Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive64

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 GWB again 2 Sockpuppetry by Bonaparte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) 3 SlimVirgin unblocking 'Fair Use' blocks 3.1 Policy and legality 4 School IP blocked, please review 5 Unitheism 6 vandal at wikinews 7 More fun with Bigfoot 8 Template:User vandal out-of-process deletion reversed 9 Khmer Rouge 10 Increadible volume of vandalism on List of ethnic slurs 11 Gang stalking as a subpage 12 User:Jackjohn

[edit] GWB again

[1] What is this, the amazing blinking template? :) I personally agree that this should be deleted but let's try to convince people why instead of trying to settle it with a boxing match. Haukur 22:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Coudldn't we let the TfD go to copnclusion? if the TfD result is "Keep" will that automatically justify undeletion? if not, why not? DES ^(talk) 22:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, though I will go now and vote for its deletion. - Haukur 22:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have undeleted it. The decision belongs with the TfD and nowhere else. unilaterally deleting something while votes are going on is an outrageous abuse of power. Unlike there are legal reasons why it must be deleted immediately or it is seriously deficient in a major way (eg, major error in formating, copyright issues, etc) a template should not deleted until a vote has been taken. It is disturbing that people would try to in effect highjack a vote by deleting a page in advance. It needs to be there for users to see it when voting. Deleting it before a vote has concluded is a gross abuse and little short of vandalism. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• I have to question the motivations of the people who recreate the template without bothering to restore the tfd tag that should be accompanying it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

What about the deleted category: Category:Wikipedians who dislike George W. Bush. IMO this refusal to go through the proper channels is unacceptable. Izehar 23:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the category but removed the subsed copies of the suer box from the category page as provocative and not the sort of thing we normally include in category pages. DES ^(talk) 23:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• I see that User:Tony Sidaway has just deleted this for the fourth time in less than 24 hours -- really this is a bit much IMO. DES ^(talk) 23:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Tony Sidaway for 24 hours for violating the 3RR on Template:User GWB by deleting it 4 times within the same 24 hour period [2]. If anyone disgarees, feel free to unblock him. Izehar 23:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I was taking only the sencond and subsequet deletes to be a "reversion" and so I warend him but felt that he was at but not over the limit. I'm not sure of policy on deletes, so i won't unblock. DES ^(talk) 23:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have had to undelete the page for a second time. This is absurd. What the hell has got into a handful of users??? It seems that we have an outbreak of popeitis, with some users deciding that they, and not the community, can decide on the issue. Some people may believe that the pope is infallible. But few people that admins posess the same ability. Frankly if vandals behaved the way some have behaved in unilaterally deleting templates I'd have no hesitation in banning them. I'm surprised and disappointed that Tony and Zoe have stooped to such behaviour. I expected better. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Incredible. Sidaway came back after being unblocked by another user and did it again. I've blocked him again. Because I don't think the above block was an actual breach of 3RR (he had done 3RRs to an original move, not four) I've only made it a 24 hour block. As I did the block I'm not doing the undelete. Someone else if they wish can do that. After his antics tonight Sidaway has plummeted in my estimation. He grossly abused his position to highjack a vote. I have lost count of the number of what were IMHO stupid decisions on the TFD but highjacking a vote by preempting it like that is a big no-no. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks like it isn't his first time to screw around with templates for deletion. Look at this! What the hell is he up to? Does he actually think tampering with templates mid TfD is acceptable behaviour? I'm flabbergasted at his antics. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

just let it sit through tfd. it's a userspace template, ffs, I agree these are getting out of hand, but so far nobody objected to users voicing their political leanings on their own userpages. take a step back, people, edit-warring admins is a sad sight, but why Tony would jeopardize his adminship over a userspace template saying "we don't like GWB" is beyond me. Everybody is still free to say "I don't like GWB" on their userpages, manually, so what's the point. The problem with these templates (as with the "Wikipedians who" categories) is that they are not cleanly separated from article namespace. That's a generic problem unrelated to the GWB case. dab (ᛏ) 00:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all your points. And guess what! It was deleted again, now by someone else. *sigh* FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

At last count, after several more iterations all 'round, TS unblocked, and template restored. I've filed a 3RR report rather than contribute to the admin-warring further, after my initial undeletion. Alai 01:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

No hassle. The blocks didn't have effect for more than a few minutes and I hope you've now all toddled off to WP:DRV, the talk page of WP:CSD and er, well. edits here earlier today, where you'll find that I was acting on a substantial consensus to delete attack pages. Now we're all in the loop we go through more iterations.

Currently there is a page at Template:User GWB but it doesn't attack Bush and it doesn't incite vandalism on our article about Bush. It only disparages vandalism of that article, which is what the original author claims it was intended to do all along. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"no hassle" to you, maybe, but another blow to the battered "admins should behave above par" principle. "I was acting on substantial consensus" is never an excuse for edit warring, let alone 3RRvio, since if you were, there would have been plenty of other people willing to do the job for you. (un)delete once, or twice at most, then step down and let others deal with it. I don't care about the stupid template, just show some countenance when using admin privileges. [btw, "attack pages" are usually against Wikipedians; it is news to me that GWB is a Wikipedian, and/or it is news to me that NPA extends to politicians or religious figureheads] dab (ᛏ) 10:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of ever having edit warred. Policy was apparently changed without discussion to make 3RR apply to administrator actions--not something I have a problem with, though I find it unnecessary given the quick resolution of such scuffles as we often have. Blocking was entirely appropriate, the situation was resolved amicably and no harm was done.

