were a 12-year-old (and some of his edits are typical of many 12-year-olds), we would explain, persuade, and (if necessary) eventually become firm and even block if the softer means were not successful. He states on his user page that he is a lawyer. He also states that he is an admin on Russian Wikipedia. He should know better than to make some of these edits (and I'm talking about the ones that appear to have less than honorable intent, not the ones that result from typos or careless errors). We should handle this like we would for anyone else on Wikipedia. Ward3001 (talk) 20:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I perceive we have great difficulties with communication with some editors here, and I remember User:hopiakuta appearing here multiple times, and hasn't been around for some months. However, with regard to User:Smith Jones, he is capable of cogent editing (in written language terms) and claims no disability; if he did, perhaps the rest of us would be able to adapt to that. However, the question is how we should enforce standards when perhaps overall the balance is that he is a well-intentioned contributor. Has anyone suggested some kind of editing partnership? (I won't suggest mentoring because that would be patronising) He is clearly strong-willed, but on balance, unless he is supremely disruptive, I don't want to lose him as an editor here. --Rodhullandemu 00:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree that a mentorship would be patronising, but apparently something needs to be done. I find interaction with him in Wikipedia space and talk pages to be extremely irritating, but that's hardly blockable. I see several troubling examples above, but even those put together don't seem actionable. If there is some persistent POV pushing or ongoing disruption, I think some diffs would be helpful. As it stands, it appears we have an enthusiastic, well intentioned, strongly opinionated user who doesn't understand what the "show preview" button does. Unless there are diffs that show otherwise, I don't think this is actionable, and he's really not so active that undoing his problematic edits is too much of a hassle. AniMate 04:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I simply remind everyone of my favorite essay, WP:Competence is required, and move on.—Kww(talk) 04:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
The biggest problem with Smith Jones isn't just his refusal to push the correct keys on his keyboard, but his repeated "mistakes", as noted above, with regards to deleting other comments, altering discussions at AN, and things like that. The refusal to attempt to spell words correctly is merely annoying. His frequent, non-sequitur comments and the fact that he frequently screws up talk pages (apparently innocently, but it still happens too much for my taste) is a problem going back months, probably years, and borders on disruption... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
But is there anything that we can do about it? I've seen him constantly insert himself into situations where he just does more harm than good, yet it's all done in good faith.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
The essay cited by KWW above is particularly enlightening, and also remember that good faith is not a suicide pact. Where granting good faith to other users results in a net negative for the project, over many months and years then something needs to be done. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Jayron32. As for what can be done about it, I'll be the devil's advocate. It has been said that mentoring might be patronizing. Why? I've seen editors with less problematic behavior be asked (sometimes insistently) to seek adoption. If he truly doesn't get it, the only way to help him get it is to have some individual coaching and guidance. I believe it has been argued that this might not fit well with his personality. My devil's advocate response to that is, which is more important: Wikipedia, or going along with his personality quirks? Let's face it. He knows about this discussion. He is capable of seeing what we have to say about him. So why not talk directly to him? Having said all that, I truly don't want to alienate him needlessly, but I think we have to draw the line somewhere. Ward3001 (talk) 02:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Ianbond and related pages[edit]

Resolved: Resolved to the best of my needs. Mononomic (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Ianbond has created the pages A Second Life multiple times after speedy deletion. He also creates pages for the founder of this movement, Christian Schoyen, which was also SD'd, and then Christian schoyen, which is up for speedy deletion. This user has been notified of his violation of WP:RPDA. I'm asking for a block on his account, along with page protection for Christian Schoyen, Christian schoyen, and A Second Life to stop all of this ruckus. Mononomic (talk) 02:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

User has been warned, pages have been deleted, and A Second Life has been indefinitely protected. Resolved to the best of my needs. Mononomic (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Smith Jones[edit]

