Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive679

I came across this“outing” comment made by User:IntrigueBlue. IntrugueBlue claims he based his outing comment on this post purported to be placed by the person who has been outed. Given the extensive vandalism that has been going on at the

I have RevDeleted the supposed "self incrimination" and WP:Outing issue. I shall leave IntrigueBlue a gentle reminder not to believe unreferenced content on WP and a strong hint not to repeat it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The following edits concerning the WP:Outing issue may have been missed for the RevDeleted process:

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6] (good faith removal which actually serves to archive the outing)

Fages (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed :) --Errant ^(chat!) 16:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Was it necessary to RevDel my edit, which redacted the discussion? I thought that deleting the edit immediately before mine would prevent the material I removed from being visible in the diff. January (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I'm not sure I understand how this was a contravention of

WP:OUTING

. From the linked description (emphasis mine):

Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Wikipedia. This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors. It also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found. Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for Oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently. If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, their wishes should be respected, though reference to self-disclosed information is not outing.

The IP user in question posted their own name in relation to an edit, which I then repeated elsewhere. Unless I am mistaken, the individual did not redact this self-disclosed information, so the last sentence in the quote above does not apply. It wasn't my intention to incite harassment, merely to make other editors aware that someone with a strong

WP:COI was repeatedly editing the article. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs

) 16:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

No, an ip posted under a name which they said was theirs - we have no evidence that it was; it may have been a Joe job. As such, saying an ip is who they claim they are can be considered trying to disclose an identity without knowing that the individual has released that information. I know that it is a tricky concept, so that is why I only advised you and strongly urged you to be more careful - privacy expectations is such that the usual response to a disclosure attempt is an official warning or even sanction. To sum up, we do not know for sure that the subject has edited Wikipedia and that noting they have by referring to an ip comment claiming to be that person is considered WP:Outing - and it should not happen again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

What? The IP claimed to be the person. While that may be a lie, it is absolutely not [[WP:OUTING]|outing]] to repeat that claim. It may be wrong, but it has repeatedly been held that as soon as a person outs xyrself, it's no longer outing to repeat that claim. If I state here that I am John Travolta Madonna Joe McJoeyson , it doesn't matter whether or not that's true--any other editor is safely able to repeat that information ps, none of those are true. There is no violation of policy here. Furthermore, that RevDel was not appropriate: editors are allowed to self-identify. Now, if they did so without realizing the consequences, and later asked for the info to be retracted, it could be allowed, but I see people self-identify all the time and I've never once seen that self-identification removed (outside of minors giving too much info, but that's not the case here). I believe both LessHeard vanU and Fages need to explain more clearly why they've contravened policy here. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, and ErrantX, since xe's the one who actually did the revdel. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I simply followed up on action already taken (i.e. one revision was removed and someone added that there was more), you'd have to ask LessHeard vanU. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Here you go, from

WP:OUTING;"If you see an editor post personal information about another person, do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information. Doing so would give the person posting the information and anyone else who saw the page feedback on the accuracy of the material. Do not treat incorrect attempts at outing any differently from correct attempts for the same reason." On the basis that you, nor me, cannot confirm that the ip is the person they say they are (as you note, you can call yourself anyone) it can be taken that they are attempting to connect a real person with an ip address - and by confirming it, without knowing it is true, you are involved in outing that individual. I would really appreciate it if you would AGF that what I am saying, although quite arcane, is correct, and that I have been exampling as much good faith as I would want you to extend that I am explaining and providing a rationale for my comments. You made a mistake; we all do, and it is hoped that we recognise and understand the situation and move on. LessHeard vanU (talk

) 21:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I AGF that you think I (well, actually Intrigueblue) made a mistake, but I actually think that you made the mistake. This was an editor posting personal information about himself. It may be a lie, but it was not posting personal information about another person. By your logic, I could never repeat anytime anyone self-identifies. For example, on your user page, you claim to be "Mark James Slater." By your logic, I "cannot confirm that you are the person you say you are" because "you can call yourself anyone." Thus, by repeating what you yourself have written, I am violating