On the template, it really strikes me as disingenuous to say that it isn't a personal attack because the subject is not known to be an editor. Wikipedia shouldn't be in the business of facilitating attacks on anybody, ever. It's an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

If the template is deleted in the middle of a vote, not-admins cannot see it and have a harder time casting an informed vote. Repeatedly deleting this during the vote is rather discourteous, I must say. I personally don't like this userbox or many of the other non-language ones, but repeated out-of-process deletions do have a negative impact on community spirit, and it is the community that builds the encyclopedia. Jonathunder 15:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry by Bonaparte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

I have concluded, based on CheckUser evidence, that Bonaparte is running a sock farm. At the very least, Monor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Boxero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) are sockpuppets; he appears to be running a botnet or other collection of proxies to appear to be editing from different locations, but slipped up and executed some of each of Monor's and Boxero's edits from his home base instead of the remote proxies. Monor and Boxero should be blocked indefinitely. I leave the determination as to what should be done with Bonaparte to another admin. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked blocked them all indefinitely including Bonaparte but the block on Bonaparte is only until feedback can be gotten on how long the block should be and I support it being shortened if other admins think so. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

For the record, votes cast in RfA by the socks:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/KillerChihuahua (Boxero)
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wgfinley (Boxero)
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alex Bakharev (Boxero)
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rogerd (2nd) (Monor)
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Juro (Monor)
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aecis (Monor)
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Husnock (Monor)
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alex Bakharev (Monor)

Kelly Martin (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I assume you meant you've blocked them all, Jtkiefer? android79 01:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

That would be yes:

01:23, 11 January 2006 Jtkiefer blocked "User:Bonaparte" with an expiry time of indefinite (malicious sockpuppetry and running a botnet)

01:21, 11 January 2006 Jtkiefer blocked "User:Boxero" with an expiry time of indefinite (Sock of user Bonaparte)

01:21, 11 January 2006 Jtkiefer blocked "User:Monor" with an expiry time of indefinite (Sock of user Bonaparte)

--Calton | Talk 02:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's not forget the "coincidence" that Bonaparte was one of the people questioning Kelly Martin's actions. Surely a coincidence that Kelly Martin is here banning people who disagree with her again. I mean, its not like she hates criticism. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any constructive comments or are you simply interested in ad hominems? Carbonite | Talk 01:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Zordrac, your repeated attacks on any and all admin actions have become as tiresome as Everyking's. And Everyking eventually had an ArbCom ruling against him. May I suggest you refrain? User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I will soon provide a list of anon accounts which revert warred at several articles following Bonaparte with deceiving summaries like "rv test" or "phrase from the article". I remember Chinese, Taiwanese, Australian and US ip addresses. When Mikkalai (talk · contribs) was reverting them, the newbie admin Ronline (talk · contribs) blocked Mikka and Mikka is still not editing because he seems like lost hope that WP may function.

The matter should be addressed quickly and decisively. If sockpuppet/IP farm used for revert-warring with the goal to provoke the opponents into 3 RR with a "friendly" or just clueless admin from a 3RR board placing a block is simply a fraud, using socks to derail an adminship nomination is a fellony, so to speak. --Irpen 01:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to make it clear that while I am very happy that Bonaparte is gone (comment below) note that the "friendly admin", Ronline is a principled user. I don't think he was engaged in any game here. If anything, Mikkalai should have been smart enough to not fall into the trap of doing four reverts in three hours; those were not vandalism he was reverting; it may have been propaganda/biased wording, but not vandalism. So, Ronline has nothing to do with Bonaparte's sockpuppetry. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You may want to carefully review a couple of policies; Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, to begin with. It is good for you to say "thanks god he's gone" now, but where all you've been when I was single-handedly fighting him? I asked several Romanians to talk Bonaparte to senses. His ugliness was seen from his very fist edits, but I cannot get rid of an impression that he was a too good an Icebreaker for the Romania Mare cause to lose him. The ugliness of Romanian edotors' assault onto Moldova exceeds even "Balkan Wars" and "Middle East": over there all parties are in blood, so at least emotions of both sides are understandable. So I hold you and you (and you over there too) responsible for this loose cannon. It was also amazing to watch when Bonaparte started kissing asses all over wikipedia and quickly got himslef a big number of just so buddies. mikka (t) 22:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I concur. I was myself blocked when fending off attacks by Bonaparte's socks, as he logged out to eschew violating 3RR. It was just impossible to persuade admins that my actions were not vandalism. Fortunately, it's easy to recognize Bonaparte's style when he repeats his pseudo-admin statements ad nauseum: compare Take this a LAST warning and stop editing controversial edits on this page! Take this a LAST warning and stop editing controversial edits on this page! by Bonapate and Do not erase, do not erase, do not remove, do not remove!!! by the vandalizing anon who had me blocked. --Ghirla | talk 10:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for inviting me to participate in this discussion. You stated above that you were unable "to persuade admins that [your] actions were not vandalism." On the contrary, no admin accused you of vandalism. You violated the three-revert rule, regardless of other editors' actions. We now know that another user committed far worse policy violations, but that doesn't excuse your behavior. You had just reported a 3RR violation on the part of Anittas (blocked at exactly the same time as you), so you obviously were well aware of its existence. But again, had you contacted me via e-mail or your talk page, apologizing for your infraction and promising to edit responsibly, I would have unblocked you immediately. Instead, you evaded your block via an anonymous IP address (and disrupted a project page). Incidentally, you never answered my question regarding your claim that I am "not neutral." Were you implying that I'm biased against Russian people? —David Levy 18:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Loose cannon? My favorite expression for this relationship is pet trolling, a neologism I coined in conjunction with a different fellow of another Eastern European wiki-community. If this term gains usage, there may appear an article under this pet troll so far red link. I repeatedly called on established Romanian editors to deal with this person who placed the shame on the entire community to no avail. I was surprized by lack of condemnation and tolerant attitude from Ronline and Bogdan. The fellow was called "just misguided" sometimes but not a signle time he was condemned by the community which should have been ashamed by such a representation. I don't want to overgeneralize here. Some Romanian editors did agree with me that the issue had to be addressed but not those who Bonaparte claims to be his role models. Mild chastising was the most I've seen. --Irpen 22:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I am going to start using that term myself, Irpen - fabuluous phrase. Very apt in certain situations. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I see little reason to unblock Bonaparte. While I haven't particuarly been in a dispute with him, I've been in a position to observe his editing at length, and he has never shown the slightest sign of understanding, let alone following, the NPOV policy. He's been a key part of the recent massive flareup on Moldovan topics, and had made very little, if any, beneficial edits. This sockpuppetry is a new low, though, and I think gives us plenty of justification to block him permanently. Ambi 02:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Ambi, I very much hope so! Running a sock-farm for edit wars plus rigging the votes (and who knows how many other votes ArbCom, WP:RM, surveys were rigged) is definetely enough material to be blocked through an arbitration proceeding but they are way to lengthy. The monster case against another obvious disruptor is going for months and we still do not have a formal ArbCom decision to undo the bad faith redirects, even though the ArbCom votes are leaning to undo them, judging by the votes already cast.