I haven't taken the trouble to see whether any previous AN or ANI threads have dealt with Smith Jones (talk · contribs), but a number of his/her edits seem problematical. Just tonight, the user has managed to delete two other users' postings to ANI, and those aren't the only recent and similar incidents. In addition, the user has created what seems to be an inappropriate redirect, which I've nominated at RFD, and a category that seems to me inappropriate, though I haven't yet nominated it at CFD. The user's recent edits to the mainspace don't seem very helpful either, and a look through his/her talk-page archives shows what seems to be a recurring pattern of problems. Is this someone against whom any action needs to be taken? Deor (talk) 05:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I know this type of behavior has been discussed before but I can't recall when/where. It was awhile back though (at least this summer, if not before). The user does not seem to resolve edit conflicts when they occur (placing his text in favor of the old text rather than merging) and displays communication skills that make it hard to understand what's being said on some occasions through the errors. I'll see if I can find where it was discussed previously, either way (talk) 05:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I think this archived thread is the one I'm thinking of right now, either way (talk) 05:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Smith Jones can be a little hard to fathom, but he means well and in his own way he's one of Wikipedia's treasures. The "crazy den of pigs" comment alone wins him a place in the pantheon of heroes. Notice your first two examples of deleting others' postings were edit conflicts: most likely he overwrote the others' comments in confusion over the edit conflicts. I also seem to recall that he suffers from a disability of some sort, which explains his rather unusual approach to orthography. Suggest gentle guidance and correction rather than serious discipline. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
(ec, how ironic) Nonetheless, users whose edits (particularly to mainspace) have to be monitored constantly to get rid of the bad ones tend to sap the resources of other editors. I know that I am keeping an eye on a handful at the moment, and I'd rather be doing something else. (Plus, the other "inadvertent" deletion I linked to, which also had the effect of restoring an irrelevant talk-page comment, clearly didn't involve an edit conflict.) If this guy can't edit in a productive manner, perhaps he shouldn't be editing at all. It's harsh, but there it is. Deor (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I know that I've had to suggest to him many times in the past not to insert himself into random discussions on AN/ANI and make a bigger mess with his typographical errors and no knowledge of the topic at hand. He just seems to delete these from his talk page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Twice today he removed very well-sourced, non-controversial information from an article (here and here), invoking WP:WEASEL, WP:IAR, WP:BLP as his rationale, and in the process inserting inaccurate information. And with all due respect, Short Brigade Harvester Boris, I don't consider this the behavior of a "treasure" or a "hero". Ward3001 (talk) 05:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I've asked Smith Jones several times to watch his spelling and typos, though he's never said anything to me about a disability. Despite the occasional hilarity from his comments, he's not malicious just misguided. He can certainly be irritating, but he makes some good contributions and I'm not sure there's anything actionable here. AniMate 06:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
My attention was brought here by this misleading edit,[4] certainly some of the contributions appear to be more nuisance than help. . dave souza, talk 09:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I understand the frustration but ask that if anything is done with regard to blocking etc. that we do our best to leave his dignity intact. While such action may be necessary to protect the goals of the project, when doing so it costs us nothing to be sensitive and humane, especially when dealing with people who have disabilities. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how many good contributions. On several occasions, though not very recently, I've seen him come up on my watchlist due to edits to pseudoscience/paranormal articles. Convoluted, poorly explained, non-NPOV edits mind you. After clearing that, I usually sift through some of his recent contribs to clean up other articles he's edited. I don't think there's an malicious intent, but he just doesn't get it. I'm not strictly in support of a block either, I don't know what should be done here. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree he doesn't seem to get it. And let me make some comments about the disability issue, again with no disrepect to any of the editors commenting above. I am a strong advocate for disability rights. I am involved in that issue every day of my life. But I also strongly believe that attributing every improper behavior to a disability not only is a weak excuse, but that "acceptance" of inappropriate behavior is itself disrepectful to the vast majority of disabled people who live their lives without this kind of behavior. It also encourages the inappropriate behavior. I'm not arguing for or against a block or other sanction against Smith Jones (nor would I if disability was not an issue). I am stating, however, that unacceptable behavior should be addressed and dealt with rather than swept under the carpet. If he were a 12-year-old (and some of his edits are typical of many 12-year-olds), we would explain, persuade, and (if necessary) eventually become firm and even block if the softer means were not successful. He states on his user page that he is a lawyer. He also states that he is an admin on Russian Wikipedia. He should know better than to make some of these edits (and I'm talking about the ones that appear to have less than honorable intent, not the ones that result from typos or careless errors). We should handle this like we would for anyone else on Wikipedia. Ward3001 (talk) 20:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I perceive we have great difficulties with communication with some editors here, and I remember User:hopiakuta appearing here multiple times, and hasn't been around for some months. However, with regard to User:Smith Jones, he is capable of cogent editing (in written language terms) and claims no disability; if he did, perhaps the rest of us would be able to adapt to that. However, the question is how we should enforce standards when perhaps overall the balance is that he is a well-intentioned contributor. Has anyone suggested some kind of editing partnership? (I won't suggest mentoring because that would be patronising) He is clearly strong-willed, but on balance, unless he is supremely disruptive, I don't want to lose him as an editor here. --Rodhullandemu 00:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree that a mentorship would be patronising, but apparently something needs to be done. I find interaction with him in Wikipedia space and talk pages to be extremely irritating, but that's hardly blockable. I see several troubling examples above, but even those put together don't seem actionable. If there is some persistent POV pushing or ongoing disruption, I think some diffs would be helpful. As it stands, it appears we have an enthusiastic, well intentioned, strongly opinionated user who doesn't understand what the "show preview" button does. Unless there are diffs that show otherwise, I don't think this is actionable, and he's really not so active that undoing his problematic edits is too much of a hassle. AniMate 04:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I simply remind everyone of my favorite essay, WP:Competence is required, and move on.—Kww(talk) 04:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
The biggest problem with Smith Jones isn't just his refusal to push the correct keys on his keyboard, but his repeated "mistakes", as noted above, with regards to deleting other comments, altering discussions at AN, and things like that. The refusal to attempt to spell words correctly is merely annoying. His frequent, non-sequitur comments and the fact that he frequently screws up talk pages (apparently innocently, but it still happens too much for my taste) is a problem going back months, probably years, and borders on disruption... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
But is there anything that we can do about it? I've seen him constantly insert himself into situations where he just does more harm than good, yet it's all done in good faith.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
The essay cited by KWW above is particularly enlightening, and also remember that good faith is not a suicide pact. Where granting good faith to other users results in a net negative for the project, over many months and years then something needs to be done. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Jayron32. As for what can be done about it, I'll be the devil's advocate. It has been said that mentoring might be patronizing. Why? I've seen editors with less problematic behavior be asked (sometimes insistently) to seek adoption. If he truly doesn't get it, the only way to help him get it is to have some individual coaching and guidance. I believe it has been argued that this might not fit well with his personality. My devil's advocate response to that is, which is more important: Wikipedia, or going along with his personality quirks? Let's face it. He knows about this discussion. He is capable of seeing what we have to say about him. So why not talk directly to him? Having said all that, I truly don't want to alienate him needlessly, but I think we have to draw the line somewhere. Ward3001 (talk) 02:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Ianbond and related pages[edit]