WP:OUTING, I may refer to that person by that name (of course, accounting for the possibility of dynamic IPs). So, if you're confident in your interpretation, I would like to you to clarify under which circumstances referring to a person by a name that they have themselves revealed is acceptable, and when it is not. Qwyrxian (talk

) 23:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

“Confirmation” presupposes additional knowledge. If I had somehow gathered the named individual's IP address from elsewhere and stated that indeed the statement was correct (or that it were incorrect), I would be providing confirmation and giving “feedback on the accuracy of the material”. I never made any such attempt to confirm or deny, only made the good-faith assumption that the anon user's statement was correct and repeated it elsewhere, as explicitly permitted in

WP:OUTING

(see bold text in blockquote above). As for your comments, AGF does not mean “assume that I am correct”; I don't attribute any malice to your perspective, merely a faulty interpretation of events and/or of policy. I hate to be stubborn, but your subsequent attempts to explain your reasoning seem to require a leap of logic that I'm not following.

Regardless, I would like to hear you justify using RevDel unbidden on a user. Can you redact John Travolta's comments above because you think he made a mistake in posting his “name”? Can you redact this post because I just “confirmed” that

won't) that Travolta was editing the article under the name Qwryxian? Where does the distinction lie? —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs

) 00:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Just use common sense and reasonable judgment, taking into account the nature of the claims, and the type of person named (in terms of their likelihood to inspire imposters). It's not helpful to concoct weird edge cases and wikilawyer over them. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 01:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If that's the standard, then in this case the RevDel was even more inappropriate, because, due to the edits the IP made and the deleted statements made on the talk page, it seems highly likely (i.e., common sense) that the person is who they claimed to be. Again, this is common practice for IPs, to "sign" in plain text. Again, by LessHeard's logic, if an IP writes something on a talk page, and signs it "Bob Bobber," and then in the reply I write, "Bob Bobber, I think you're wrong," then I am guilty of outing. If an IP or user self-identifies, then that automatically means

WP:OUTING no longer applies, and the policy makes this explicitly clear. If a second party says "That IP is actually Bob Bobber," then that second party is outing, and if I repeat the second party, then I am also guilty of furthering the outing. It really seems very simple to me. Qwyrxian (talk

) 03:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's worth bearing in mind that unlike an account, an IP's edits cannot all be assumed to have been made by the same person, so if someone editing as an IP self-identifies that should not be taken as an admission that all edits made by that IP were theirs. In this instance, it could be a shared IP address for a company (quite possible considering the variety of edits from this IP). January (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a valid point. It doesn't completely address the underlying issue, but I should perhaps have been clearer about the uncertainty of the matter in my original statement. As far as I can recall (the original has been RevDeleted), I said, “It seems that [name] has been editing Wikipedia using IP [1.2.3.4].” I didn't state categorically that IP = name, though I did neglect to indicate that IPs can of course be shared by multiple people. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 03:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

(

That seems much more applicable. However, the individual in fact made a self-identifying post on their own biography. I did reply to that post, but provided no additional information there. I repeated that information on the article about the company owned by this individual, which to me is a reasonable conclusion of a COI. And indeed, the IP in question had made clearly COI edits to the article, so I think the warning to other editors had merit. Was it jumping to conclusions for me to say that A was editing C because A had IP B and IP B was editing C? Maybe it would have been more appropriate for me to say that IP B was making strongly POV (but not necessarily COI) edits to C and leave it at that.

However, if my actions were inappropriate, how is it different to dedicate an

entire article to the same subject? —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs

) 10:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The article has a promotional tone, and at the time was semi-protected because of repeated attempts to remove the material in the diff provided. That makes it obvious that there was COI editing going on, there was no benefit to speculating exactly who was doing it. Re your second point, as T. Canens says it's an unsourced assertion about a specific living person, and is quite possibly incorrect (I'm convinced by the variety of edits that others have edited from that IP). January (talk) 11:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Because those articles are sourced to

something much better than an isolated IP comment. T. Canens (talk

) 22:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree outing is a poor description of what's going on here. If my user name is David Montoya and I say that's my real name in my user page, it isn't outing if people say I'm David Montoya. However per BLP, we do have to be careful when trying to link either an account or an IP to an identifable person outside of userspace even if that account or IP has made the claim they are that person. As someone has said, we also have to be mindful that not all IP edits may come from the same person. On the other hand the fact that someone claims to be the subject (or someone covered) in an article is often not completely irrelevent as it gives greater urgency to their comments so it's not uncommon in BLP issues that someone will mention something like 'an IP who says they are ...' bringing up the point while making it clear we can't be sure the person is telling the truth of who they are say they are. Nil Einne (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

That being the case, would there be any issue with me repeating the statement that an IP claiming to be the individual in question had been editing the page? That information has been redacted by LessHeard vanU, but on no legitimate grounds that I can see. If the claim is true, he is old enough to decide for himself what information he wants to provide and what he doesn't. Others shouldn't be making that decision for him. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 04:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

There isn't a problem with saying "user claims to be Joe Blow", as long as you remember that he might actually be your Auntie Monica. If a user wants to take some kind of action based on them definitively being Joe Blow, they need to contact

WP:OTRS, who can handle evidencing the claim offwiki.Elen of the Roads (talk

) 13:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Stupid question Is there a reason this RFC is at ANI instead of the talk page of the policy involved? Seems a waste of ANI space to have policy discussion here. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 01:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This is where the original discussion and “ruling” that I wanted to challenge took place. I've removed the RFC tag, though. This has gone as far as it's likely to. Thanks everyone for your input. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 18:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

There is/are IP vandals who are making vandal edits to the race articles - mainly changing the results to older races, then logging off and changing IP. I've examined some of the pages and found at least the following IPs involved...

• User talk:186.108.252.250
• User talk:190.139.54.243
• User talk:190.231.27.192
• User talk:190.231.251.39
• User talk:190.231.25.45
• User talk:190.138.6.211
• User talk:190.139.52.45
• User talk:190.138.0.51
• User talk:190.231.27.192
• User talk:190.231.251.77
• User talk:190.231.20.207
• User talk:190.139.52.70
• User talk:190.138.11.197
• User talk:190.138.6.92
• User talk:190.139.248.159
• User talk:190.139.242.58
  

I think that the spread to too wide for a rangeblock - maybe someone can comment? Can anyone make any other suggestions to help. My feeling is that since these are all old race results then maybe semi protect them? (there are rather a lot of them, quite a few for each year, but I wouldn't mind that) - there really should not be any need for much change to these pages.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You want the attention of a CheckUser, who can check whether there are sufficient good faith editors from that Buenos Aires range to preclude a block. Just because it may be a large range may not mean there is a lot of potential collateral damage to the English language WP. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, we'll see if one will come - {{Checkuser needed}}::  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment Very much appreciate the assistance with this! I'm not sure that pre-emptive semi-protection is the best way ahead, though. An FA race article looks like this, while many of the articles look like this. Personally I see no need for the majority of the race articles to be written up in full detail, but there will always be enough reliable sources to support that treatment if someone wants to do the work, and I don't know that I'd like to try and decide in advance which races were suitable for the more detailed writeup. 4u1e (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I blocked the ranges 190.138.0.0/20, 190.139.52.0/22, 190.139.240.0/20, 190.231.16.0/20 and 190.231.251.0/24 for two weeks (anon. only). Prolog (talk) 04:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Prolog, I've yet to get my head around IP range construction. I've done semis on the pages that were attacked (I haven't finished checking all the pages yet, there were a few that were missed by everyone - this is the real problem, if we are not careful), maybe a combination of that and your rangeblocks will show them that we can act to stop them even with their IP hopping.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

I went ahead and deleted the article as a

WP:COPYVIO. I put it on my watchlist, in the event that it's re-created. -- Gyrofrog (talk)

17:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.

speak

18:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

So, seven reverts in a day is not good for a block? I don't have access to changes to deleted articles, but it looks to me from the talk page as if those reverts continued even after a final warning. Did I get that right? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Why shouldn't it be? In my more active days I'd give users removing speedies warnings 1-4 and then put them up to