There is a reason why there are words "administrator discretion" in our policies. If this isn't obvious enough, the Wikipedia is doomed. We cannot allow the malusers to waste so much time of good-faith editors better spent on improving Wikipedia. The amount of aggravation from a couple of users like this one is untenable for the project. --Irpen 02:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Please, please, please keep him blocked. A true troll by all measures. I have plenty of evidence (in form of diffs) of personal attacks by this user. Hope he's gone. Thank you. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

My candid reaction would be "good riddance" (in addition to all the above, his idea of "mediation" seems to be more in line with "content dictator"). To be scrupulously fair, though, I doubt he'd be banned forever by the arbcom, so a block of on the order of a month might be preferable. OTOH, he always has the option of an arbcom appeal anyway... Alai 03:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Good work...I saw that User:Monor had been doing some voting and was newbie, now I'll go over to my nominee for adminship's page and ensure the vote isn't counted as he/she cast a support vote there. Perhaps a note needs to be placed on each Rfa voted on?--MONGO 04:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• As Bonaparte's self-professed mission is to advance "Great Romanian" agenda on Wikipedia and to have myself and Mikka ousted from editing, I'd like to point out this troll's long-standing obssession with his IP. I also suspect Bonaparte's socks are guilty of repeatedly vandalizing my user page: see here and here, for example. It would be nice to know if Bonaparte has a hand in this too... --Ghirla | talk 07:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• I have blocked 212.179.19.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) indefinitely as an open proxy. I was able to edit through it: diff. If anyone disagrees with my action, feel free to unblock it. Izehar 17:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  Thanks. I'm sure that User:Excaliburo is another sock of Bonaparte's. After as much experience with him as I had, I come to recognize his touch :) Hopefully someone will investigate.--Ghirla | talk 18:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The open proxy activity, likely by Bonaparte, continues. I reported this yesterday and the proxy was blocked. Right now IP 205.191.194.212 and IP 200.42.209.117 made Bonaparte-style edits to several articles with abusive edit summaries. I cannot check from where I am right now for open proxies. Someone, please do and, if indeed proxies, they should be blocked. --Irpen 21:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked 205.191.194.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) indefinitely as a proved open proxy. I was not however able to prove anything about 200.42.209.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Izehar 21:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that Bonaparte was an active mediator on the mediation cabal, and acting as such, participated in a number of conflict resolutions. How many of these were done in bad faith we'll likely never know... FeloniousMonk 18:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well when he was "mediating" he didn't actually mediate but take a quick look at things and dish out ill-thought out judgements, which he had no authority to do, causing absolute chaos. Basically, a pain in the arse. — Dunc|☺ 18:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You may also look into User:Anittas as a sock. Bonaparte is often an unwaivering apologist of Anittas's behaviour --malber 20:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

As a person closely involved in this Romanian thngy, I have reasons to believe these are two totally different people, judging from editing style and behavioral patterns. Of course, this leaves a chance of truly split personality... mikka (t) 22:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

As a mediator, he was horrid and rather Draconian as Dunc said. For Romanian stuff, I'd have to look at his language usage in both English and Romanian (I'm a linguist -- not paid as one though, because I make way more money in IT.  :) ) Anyway, if we needed research in that realm, I'd gladly do it. Jim62sch 22:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Bonaparte and Anittas are two different people. There is an RfC against Anittas for personal attacks. Ronline ✉ 22:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It is worth pointing out that Bonaparte shared in Anittas' homophobic attacks against Node. Or check this threat: If things don't go his way, Bonaparte promises that "Anittas and me will come and turn all them to dust. Let them disappear from there...". --Ghirla | talk 10:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

As a mediator, he showed zero understanding of the term "mediation" and zero desire to learn. I was a little clearer in my criticism of him than perhaps was completely polite, I basically told him he was being a disruptive element and to stop - and why he voted for me on my Rfa is beyond me. Perhaps a misguided attempt to curry favor? Did he vote "oppose" in any Rfa? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

His attempts at mediation usually consisted of presenting "deadlines" and trollish threats, e.g., "Close case. And I suggest you all of you to calm down or else I will start an RfC against all of you! I will accuse you of Anti-Romanianism if you don't get it!"--Ghirla | talk 10:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SlimVirgin unblocking 'Fair Use' blocks

Yesterday, I noticed a blatant 'fair use' violation on User:Sansvoix's userpage. He had redirected his userpage to an earlier version (in the history) to circumvent the removal of a 'fair use' tagged image, and display it on his page. Looking at his talk page, I noticed a number of warnings and policy explanations (by Gmaxwell and others), and reference to the WP:FU policy. So I blocked him for 24 hours - with a note saying I would lift the block if he indicated an agreement to abide by policy. I was met only with his legal arguments on copyright, so the block remained.

Some hours later, User:SlimVirgin undid the block, with the summary: There is no basis in policy for this block. She did not discuss this with me, although I was on-line, but did inform me by e-mail. She indicated her ignorance of the law and status of the image, but her view that User:Gmaxwell had been 'bullying' her and User:Sansvoix.

Not finding this acceptable, I reapplied the block. Explaining to Slim my reasons, my disappointment at her lack of discussion, and inviting her bring the matter here if she still disagreed [3]. Instead of that, she undid the block again, and suggested that I was acting at Gmaxwell's behest [4]. (I have never in my wiki-life interacted with Gmaxwell AFAIK). She also suggested that the image in question might be pd, and at any rate the user seemed to believe it was.

This isn't primarily a moan at Slim (although her recent complaints about others undoing her blocks, see a bit rich. And she seems too personally involved with the parties involved to be acting as an admin on this issue - that's why I suggested that she brought it here.). My questions for fellow admins are. 1) Are copyright blocks policy? 2) Can images tagged as fair use be used if the user disputes the status? 3) Was I wrong to block or reblock this user?.