Resolved: Resolved to the best of my needs. Mononomic (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Ianbond has created the pages A Second Life multiple times after speedy deletion. He also creates pages for the founder of this movement, Christian Schoyen, which was also SD'd, and then Christian schoyen, which is up for speedy deletion. This user has been notified of his violation of WP:RPDA. I'm asking for a block on his account, along with page protection for Christian Schoyen, Christian schoyen, and A Second Life to stop all of this ruckus. Mononomic (talk) 02:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

User has been warned, pages have been deleted, and A Second Life has been indefinitely protected. Resolved to the best of my needs. Mononomic (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sofia Shinas and OTRS[edit]

Unresolved

There has been considerable debate about her date of birth, leading to my protecting the page. As you can see from the talk page and from a comment on my talk page here [5], a change was made through protection on the basis of something via OTRS, which no one has since been able to verify and which is still being challenged. In order to avoid further edit warring, I'd like to know what to advise editors such as the one who posted on my talk page how to best proceed. And I'd like to get to the bottom of whether this edit through the block was actually justified by incontrovertible evidence. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 15:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned. If it can't be verified through the location of the respective ticket at OTRS, the information should be removed. Caulde 17:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
otrs:2164024. Mr.Z-man 18:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I can't access that, so it's of no use to me. dougweller (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Just tried to have a look, but it's not in one of my queues so I can't see it either. Stifle (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I can verify that the ticket says "1974" and that it comes directly from Sofia Shinas. John Reaves 02:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
What I don't understand is how it can be verified that it comes directly from Sofia Shinas. And also, even if that can be verified, do we then simply take their word for it when it is not completely impossible that an actor/actress might have an interest in claiming to be younger than they are. The Los Angeles Times seems to disagree (maybe the solution is to put in two dates?), there is a claim that it is actually a cousin with the same name that is supposed to be born in 1968 according to friends, but then if there are two people with the same name...(apologies, forgot to sign this) dougweller (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Here is the issue, besides how one would know it is from the actress Sofia Shinas. A Windsor Star (Canada) article lists biography information on the actress in an article they wrote about her, which included an interview. In the article (from May 28, 1994) she was listed as 26 years old. The article also report that "Toronto-Born Shinas grew up in Windsor, where the rest of her family - parents James and Lela, and brothers Gus, Chris and John - still live. She attended Roseland elementary schoool and spent part of her high school years at Kennedy Secondary School before finishing up at Sandwich Secondary School." She graduated high school. Another article from the Los Angeles Times, the abstract of which is here, stated Shinas went to college for a little less than a semester, worked on a Detroit TV show, was in New York working, before moving to Los Angeles about two years ago (from the date of the article in 1992). So let's see, two years in LA, plus a semester in college plus time in Detroit and New York. Even if the college semester and Detroit and New York time only totalled a year, then she started college when she was 15? And left and went on to work when? Late 15 years old, early 16 years old? Moved to Los Angeles at age 16?? It seems much more likely that OTRS was given misleading information and the 1968 birthdate is much more likely and 1974 would be next to impossible. If Sofia Shinas had been some sort of prodigy, it would seem likely that the interview would mention that. Oh wait. The interview says she's 25 in 1992. Oops. Wouldn't one think had the Los Angeles Times overstated the age of an 18 year old prodigy by seven years, it would have been corrected? Since there seems to be other women named Sofia Shinas in Canada, perhaps information from that person is what was submitted. In any case, this still seems dubious. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

No, we can't verify anything without a copy of a birth certificate. Speaking of which, I understand the lengths people will go through to hide their age because I've actually handled a case where someone sent in an obviously forged birth certificate. In regard to the article issue however, I suggest simply not putting a birth date at all. Without a definite source, it is better to have nothing than to have all of this kerfuffle. John Reaves 07:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing[edit]

Resolved: This doesn't require admin attention ViridaeTalk 00:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I am having difficulty with this user and even having a conversation had proven to be a challenge. I have tried to reason with him despite his past but it seems like my attempt was futile.

In all fairness he hasn't done anything truly disruptive on my dealings with him so far but his past history is of concern. It may be time to review his contributions elsewhere. He seems to be trying to enforce MOS issues and treating MOS like the law. He is also seem to be quick to revert or semi-revert.

I am not necessarily calling for administrative action as I am not certain one is warranted. I hope this thread will determine it.