WP:AIV. The users were blocked and the articles often removed very quickly afterwards. uw-speedy does state that removing speedies results in blocks, so I see no reason why the punishment shouldn't be dealt. Zakhalesh (talk

) 20:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Meh. Leter of the law, sure he could have been blocked. But what's the possible future. If he restores the copyvio, he gets blocked. If he never comes back, no worries. Or that slim chance that the deletion get him to actually read the messages on his talk page. IMHO not something to lose sleep over.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, what Cube lurker said. The edits were confined to the one article. With the article gone, a block seemed merely

punitive, not preventative. But, again, the deleted article's on my watchlist. -- Gyrofrog (talk)

22:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Could someone possessed of more patience than I can currently muster please impress upon Tarc (talk · contribs) that calling one's fellow Wikipedia editors "undersexed basement-dwellers", and suggesting that they "worship a sexualized image of a prepubescent girl", is less-than-ideal behavior? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 04:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

He's not necessarily wrong, but it's unfair for him to generalize that way. It's a cute cartoon character. But apparently some read far more into it than mere cuteness. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment #1 was a bit heavy-handed upon reflection though it is from almost 2 weeks ago, you're a bit late in the game if you're gonna carp on that now. #2 is what it is; many people, mainly from one niche wiki-project, are screaming to the rafters that precious Wikipe-tan is not lolicon, when it, um, kinda is. This stuff is swill, leftover from a bygone era of the Wikipedia, and it should not be given an ounce of room in project-space. As some opined in a recent AfD on a related page (linked below), this is the sort of thing that drives away potential new editors, particularly women, which has been a concern voiced at the highest levels of the WMF of late.

At the very least, this An/I should bring Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan (2nd nomination) to the attention of a wider audience, just as the last one didn't really see a groundswell of opposition til the pro-tan clique tried to railroad the nominator into silence in an earlier AN/I filing. Good job, Kirill. Tarc (talk) 04:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of possibly going over old ground, could you supply a diff or two where women stated they were leaving wikipedia because of this cartoon character? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

What I was referring to was several respected (IMO) editors opining to that effect at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Think of Wikipe-tan!, not a specific person saying "I am leaving because of this". Tarc (talk) 04:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I suspect they're making assumptions. Unless they are also providing diffs? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)There are making what I believe to be reasonable assumptions, yes. I don't mean to be rude, but does this tangent have a point? I never claimed specifically that women are leaving or refusing to join the project because of the presence of this Wikipe-tan project-space page, I only noted that others called for deletion of a related -tan page based on presumption of such. It seems like you're setting me up for a fail because I have no diffs for something I didn't really say in the first place. Tarc (talk) 05:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm just trying to get my head around what the real issue is. Apparently there are variations on this kind of cartoon character which are X-rated. But does that automatically mean that any representation of an anime character is suspect? The key question: Is there reasonable evidence that the continuing presence of this cartoon figure could cause significant damage to wikipedia's reputation? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Using images of a 9-10 yr old girl in various poses, sayings, and outfits just creeps me the fuck out, to be honest. And others, apparently, though I certainly don't claim that others share or approve of my colorful commentary above; that's my responsibility and mine alone. Are all the images of this thing overtly sexual? No. But IMO there's enough of a taint with past imagery...whether it was the blackface or the french maid outfits of the "Think of Wikiped-tan" image gallery, or the outright pornography that Jimbo deleted from Commons a ways back...that I think this stuff just needs to be buried in a deep, dark hole. Tarc (talk) 05:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Explict stuff can and should be gone. But the "normal" stuff is something most people either enjoy or couldn't care one way or the other about. Saying that we need to discard all of it because some of it was bad is classic throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and claims that "women might be driven off" sounds like a textbook case of

WP:BEANS to me. Contrary to the popular stereotype, there actually are a lot of women who are fans of anime/manga. And we have a lot of more important things to do rather than debate over whether G-rated cartoon personalisations should be trashed because some idjit was stupid with R/X-rated versions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only}

06:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You're seeing stuff in it that I'm not seeing. However, I'm not up on this "lolicon" stuff. Given that Jimbo is the visible face of wikipedia, has anyone asked him about this? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

He's commented about it recently:

I think this article was misleading in saying that I "recognized" Wikipe-tan. My removal of the sexualized version from commons was in no way an endorsement of the standard versions. I don't like Wikipe-tan and never have. I recognize that some people do, and I'm not particularly agitated about it, but my name should not be invoked in a way that might lead some to believe that I approve. Thanks!--Jimbo Wales

As far as I can determine, while he's not a fan, he doesn't view the character as being particularly problematic either. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 05:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It sounds to me like he would be just fine if it went away, but he doesn't feel the need to force the issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen any mentions of specific examples, and I don't expect that anyone else has either. It's certainly possible that something of the sort does indeed take place, and it's a worthwhile topic for discussion; but there doesn't seem to be any concrete evidence either way.

Regardless of that, though, I don't think Tarc's comments about the editors who support the retention of this page are warranted, particularly given the scurrilous nature of the allegations he makes. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 05:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree; indeed, the diffs linked to in the first post are certainly

WP:NPA; a "people who state X are Y" statement is no different than "you state X and are therefore Y". - The Bushranger _{One ping only}

06:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• The diffs presented by Kirill appear to show at the very least distasteful comments by Tarc not in keeping with
  N419BH
  05:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Tarc should be admonished to avoid attacking those who present views different from his in forums such as AFD. There has been a long history of attacking, demeaning, and ridiculing other editors, both in his comments and his edit summaries, rather than simply discussing the issues in a civil manner as required by

WP:NPA. Twice in the last couple of months he has characterized "Keep" !votes as "fraudulent" in AFD [7], [8] and has shrugged off requests on his talk page [9], [10] that he strike the incivil postings, just adding accusations of "making up things that don't exist" and then deleting the request (without archiving it). He then characterized a DRV request in an AFD which the closing admin and other characterized as difficult and complex as "To "whine" doesn't accurately reflect what this DRV is; the Brit's notion of a "whinge" just seems to capture the essence far better than us colonials can muster. This is whingeing, the classic case of filing a DRV not over admin wrongdoing or mistakes, but because one disagrees with the result. ". In that DRV, he attacked several opposing editors with comments such as "That is quite a lie there." Tarc, please do not try to win in every dispute by insulting and attacking other good-faith editors. Discuss the issues instead. When people bring a concern to your talk page, do not just disparage and delete. Edison (talk

) 05:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This is what we call "piling on". My dear Edison, that has nothing to do with this; if you have a beef with something said at DRV then you should have taken the appropriate steps to lodge a complaint at the time, not hold it in reserve to pounce at a convenient moment. Honestly, that turns your complaint into more of a

pointy action rather than a legitimate grievance. Tarc (talk

) 14:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

As long as your pattern of attacking others in AFDs is being discussed at this forum, it is an appropriate and non "pointy" time to bring up the long history of such behavior, which is not limited to the one DRV as you claim, at which others noted your past habits of such behavior. Clearly you want any complaint limited to the one individual abuse without demonstrating a pattern. That way each personal attack, taken by itself, might be insufficient to justify a block or a restriction of some sort, than a larger pattern might require. This thread should not be an AFD or a DRV as such about any one article. Edison (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, just to clear this up; there is no real concern in my mind over Wikipe-tan being a "sexualized image of a prepubescent girl". I'm not really a fan of the image, but the suggestion in that deletion thread seems to be that she verges onto the wrong side of child porn. Or that people who like such an image are in some way disturbed (or worse). My expert opinion on this is that there is no issue; Wikipe-tan is about as far from Child porn as you can get, and the people who enjoy such imagery are, psychologically speaking, nowhere near to pedophiles. If we are to get technical imagery like this is usually intended to evoke the tragic innocence of youth (personified by a girl or effeminate male) - tragic because you quickly lose such innocence. It's supposed to be beautiful rather than creepy, and the image some people obviously have of guys furiously masturbating to pseudo-CP is way off base ;) This is an unfortunate side effect of a society where the social crime of paedophilia is (rightly) treated with extreme disdain. My point being that concerns over sexualisation and "worshipping" of this image are unfortunate, not based in any form of factual reality. :) Although I entirely understand and sympathise with such thinking. Leaving Tarc a note about cooling off. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Some of the images, however, are concerning. I have nommed one for deletion to test the waters over removing the worst offenders. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment if as Tarc says "images of a 9-10 yr old girl in various poses, sayings, and outfits just creeps me the fuck out, to be honest" then I strongly suggest he never looks at a family photo album. Exxolon (talk) 13:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