I realise we are developing rules on this as we go along - so I'm happy to be guided. --Doc ^ask? 16:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Policy is what we do. The policy that is written down often poorly represents actual policy. It's written as we go. The block sounds completely sensible to me, as copyright is a very important isseu. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 16:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Let's find those edits made by User:Jimbo Wales that make it clear that repeated copyright violations are grounds for blocking. They should then be added to WP:BP.
2. That way lies madness.
3. Given my impression that User:SlimVirgin usually makes good decisions, I'm reluctant to speculate without more information. Jkelly 16:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

1)No, it's not in WP:BP, but Jimbo has indicated an unsympathetic approach to wilful copyright infringement (he has specifically said we can and should block for it).

Uhm you might want to open your eyes... it is in there :)  ALKIVAR™ 16:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

2)Personally, (IANAL), but I figure that unless the image is clearly under a free license, editors can't decide to have it on their userpage. If there is no source on the image proving that it is free, especially in cases of PD assertion, then I'm inclined to insist on a source, tag as a {{no license}} or {{PUI-disputed}} in the meantime and remove from userspace in the interim. There's no critical hurry if there's a dispute, unless the disputation is plainly frivolous.

3)Probably not and probably not. -Splash^talk 16:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

1) Yes (continuation) (here, too).

2) No (here, too).

3) No. —Cryptic (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been seeing Fair Use messages on SlimVirgin's talk page, as if she is involved in a dispute about use of "fair use" images on her User page. One of them is User_talk:SlimVirgin/archive24#Fair_use_on_your_userpage (SEWilco 16:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC))

The user was sufficiently warned; I don't see why the block shouldn't stand, at least until the user agrees not to keep reverting the page or placing other unfree images on it. WP:FU states "Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages. They should be linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are the topic of discussion. This is because it is the policy of the Wikimedia Foundation to allow an unfree image only if no free alternative exists and only if it significantly improves the article it is included on. All other uses, even if legal under the fair use clauses of copyright law, should be avoided to keep the use of unfree images to a minimum." As Splash notes, Jimbo has stated that we can and should block for this. If the user agrees not to place any more unfree images on his/her userpage, it can be lifted. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, the user is currently unblocked [5] (although he says he's left) --Doc ^ask? 17:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The offending image (Image:Littleprince-businessman.jpg) is, in fact, considered to be in the public domain in Canada. (See Wikipedia:Copyright situations by country for details.) It is not, however, considered PD in the United States. Here is the page with the offending image, and here it is without it.

In order for the block to be valid, we would have to assume two things:

1. . . .that if a user places an image on his userpage that is PD in his own country, but copyrighted in the U.S., he can be blocked for this.

   That sounds a little fishy to me. I'm not sure I agree with this. Maybe, but I'm not yet convinced.

2. . . .that there is a legal difference between showing a "fair use" image in an article, and showing a fair use image in a history page for an article.

   Legally, it would seem to me that this is invalid. For example, let's say I added a picture of a TV show character to my user page. This would probably not be a fair use of the image. If I then removed it, would the violation be removed? You can still see the page in the page history. If the copyright holder wanted to sue, I'm not sure it would make any difference whether the image was "removed" or not. Either way, Wikipedia is hosting a viewable violation. This is troubling, since a solution would require either a change in Wikipedia's fair use policy or a software modification, and I think this is an area that could be better debated elsewhere. So I'll skip this one.

3. . . .that it is a blockable offense for me to link to a previous version of a page if that page contains a copyright violation.

   Again, this sounds fishy to me. By linking to the previous version of the page in question, above, am I violating policy? I don't see how it could be acceptable for Wikipedia to host the page history and allow people to see it, but unacceptable for someone to link to it.

In conclusion, Doc, I would say you might have been justified by re-instating the block. But given Slim's personal request, it would have been more civil of you to discuss it here first. (As an aside, Doc, it sounds like you're saying that your reversion of Sansvoix's page [6] and blocking of him was unrelated to Gmaxwell's admonition[7] that "you may not use fair use images on your user page. If you do so again I will ask a third party to block you from editing." Is this really what you're saying?) – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 18:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Gmaxwell has never communicated with me, not I with him. I did note, from the talk page, that the user had been warned. That's all.--Doc ^ask? 20:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Point 2 doesn't require a software modification: all it takes is for an admin to delete the whole page, then do a selective restore of the history (ie, restore everything except for the versions that include the copyvio image). --Deathphoenix 18:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point. But that's still a lot of work every time someone adds an image to a page. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 18:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

As an addendum, the blocking policy quotes Jimbo as saying "such activities", but doesn't say what he was referring to. He was referring to the case of *drew copying text from IMDB into Wikipedia. That is a clear case: the text was obviously copyrighted; "fair use" text isn't allowed on Wikipedia; and the text would not have been appropriate anywhere on Wikipedia. In this case, none of the three apply. The image was not considered copyrighted in Canada, an obvious source of doubt; fair-use images are allowed in Wikipedia (so long as they are actually used fairly); and the image is used legally on the Little Prince page. For all these reasons, this is not a clear-cut case, and it is arguable whether Jimbo's admonition about "such activities" applies. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 18:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Unless you mean something obscure, "fair use" text is "allowed" on Wikipedia. We claim "fair use" whenever we quote copyrighted material, from books, song lyrics, etc. This just doesn't tend to get controversial until somebody reproduces an entire work, like the IMDB instance, which is the equivalent of reproducing an entire image. Jkelly 18:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, good point. But we can reproduce whole copyrighted images, so long as we make a fair-use rationalle. We can't reproduce whole texts. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I've explained to Doc Glasgow why I lifted the block, once by e-mail and once on his user page. Gmaxwell has been (as I see it) bullying a number of users, myself included, about images on their user pages, including threatening to block them, though I can't find his name on the admin list. I don't want to get involved in the fair-use debate, because I know nothing about it, but whatever the rights and wrongs, editors shouldn't be bullied and harassed about images, but should be approached with civility. Gmaxwell was very rude to me, and Sansvoix spoke out on my behalf. Because of that, Gmaxwell turned his attention to Sansvoix and removed an image from his page too that Sansvoix believed was PD. Whatever the status of the image, removing it looked vindictive because the two of them were in dispute, and so Gmaxwell should have asked someone else to look at it. When Doc Glasgow removed another image, Sansvoix assumed he was acting on behalf of Gmaxwell, and Sansvoix responded by redirecting his user page to an earlier version with the image on it, for which he was blocked.