-- Cat chi? 23:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Telling Andy to slow down on his editing because you had an edit conflict with him doesn't seem appropriate to me, nor does this thread. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't a single edit conflict. It was many ([6], [7], [8]). And the problem is not the edit conflict itself but his tone trying to dictate everything without giving the hint of compromise. I believe that was why he was banned from the site for a year but I am not sure. -- Cat chi? 00:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Is there some reason that it's better for other people to wait on you than it is for you to use the preview button?—Kww(talk) 00:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately we lack the technology to review edits to templates and their effects on the transcusions. -- Cat chi? 00:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately we don't. Create a userspace version and preview it's transclusion in other articles (or even better perhaps, copy an article into your userspace for testing; but I prefer keeping two tabs open, one with a preview I can refresh, and another where I can perform my template edits). FWIW, I also don't see the problem here. Edit conflicts happen, if you'd like to avoid them consider testing your changes in userspace first, then moving them to the template when you've verified they work. —Locke Coletc 03:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
There is an {{in use}} template, no idea if it works for other templates but it can certainly be useful. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
How is that even relevant? Using that would probably break the template! I was making minor alterations only. You do not make edits right after the second other people make! I for example typically give people a good 5 minutes and expect others to give me that much time after I make my edits. This general courtesy of mine of course does not extend to pages like ANI which gets many edits in five minutes. Seriously, what is the rush?
SqueakBox have you actually reviewed his contribution or will I be subjected to brutal criticism yet again before someone actually reviews my complaint?
-- Cat chi? 00:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I am very aware of Andy's contribs, indeed its because his page is on my watchlist that I picked up on this. As someone who uses my watchlist extensively to edit I would never wait even 5 seconds to edit an article that someone else has just edited, I see an article on my watchlist and I edit it, often my edit has no relation to the edit asomeone else just made. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Like I said the request was to review his over-authoritarian tone. Not because he edit conflicted. You are missing the entire point. -- Cat chi? 00:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
So take it to WQA, instead of trying to get a user blocked (or whatever other administrative action required posting on ANI) over fairly minor incivility by dredging up his unrelated arbcoms. I agree that Andy overreacted a little here, but so did you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Bbcody[edit]

Resolved: Request retracted. TNX-Man 16:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Bbcody was blocked by Ryulong after only two warnings. I had talked to Bbcody about his vandalism (we had a long discussion), he had promised to me to not vandalize anymore. Since our discussion he has not vandalized again. I believe that the block was unfair and that he did not receive fair warning. Could someone please help. Mygerardromance (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, let's see. He's tried to get an autoblock lifted and was denied by User:FisherQueen. He then tried unblock again, saying that he had been blocked a year ago for vandalism, and was denied by User:Kevin. I'm sorry but I agree with Ryulong. Have him write an unblock request that doesn't play the "yes, I vandalized on 10 articles in 20 minutes but you only gave me two warnings" game. Two other admins have ratified Ryulong's decisions. He can try again but I would really really suggest he wait a while and try an better request. Also, the whining to you on his talk page in general, combined with your drama of "if he isn't here, I don't see the point of staying", is not helping the situation. He can appeal directly to the unblock email list if he wants. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry I was going to take this down after the first appeal had been denied, but was too busy. So you can just ignore this now. Sorry Mygerardromance (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Shared IP templates nominated for deletion[edit]

Resolved: Debate is now closed. J.delanoygabsadds 17:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This message is being made as a matter of courtesy to inform you that the shared IP templates {{ISP}}, {{MobileIP}}, {{SharedIP US military}}, {{SharedIPCERT}}, {{SharedIPEDU}}, {{SharedIPPublic}}, {{SingNet}}, and {{AberWebcacheIPAddress}} have all be nominated for deletion via TfD. Please see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 December 14#Template:Shared IP Templates for the discussion. Please also note that I am not the nominator for deletion, and I have not weighed in on either side of the discussion; this is purely an informational message. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:SSP backlog[edit]

SSP backlog is at what I think is an all time high. Several cases have been there for weeks. Any help is appreciated. RlevseTalk 10:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Kyoko Okazaki.jpg[edit]

Resolved

This image was placed at WP:IFD on 30 November 2008 [9]. A significant debate regarding the suitability of the image with respect to our policies of fair use images of living people in biographies has taken place. See Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_November_30#Image:Kyoko_Okazaki.jpg. The IfD page has been archived with all other IfDs on that page being closed, and this one remaining open.