  This strawman has been attempted in the MfD several times, and easily refuted. I am speaking about THIS image in THIS specific context, not of imagery of children in general. Please don't attack positions that I am not actually taking. Tarc (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• At the end of this we still have the same issue; a vocal faction decrying attacks on their "unofficial mascot", a mascot that was until quite recently used in some merely suggestive imagery, and some outright pornographic. I'm sorry if said faction feels aggrieved, but understandably there's very little tolerance for what this image has been put to use for. Tarc (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• At the end of this we still have the same issue: Tarc still dodging acknowledgment that his attacks on others, in multiple AfDs despite his own strawman, are unwarranted and violate the basic principles of Wikipedia.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Copypasta of someone else's words with your own twist at the end really isn't a productive, helpful, or rhetorically imaginative response. Regarding the comments, perhaps in the future I shall think of more creative and less directly caustic ways to express my disdain for those who are in favor of retaining suggestive imagery in project-space. At the end of the day, a
    WP:SPADE is still just that. Tarc (talk
    ) 15:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Just a comment on the original complaint. Which seems to have been successfully obfuscated in the ensuing conversation. Tarc is experienced enough and literate enough to not engage in personal attacks. Tarc started in the right direction when he called it heavy handed. Though he veered in the wrong direction IMHO when he qualified that admission, and then focused on the fact that it was two weeks old. But for those comments, I would have viewed this as much ado about little. But under the circumstances, I would simply caution him to cut it out. He can make his point while remaining civil, I'm sure, and I expect it would be more readily received were he to do so.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Indeed, I don't ever seem to recall Tarc assuming good faith or being diplomatic about anything. He may indeed do so on occasion, but what sticks in my mind is a series of posts (e.g., at DRV) that demonstrate overtly and overly partisan deletionist behavior. The fact that this is an outgrowth of that does not surprise me at all; the fact that Tarc has not yet been sanctioned for repeated incivility is more of a surprise to me. Jclemens (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The above two comments sound like RfC material rather than points relating to this "incident". The issue at hand is not whether or not the editor has a history of being rude, but if particular comments he made about a particular issue were a policy violation. I believe they were beyond civilized discourse and it would be good if he were admonished, but I doubt there is much else to do about them. Should some of you think this and other issues warrant a RFC/U then I suggest starting one. Piling on here is not right though, IMO. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
    • No, a quick ArbCom "temporary" (=indefinite) desysop will do. 85.204.164.26 (talk) 13:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Anyone familiar with Tarc will know that comments such as those leading off this discussion are not uncommon for him. He knows what's appropriate and what's not. Its been duly noted for anyone keeping track, and the ANI can be closed.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oh my. Well, one "final" final note. People attempting to frame this as being connected to acrimonious past DRVs/AfDs that I may have been involved in are barking up the wrong tree. Being frustrated with cliques who scrabble for flimsy reasons to keep articles on 15mins of fame
  one-eventers is one thing. Wanting to rid project-space of sexual anime imagery that originates in some long-past "unofficial mascot" era and that a growing number of editors feel is not conducive to retaining female editors in the project, is worlds apart. Honestly, a deletionist-inclusionist squabble is kinda insignificant in comparison to what we're trying to pry out of Wikipedia: space here. Tarc (talk
  ) 02:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Clearly we have different definitions of 'sexual'. The truly bad ones have got to go, agreed, but saying that all of them are "sexual" because some are/were is like saying the
    WP:IDONTLIKEIT here.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only}