The whole situation is the result of a nasty dynamic started by Gmaxwell's (in my view) unnecessary aggression, and I ask that everyone involved try to resolve it without recourse to blocks. Sansvoix appears to have left because of it, though I hope he'll reconsider, I am close to leaving myself, and I know of a third editor who has been subjected to the same treatment by Gmaxwell, who I fear may consider going too.

This aggression over fair-use images has to stop, especially in cases where there is room for doubt and the editors are acting in good faith. Whatever Jimbo has said about images, I don't believe he would approve of the way this has been dealt with. I dislike undoing other people's blocks, but I don't want to see Sansvoix leave over this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

New solution: how about we just nuke the photo from our servers? Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 18:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Why? The image is being used legally at The Little Prince. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I see Zach has in fact deleted one of the images out of process, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Image:Kamelia_shojaee.jpg even though it was being used appropriately (even if it's fair use) in Culture of Iran until Gmaxwell removed it, and in fact is likely to be PD anyway. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you think Gmaxwell is being incivil in his dealing with fair use images on userpages, that's one thing; take it up with him. But if a user absolutely refuses to remove fair use images from their userpages, they shouldn't be allowed to edit their userpages. This is a question both of legal culpability, and moral concerns associated with stealing other people's property. "I wanted to do it" doesn't override either, ever. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 19:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The question isn't whether the image should have been removed. The question is whether the user should have been blocked for linking to an old version of the page. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I tend to think so. Linking to your history is a sort of malicious obedience. I don't think users should always have to "obey" admins, but when they are in violation of copyright law and don't want to comply on their own, they need to be made to. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 19:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Before we begin to out-vote the law, can anyone find an argument to justify fair use in non-article space? To re-phrase the last sentence, we are building an encyclopedia, and must sometimes use copyrighted images images to illustrate some subject matter. That's the essence of "fair use". But why would the use of copyrighted matter on a userpage be "fair"? Pilatus 19:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

How about "I found this really useful image to illustrate this article: aren't I clever?" which would seem to be in line with a fair proportion of the "boast-sheets" many user-pages contain. You might argue that the image should be linked in-line, YMMV, but referring to its discovery and use would appear to be fair comment. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It isn't acceptable for a copyrighted image to be used in non-article-space. The arbcom (at least all who spoke up) was unanimous in this. But in this case, the user thought the image was PD - and he was right, at least in Canada. The image should probably have been removed, but it should have been done politely, and with careful discussion, without resorting to blocks except as a last resort. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I can certianly suggest cases where the use of such images might well be legal under US copyright law. Most of thes uses that people have made of such images on user pages probably do not so qualify, however. In any case, current foundation policy bars such use even if legal, which means that the queation of what the law permits is of only limnited relevance -- the first question is what our policy permits and what it should permit. Obviously we should not permit illegal actions, but we are not at all required to permit every action that is legal or that might arguably be legal. Vandalism, andf PoV editing is legal, but we forbid it. (By the way someone above said that there is no "fair use" text on wikipedia. That is simply incorrect. Every time that an article quotes a book in disccusing it, that quote is used under fair use. Much the same applies to most quotes from sources. There are probably hundreds of times as many instances of text being used under fair use as ther are of images. But since such fair use is obviously appropriate and is unlikely to lead to leagal action, no issue has been made of it.) DES ^(talk) 19:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to gently encourage anyone who has any reason at all to think that a user might be suspicious of their motives to not take it upon themselves to be the one to discuss the "fair use" in userspace issue with that user. It can easily have the effect of making an important conversation much more difficult. Jkelly 19:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to say I find the actions SlimVirgin has taken here very hypocritical given that I also unblocked a user twice, and she has accused me of "wheel warring" a number of times (for example here). Given that she's recently started a discussion on the administrators' noticeboard talk page about undoing other admins' blocks without discussion, where she argued "it's damaging if every block is likely to be undone" and categorically stated "my own policy if I disagree with a block is to try to persuade the blocking admin to undo it, but otherwise not to interfere", it greatly surprised me to see she unblocked Sansvoix - not once but twice, fitting her own definition of wheel warring - without discussion. I argued on the discussion to assume good faith in contributors and to unblock if in doubt. To repeat SlimVirgin's comments back at her, in a beautifully ironic coincidence, I'm glad to see that SlimVirgin has seen the error of her ways. ;-) Talrias (t | e | c) 19:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

That's starting to look like a personal attack, Talrias. I can't see how that comment is at all useful to the rest of us, except for disparaging Slim. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's a personal attack. It's the true facts, with honest opinion on her actions. I think there is an inconsistency between what she has said and what she has done. Stating that is not a personal attack. The comment is useful because it allows editors to form their own opinion about her actions based on the facts, rather than opinion. Please consider the facts I have included in my comment there and decide for yourself whether SV's actions were appropriate or not. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It struck me as a personal attack as well, and you have a history of personal attacks aimed at SV, for which you've been previously warned [8]. FeloniousMonk 19:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I was wrong to use one of the words I did in the diff you cited, and I immediately revoked it. In fairness, I was provoked by a string of mischaracterisations of my behavior on both Wikipedia and the mailing list, some blind reverts she did of my edits (which she later admitted was wrong), and starting various discussions about my actions without specifically mentioning my name. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it, blatant copyright infrinment (i.e copying a text verbatim and creating an article) is grounds for a block (after warning), however, fair use images seem a bit more dubious to me. Yes, it probably isn't fair use to use the image in the userspace, but IMO, that is up for debate. I think there needs to be a community wide vote on what specific rules we have on fair use images in the userspace and what type of punishments we can impose on those who violate them. Until that happens, I think all fair use releated blocks, including yours Doc, are wrong. -Greg Asche (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah generaly if they don't coperate it's probably simplest to remove the images then protect the page. Not that I've had to resort to this yet.Geni 03:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Greg but you can't hold a vote over legal issues as they are a concern for the Foundation and not the community. In any case, the users behavior called for the block... he was being a jerk about it. Unless you think calling Anthere a psychopath is acceptable (true, the user had confused us and was just trying to attack me...) --Gmaxwell 05:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