An administrator familiar with our fair use policies needs to review and decide. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

 DoneAngr 16:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Kmweber community ban proposal (3rd)[edit]

Resolved: Kurt has elected to leave the project. No need to continue this.

// roux   03:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

KMWeber thread post-archive discussion[edit]

Um... IS this resolved? If Kurt changes his mind next week and comes back (I know, I know... no one EVER says they're leaving and then comes back!!!! that NEVER happens, but bear with me here... ) then what? It may be better to get to some resolution here. Per Wizardman... we should come to a decision. Suggest unarchiving this and resolving it. ++Lar: t/c 04:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

My reason for archiving is that on the face of it, Kurt seems to be gone, and therefore any further pileon--note that I am definitely in favour of a community ban--is both unnecessary in terms of any resolution it seeks to achieve as well as unnecessary from the point of view of needless haranguing of someone who has apparently chosen to leave, not to mention needless proliferation of drama and equine sadism. If Kurt changes his mind, it is trivial to unarchive this discussion and resume where it left off. If he doesn't, no purpose is served by continuing it.
My reserves of AGF are as depleted as anyone else's when it comes to Kurt, but it's not unreasonable to allow even someone so divisive as him to retain a few shreds of dignity if he has chosen to leave. The community has effectively already said "...and stay out!" to him; to continue the pileon appears to move the discussion from a reasonable--if heated--conversation on how to benefit the project into vindictiveness. Moreover, the continued discussion turns Kurt's potential return into a self-fulfilling prophecy; he's unlikely to stay away if people keep going on about it. The intent behind WP:RBI seems applicable here.
Nevertheless, if consensus is that the discussion must continue, by all means unarchive it. I just don't see the utility in continuing it when it appears as though any possible resolution this discussion could achieve would be moot either because he's gone (in the case of a ban decision), or because he's back (in the case of deadlock or consensus against ban). Should he return, and I agree it's likely, the discussion can be restarted. It's possible that he'll take time away and come back with a new perspective which would render the whole discussion moot in any case. // roux   05:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
We have a basic tradition/norm that if a user elects to leave this project, or stops editing, then whatever discussion concerning the user (whether it's a RFC/U or a community discussion like this one) ceases - the reason is because the dispute becomes resolved; an editor cannot continue to be a party to or the subject of a dispute if he is no longer editing. In any case, if a retirement turns into a temporary or long wikibreak, then on that user's return to the project, the discussion can either restart (or in certain circumstances, can continue from the point at which it was stopped). Kurt is no exception to our norms. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
My view here is that while it might be a tradition, it's not always a useful tradition. This is one of those cases... we have a consensus, or thereabouts, already on what to do... his leaving is just a way to duck facing the music, if you ask me (WP:AGF notwithstanding)... and his coming back later would be a way for us all to waste community time having essentially the same discussion all over again. Meh. If he comes back and returns to the same antics I'm just going to block him, refer to this thread, and post to AN/I and see if anyone says boo. ++Lar: t/c 17:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I would support a block if Kurt does return, Lar. In fact, you'd probably have to beat me to it. GlassCobra 17:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  • It's a flame-out. Kurt has obviously burned out, and banning him would be vindictive at this point. We should hope that he goes away for a bit and then comes back under a new name to resume the good things he used to do before he got mired in Wikipolitics. Guy (Help!) 16:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I second Guy. I actually feel this outcome is better for everyone, Kurt included. Should he return under his account and resume his previous behavior, we can reopen this discussion. But only then. Daniel Case (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I third. In this thread Kurt has received very clear feedback about how his style of humour is received. Should he have understood this earlier? Probably, especially after so many took his RFA on 1 April seriously. On the other hand he is probably used to everybody realising when he isn't serious, e.g. because of nonverbal cues. I think now he has understood the problem, and intelligent as he is I am very hopeful that he will be more careful in the future. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Guy, Dan and Hans. Let's all just move on. Verbal chat 16:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
If this were the first time Kurt was nearly banned, I might agree, but it isn't. This is what? The second? Third? "Should he return under his account and resume his previous behavior, we can reopen this discussion" - So we can have yet another drama-laden discussion about whether or not he should be sitebanned? I agree with Lar, I see no reason to waste more community time if he decides to come back, DFTT. (FWIW I support a ban) Mr.Z-man 17:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I doubt kurt will return for the simple reason that he didn't leave a huge essay on his userpage about how crappy wikipedia is. Those people always return. He just wrote that he's left. Sensible if you ask me, he was a net liability. If he returns and doesn't act so political in future I say welcome back though.--Patton123 17:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  • I also agree with Lar and Mr.Z-man, Kurt was a liability to the project since '2005. But because people have mixed feelings about this, I think it should go to WP:ARBCOM instead and let them decide. Secret account 17:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Since we evidently can’t resist the thrill of beating a dead horse, and votes for banning are still taking place even after Kurt has left and an attempt to archive the thread didn’t take, I’ll go ahead and register my objection to a site ban, to make it slightly harder (if Kurt ever does come back) for someone to point to this thread in the future and call it "overwhelming consensus for a ban". The whole Kmweber saga has been handled poorly on all sides, not least of all Kurt’s, but... I was all set to write more, but I won’t, since (a) it probably wouldn’t have been civil, (b) it sounded really holier-than-thou as I starting writing it, and (c) I think by now everyone’s opinion on Kurt is so hardened that no one is going to change anyone’s mind about anything. But for posterity, put this one down in the "don't push off a cliff quite yet" column. --barneca (talk) 18:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
You can cite mine and the supports to it as opposition to a ban - I'll not dispute what Secret says because I don't have much past interaction with Kurt (albeit that much of what I've seen is clearly vexatious) but the recent behaviour follows a familiar pattern from which some recover and some do not. Most of Kurt's problem behaviour is in project space, so there is no pressing need to banninate right now, let's just wait and see what happens. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete or not[edit]