But the foundation hasn't explicitly stated their opinion on this, and until they do, I don't think unliateral actions like this are okay. And the block in question isn't about him being a jerk, it's about the fair use image. -Greg Asche (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The Foundation has stated over and over again, in symbolic and literal ways, that we need to abide by copyright law. I don't think we need some special announcement to know that using copyrighted images for decorating user pages is legally questionable and exposes the project to pointless legal risk. Demi ^T/_C 21:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Policy and legality

To sum up the most important point made here: if Wikimedia Foundation policy says "no fair use justifications for images on user pages", that should settle the matter, since that is who owns this site. If I were to write a record review on my user page, and claim "fair use" for a picture of the record jacket as an illustration, I could be violating policy, even though legally the fair use justification would be exactly the same as in article space. If the Foundation has not made such a policy, then the same fair use standards apply as in article space. DES seems to be saying that policy bars this. Greg Asche seems to be saying it does not. Does anyone have clarity on this? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should ask the foundation about it? Whether they agree with me or not, I think we need some clarity. -Greg Asche (talk) 04:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Does the juriwiki-l mailing list still exist? It's about damn time someone laid this to rest. Rob Church (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] School IP blocked, please review

209.226.83.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) does lots of vandalism and no good edits, as far as I've seen from my sampling (I expect there are a few helpful edits hiding in there if you look hard enough). It resolves to ns.hpedsb.on.ca, and a note at the top of the talkpage implies that it's a school with a static IP. I have blocked it for one week (please just look at the talkpage before you lynch me), and I request that someone with a better head for these things would kindly check; if it's not in fact static IP, it must of course have a block of at most 24 hours (of less, IMO). I left a note, I hope prominently enough, on the talkpage to explain that there's a lot of vandalism coming in from the school and for students to please ask the IT administrator to e-mail me to work something out. I absolutely don't want to keep a school blocked for a week, any more than other people do, but I just don't see the point of having all those warning templates waste their sweetness on the desert air. We need to do something more practical in these cases. Bishonen | talk 21:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC).

Nah, this is definately a static IP. Judging from the name, its a nameserver, and seems to be responding to dns queries. - FrancisTyers 22:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Full many a t*rd is born to stink unsmelled. The talk page is a work of art: they've got warnings and blocks going back nearly 3 years. Students can still research on Wikipedia while blocked, and, honestly, what they have to write from the school can be accomplished by setting up a named account. They haven't seen fit to do so in all this time, so it's highly unlikely that there is going to be editorial damage from the block. Geogre 22:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

What G said is exactly what I was planning to say while reading this. Students can still read WP so it doesn't affect those who want to research. Finally resolving Bug #550 might help in this too. —Ilyanep (Talk) 22:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a static IP address for a domain controlled by the Hastings and Prince Edward District School Board. This board, like all others in Ontario, provides a number of services for its schools, including internet access/routing. Thus, this IP address provides access to 54 schools in the district (of which only eight are high schools), plus to staff of the school board itself. This block is far more aggressive than you may have intended. Perhaps it is better to simply contact the board's IT department and work in conjunction with them - they certainly won't want to be associated with vandalism and trolling. Mindmatrix 20:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoa. No, I didn't intend to block 54 schools, it was exactly to ensure against something like that that I posted here. I'll leave the contacts to abler pens (=to somebody who knows what they're doing with IPs, IP ranges, and district boards; where's User:Hall Monitor when you need him?). Unblocked. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 20:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unitheism

The article Unitheism needs some serious attention, as it has been the subject of vandalism, POV pushing, and some complete nonsense. -- Jonel | Speak 02:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Great, so we either get a definition by the guy who coined the term, or a disambiguation page to three things that "unitheism" doesn't actually refer to... Yeah. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The disambiguation was a quick revert to something coherent. I didn't know anything about the topic and didn't expect to have much time today to learn about it, so I brought it here. Turns out I have got some time today, and having done some more research into it, I agree that AfD is the way to go as the term is a neologism (and, incidentally, all four of the disambig page items were erroneous). -- Jonel | Speak 18:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Aren't neologisms a case for AfD? Aren't dictdefs something for Wiktionary? (Yeah, I know: I think deletion is the answer for everything. It is, you know.) Geogre 11:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, when I said "definition", I guess I really meant "short essay". I can't think of a way to construe it that isn't AfD-able. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] vandal at wikinews

193.39.158.195 see his http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=193.39.158.195 all he does is vandalize... please ban.

Sorry, but Wikipedia administrators do not have access to those priviledges at any other sister project. Please check with administrators on Wikinews to report vandalism. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More fun with Bigfoot

I've indefinitely blocked DrJoe (talk · contribs) and Dr Joe (talk · contribs) for being obvious sockpuppets of Beckjord (talk · contribs). Beckjord is an abusive editor who refuses to heed just about every Wikipedia policy and guideline that there is; these and other sockpuppets have routinely filled in for him when he's been "out of town" or "on expedition". I can provide detailed reasoning for this block if requested, but a quick glance through the contribution histories of all three accounts should make it readily apparent.

Since I am involved in a dispute, such as it is, with Beckjord, I welcome review of my actions. android79 13:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you please explain how DrJoe/Dr Joe are abusive sockpuppets of Beckjord? I reviewed this when it was on WP:RFCU and I didn't see evidence of abusive use of sockpuppets (and refused to do the sockcheck as a result). The use of sockpuppets to be merely annoying is not clearly against policy. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

This edit from Beckjord's IP, 205.208.227.49 (talk · contribs), may be the most illuminating regarding this situation:

do not tell me what to do. Your best bet it to take some of what I edit, and make the references changes that make you pedants happy, and save it. Cooperate. Because I WILL NOT go away. Go work on your own pages. I will accept NO orders. I will come back in a 1000 otehr means and ways. Got it? Now go home to momma.

Note that the Dr Joe (talk · contribs) account recently became active again today, to make this edit [9], which contains material present in the preferred version of 205.208.227.49 (talk · contribs), here: [10]. In the meantime, the Beckjord account has conveniently gone out of town: [11]. The DrJoe accounts have been used to revert war, inserting the same material inserted by Beckjord, and to campaign for the inclusion of said material on the talk page. I think this is abusive. Using multiple accounts in this manner is covered in WP:SOCK under "purposes of deception" and "create the illusion of broader support for a position". I feel this goes beyond mere annoyance into a blockable use of sockpuppet accounts.

If consensus is that these blocks are inappropriate, well, so be it. A request for arbitration is forthcoming; I just wanted to confine the incessant POV warring by this lone editor to one username. android79 18:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I am most definitely not saying that the blocks are inappropriate, just that I don't feel that there's enough of a violation here to reach the level where I can use CheckUser to confirm the sockpuppet allegation. I agree that Beckjord is a vexatious user who needs to change his editing practices. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

So, to recap: annoying, blockable, but not quite CheckUser-able. Works for me. android79 19:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Edits on 205.208.227.49 (talk · contribs) have been variously signed "beckjord" "DrJoe" and "Jeff", so a CheckUser will only tell us what we already know. All "three" of them on that IP and also individual accounts consistently add the same highly POV and OR content, vanity/spam links to his own site, unceasing personal attacks on the article talk page and other locations. Kelly, would you suggest admins blocking on their own, or straight to ArbCom with evidence, or what? DreamGuy 05:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User vandal out-of-process deletion reversed

Please comment on my undeletion of Template:User vandal, which was deleted at 12:32 13 January by Doc glasgow, despite a TFD discussion that is clearly at "no consensus" (and was so at the time), with many people saying that this joke template (it refers to the University of Idaho mascot, not Wikipedia vandalism) should be kept. ~~ N (t/c) 15:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, that userbox's template name is very similar to {{vandal}}, so that was probably the reason for the TFD. So, what I did is I moved the template to {{User uni idaho}} and that should end the problem. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 19:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Khmer Rouge

A certain User:Ruy Lopez has for months been trying to add an allegation in this article concerning US involvement in the 1970 coup that brought Lon Nol to power in Cambodia [12]. Yet he refuses to answer questions regarding his source in Talk:Khmer Rouge, which have been posted for months, and his efforts are also opposed by everyone else who is contributing to the page. Can someone do something about this since he refuses to give a decent response after repeated appeals? CJK 20:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, sounds like many someones are already doing something, namely reverting him. What else would you suggest anyone could do? -- SCZenz 21:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, perhaps some sort of a penalty, such as a block. I don't no. He shouldn't be allowed to put his propaganda on the page for one second, IMO. I would arbitrate him if it wasn't so trivial. CJK 21:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• We don't give blocks as punishment. Perhaps a request for comment might be in order to bring broader input to the page? -- SCZenz 22:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Been there, done that. If no one here actually punishes anybody, can someone point me to a place where they will? CJK 22:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Because Pol Pot's regime was hostile to Vietnam which was a Soviet client state, but I guess the Cold War was but a dream ... no massive bombing campaigns by the US in Cambodia, no arms flowing to Pol Pot from Thailand and the PRC. The US was a totally neutral participant in the incredibly bloody conflict in Indo-China (namely Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos). Someone wake up the millions who are dead to verify. El_C 21:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Good for you. I guess you must feel proud of yourself, having single-handedly exposed my evil plot to subject this article. I'm sure Che would be proud too. Lets just ignore the fact that you didn't bother to take two seconds to scroll down in order to see the actual dispute concerning Samuel Thornton and the coup. CJK 22:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I am beaming with shame that I suddenly have no clue who Lon Nol is. In answer to your querry: WP:DR. El_C 22:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Everything in that has already been attempted, and the matter is way too trivial for full-blown mediation, RFC, or arbitration. CJK 22:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Not too trivial if it: a. continues-on; b. historically not insiginficant. But if you want content resolution by administrative decree... El_C 22:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there anyone here who actually thinks this projects integrity is important and should not be damaged by propagandists? CJK 22:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I deal with pseudoscience all the time, which I suspect is similar. It's not easy, and requires attention, but you really can't call on admins to settle content disputes by blocking. -- SCZenz 22:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I note that with this edit, User:Ruy Lopez gives Samuel Thornton as a source. That is immediately reverted to an unsourced statement. I know nothing about the subject of this article, or the reliability of whoever this Thornton person is. I notice that there is discussion on the Talk page. The article may need protection to end the edit-war. There may also be WP:3RR violations, but I am not at all convinced that the major problem here is User:Ruy Lopez' disregard for WP:V. Even if it was, of course, admin action wouldn't be necessary or appropriate. Jkelly 22:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

If you don't know anything about the subject, then with all due respect stay out of it. The questions were not whether or not the source existed, it was regarding the credibility of it. CJK 22:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I was refering to this, gah! My mistake. I stand by what I said, of course. In advance: please refrain from saying "good for you" El_C 22:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I will as long as you don't misrepresent what I say in a sarcastic and knee-jerk manner. CJK 22:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not misrepresent what you said, I made a comment about history, here on WP:ANI. El_C 22:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

But you put forward a strawman arguement. CJK 23:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Now that would be an historical misrepresentation. El_C 23:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it would not. CJK 23:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it would be. El_C 00:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The edit obviously implied that I was in denial about US bombings and aid, which was flat out untrue. CJK 00:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

As noted, I was refering to another edit; it wasn't an "untrue" response to it. But that isn't important at this point. El_C 01:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It was untrue. No where did I assert that the US did not bomb Cambodia or that the US did not support the KR after their overthrow. CJK 01:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

We've already established it wasn't your edit I was refering to. El_C 01:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I got rid of that as well because it was factually incorrect (as the US never supported the KR while in power). CJK 02:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