I have got to go and I can not watch this page. I would like to draw attention to this userpage. I have marked it for speedy as an advertisement. The speedy template has been removed once and as I will not be here I can't ensure it stays by the time an admin takes a look. So, do what you need to. Happy editing. Rgoodermote  17:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Deleted as copy vio of this page---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 17:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I've unmarked this done, per Krista's comment here. It looks as if her recording label, broken bow, might be going around creating user pages for it's recording artist in the user talk area. That way it gets around our notability requirements. I don't have time to investigate this further, but thought I'd drop a line here if anybody else wanted to look into it.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 19:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I had honestly not seen that on my userpage. How odd. Hm, well I would assume that this means we have to do some hunting. I will get on that. Rgoodermote  21:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
If anyone is interested in assisting. Look for artists from this website. Rgoodermote  21:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I am perfectly fine with Krista continuing to edit. I have left a rather large note on her talk page informing her of the violations, what she can do to not violate them and asking her to tell everyone to stop what they are doing and made sure I was not mistaken for an admin. If anyone wants to comment what I said, please do. (I am leaving notes here just in case). Rgoodermote  22:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

For fear of being made a fool, can some one make sure that that website is the one? Rgoodermote  22:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion[edit]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available here. Pcarbonn (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Cold fusion and related articles and pages for the duration of one year.