That depends what is meant by support — they didn't press on the right-wing govt. in Thialand to halt arms supplies and so on. But this really isn't the venue to explore these issues. El_C 02:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, so what I'm beginning to understand that nobody actually does anything here. May I request an outlet in which people actually block disruptive users relatively quickly? It would be somewhat rediculous to go through mediation, RFC, arbitration etc. over one sentence. CJK 22:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

You mention to Jkelly "to stay out of it" if he isn't familliar with the topic, noting that it isn't "whether or not the source existed, it was regarding the credibility of it." But, like Jkelly, most admins are not familliar with the subject. Then you say "I'm beginning to understand that nobody actually does anything here". That does not strike you as somewhat contradictory? El_C 23:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I meant nobody does anything useful CJK 23:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Certainly not moi, but I think Jkelly blocked a vandal during the early days of summer. El_C 23:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Basically there is no such place. If the matter is not worth those steps, and it is a content dispute rather than vandalism, there is nothing in the blocking policy that justifies a block, and no one is likely to impose one. Of course if you convince any particular admin that a block for "disruptive editing" is justified, there you are. DES ^(talk) 22:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright. So there is no policy for blocking users who insert maliciously distortional information repeatedly short of arbitration, which would not be accepted because of the minor nature of the incident. CJK 23:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Not unless you can prove it's malicious. See Wikipedia:Blocking policy. -- SCZenz 23:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

OK. I understand now. Thanks for your advice. It is just immensely frustrationg to know that I will be spending the rest of my life removing this questionably credible sentence. CJK 23:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I still don't understand this approach. Why do you find the DR steps to be worse than "spending the rest of [your] life removing" that addition? El_C 01:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Because we are dealing with a sentence. When is the last time an arbcom case has been accepted on the basis of one disputed sentence? CJK 01:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

For information purposes, I note that Ruy Lopez was sanctioned previously by the ArbCom (see the case here) 'for failing to discuss reverts' on articles including Communist state and Opposition to U.S. foreign policy. He received a one-week ban. If he is engaged in similarly inappropriate behaviour, a warning might be in order.

I note that in the history of Khmer Rouge ([13]) CJK and Lopez engaged in a revert war back on or about December 15 on this topic. A request for comment on the article content might be appropriate, as might an RFC on the users in question. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Increadible volume of vandalism on List of ethnic slurs

(Comment has also been posted on 3RR notice board for faster response.) Upon review it appears 155.84.57.253 has reverted the edits of several users on the List of ethnic slurs entry giving the explanation non-notables, repairs, version by ---, last credible version, or reliable [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24] (as if one can distinguish reliable versions in an article with almost no citations). And this is only in the last 12 days! Thus, it appears as if many quite possibly valid entries have been deleted. This anon has been editing just this page since November, 2004 [25]. Most of his reversions appear to remain unfixed. --Primetime 22:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Upon further review, it appears as if the anon has deleted comments on their talk page warning them to stop reverting other people's changes [26]. It also appears as if they were given a 24-hour ban on January 6,[27] although they have continued their ways unabated. --Primetime 23:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gang stalking as a subpage

Nrcprm2026 recreated Gang stalking as a subpage of Conspiracy theory. I deleted it. Someone speak up if that was wrong. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind: on second thought I'd rather not have to shepard my proposal to merge the two. So much for my bold attempts to propose a compromise. I just want to state for the record that I though part of the article has merit, and part didn't.

I do think that the content presents a few fairly important questions. It does seem to be partially verifiable. If I offended anyone, let me know how, please. --James S. 00:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a personal essay without sources, and subpages in the article namespace are never good. --Golbez 00:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

So my proposal to put fiction articles like Daniel Jackson in places like Stargate/Daniel Jackson is a nonstarter? --James S. 02:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. We used to do that; it was specifically deprecated. Check Wikipedia:Subpages. --Golbez 04:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted after a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gang stalking. Deletion applies to the content, not merely to the content under a given name. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping to merge the content piece-wise. I realize now that, even if I actually wanted to do that, which I don't -- and I was more hoping to try to convince the people who keep re-creating Gang stalking with sockpupets to merge it -- there's no reason to completely re-create the whole thing. I screwed up. Live and learn. --James S. 02:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Gang Stalking should *NEVER* have been considered for deletion. It is absolutely essential to Wikipedia to have something about that. The piddly little piece on Wikipedia:Harassment for Wikistalking is thoroughly inadequate.

Sure, we can sit around here and debate policy, and say that "the people spoke" and that it was deleted with consensus, etc etc, but the reality is that it never should have been deleted in the first place. Just look at Wikipedia's pathetic articles on cyberstalking and cyberbullying and how little attention that Wikipedia gives to this important subject. It is especially important in the context of an online community, which Wikipedia is.

What we should be doing is debating about what to include and so forth. It shouldn't ever have been deleted. It shouldn't have been nominated for deletion even. And it should be undeleted. This shouldn't even be a question.

We talk about putting process ahead of content, but this is a case where we've really totally blown it. We sit around deleting user boxes and banning users on a hunch and being totally untransparent with things like that, yet we sit around here worrying about whether or not an absolutely essential article about an incredibly relevant topic should have a part here.

If we are building an encyclopaedia, Gang Stalking belongs. If we are trying to be a community, Gang Stalking belongs. But if we are trying to be a place that is so full of rules that it misses the point, then delete it.

At a bare minimum put the darn thing on to Deletion Review already, and give it a chance, rather than this ridiculousness. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Please familiarize yourself with WP:NOR, which was widely cited as a reason for deleting this page. Radiant_>|< 11:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jackjohn

User:Jackjohn is a newbie consistently adding her personal images and creating and re-creating articles that are useless and speedied. She has already been blocked once. I've made some attempts at explaining her misuse but to no avail. Now she has taken to leaving nasty messages on my talk page. Y'all might want to address. Wknight94 03:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

blocked for a week by User:Bunchofgrapes. -Greg Asche (talk) 04:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm a softie. The user was creating nonsense pages with text "Ban me" or similar. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)