--Tznkai (talk), on behalf of the Arbitration Committee 21:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably not malware, but how do we handle this?[edit]

The first external link at article Kanpur Dehat district brings up a page that seems to launch a lot of popups. (I say "seems to" because I'm using a popup blocker and just get a lot of notices that popups have been blocked. I have not seen the actual popups, nor do I care to.) The second external link is to the same domain, but doesn't have this problem.

Should this link just be removed, should the external page be blacklisted, is it OK to leave it as it is, or what? The article does need other work, but I wanted to get some guidance on this first. Thanks. Auntof6 (talk) 07:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I would say it should be removed. I left the link there, but removed some junk which had found its way in. Enigma message 07:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
What about warning it contains pop-ups? It seems to be the best link for the subject. Many people block pop-ups anyway. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
The link opens 162 popups to kanpurdehat.nic.in/present.htm (visit at own risk). That page contains the text; "Click to View Presentation On Kanpur Dehat" which is a link to a .exe file. Doesn't look good. --TheIntersect (talk) 08:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
179, actually. Look, any site that has 179 pop-ups that link to an executable file has to be either bad news, or hacked. We should remove the link immediately, blacklist it, and contact the sysadmin responsible for the site. Anyone speak Hindi? l'aquatique || talk 08:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
More... I can't run a whois on the domain because the tld .nic.in isn't supported, but according to Wikipedia .nic.in is reserved for National Informatics Centre web addresses, ergo this is a government site. I still recommend the above course of action, it's possible they've been hacked or there's a bug. That number of popups on a browser without pop-up protection could easily crash a computer, there must be something wrong. l'aquatique || talk 08:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Taking a look at the page source, this actually appears to be a case of incompetence, not malice. The .exe file is in fact a short slideshow created using the ArcSoft VideoImpression tool, and the large number of (attempted) popups is probably the result of a botched edit to the site's Javascript. (The window.open call was mistakenly inserted inside a routine that is called on a timer.) Zetawoof(ζ) 10:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
User:Nichalp can help us here, I'll drop a note on his page. RlevseTalk 10:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Not sure how I can help. The site is the official site. It's true that several Indian government sites are poorly coded, the best example is the site where one files one's taxes online -- Google marked it as a malware page! So I suggest we leave in a link with a warning that the page opens 100+ popups. It appears safe to navigate with Firefox. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
As suggested by Zetawoof the problem appears to be with the code rather than the site itself. Considering that the is site hosted by Government of India, I doubt presence of a malware. The popups direct to an .exe file which contains a small video presentation. The number of popups also seem to vary with browsers for me: Firefox had 133, Chrome one, Safari zero. Not sure about IE but less than 10. LeaveSleaves talk 11:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Jeez....179 popups? That's about 180 too many for me. Could we perhaps no-wiki the link, seeing as how people don't always read warning messages BEFORE clicking? At least if we no-wiki it, the user will have to copy-paste it instead of just clicking; the extra step will slow them down enough to (I hope!) read the warning. Just a thought, anyhoo. GJC 13:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and nowiki'd it. Enigma message 16:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Just one pop-up for me (Safari on WinXP). DuncanHill (talk) 13:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
179 for me in firefox under Ubunutu.
I added a quick warning underneath the links instructing readers not to visit the sites without popup blocker enabled. I also added a commented message not to remove the nowiki tags. Think we can call this one resolved? l'aquatique || talk 19:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  • That site sucks to a truly incredible degree, but it seems to be all there is. Since the article is a one-sentence stub and there seem to be virtually no other sources than that site why not upmerge to Kanpur? Guy (Help!) 21:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, we've got bigger problems. The article is a copyvio from here: [18]. I'm going to have to delete it, but some of the information, paraphrased, might be able to be upmerged. l'aquatique || talk 22:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Isn't nationmaster.com a crib from Wikipedia? And it's GFDL anyway. I suspect they copied us.