    03:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The only thing "sexual" about this image, for example, is that the cartoon character is presumed (though not provably) female. Anything beyond that is prejudicial. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, it is a drawing, so whatever characteristics it has are somewhat subjective, but I think it is safe to assume that it is intended to represent a female since I don't detect any hint of a penis in this image and Wikipe-tan appears to have sprouted breasts in this one. Also, the creator of those Wikipe-tan images, User:Kasuga tends to draw pictures of young girls. such as this popular illustration of Lolicon. I'm told Kasuga has created many more like this which are available off-wiki (but not on DeviantArt, who made Kasuga remove some because of "underage nudity"). If you think the sex of Wikipe-tan is ambiguous, you may be thinking of Futanari. User:Niabot is the go-to guy for futanari and hentai pictures here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
      • You never know, where drawings are concerned. It just occurs to me that banning a G-rated drawing because the character has been used in PG-rated, R-rated, or X-rated drawings, makes about as much sense as banning all G-rated illustrations of female humans because some female humans have been depicted as PG_rated, R-rated, or X-rated. Maybe just dress all the females in burqas, and everything will be peachy keen dandy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Your argument is unsurprisingly ridiculous. We aren't talking about banning all cartoon images of young girls everywhere, we are talking about the use of a specific character on this site and why that makes some editors uncomfortable. You have said that there is nothing sexual in the images created by User:Kasuga. Knowing that this same person has had images removed from DeviantArt due to "underage nudity" should make you think about that position again. I'm not suggesting that you see anything sexual in the images, but perhaps you haven't spent a great deal of time wondering why some other editors find there to be sexual overtones in these images. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
          • Removing G-rated images by an artist whose other work is not G-rated on the grounds that his other work, even of the same character, is not G-rated, is equally ridiculous. If editors are made uncomfortable by the images, then it's simple: don't go to
            WP:NOTCENSORED; we don't not feature images of spiders on the front page because arachnophobes might see them, for instance. - The Bushranger _{One ping only}
            23:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
            • Perhaps you misunderstood - we aren't talking about images of naked adults or adults in sexual situations, we are talking about images that were removed from another website because of "underage nudity". Since Wikipedia is, as you say, NOTCENSORED, I assume there would no objection if images containing "underage nudity" were posted here? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
              • No, I understand perfectly - and those images, if ever posted here, should be purged with fire and the person who posted them reported to the authorities. However, those images have not been posted here (at least, I hope not!), the "questionable" ones have either been deleted or are on their way out. What's being discussed here - I thought - was whether or not the G-rated images of Wikipe-tan should be removed because there are/were illegal/immoral images of the character that were posted elsewhere, and because editors here might be "uncomfortable" with the character because of that. If I've misunderstood the entire discussion and that isn't being mooted, then I apologise for that, but from my reading of the various debates several people (including Tarc) seem to be arguing for exactly that on exactly that grounds. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
                • There are various reasons given for disliking Wikipe-tan, but I am not sure that most people who find Wikipe-tan "creepy" are even aware of the other images by User:Kasuga or the derivative Wikipe-tan images by others. I believe some people simply find the use of a cartoon female child inappropriate for a project largely maintained by adult males. To dismiss the connection between Kasuga's other works and Wikipe-tan, as you and Baseball Bugs have done, is akin to wondering why Fox News viewers were upset to discover that Matt Sanchez had performed in gay porn movies. While on one level there is no reason for connecting the two, on another level there is a fundamental disconnect with the community's values. I will leave this alone now, but I think it is clear that this issue isn't going to go away without a broader discussion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
              • Err commons has a wide range of images of various types of people who are not adults naked.©Geni 11:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
                • It sure does!! Lovingly collected, uploaded, and curated by dedicated volunteers. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
          • (Yes, I'm a bit late with this, but hey.) Maybe a more specific analogy would be better. Should the fact that
            WP:BLP concerns regarding Jameson, Ricci, Portman, and Carrie Fisher, than it is to remove the Wikipe-tan images. Or should a double standard be put into place, where real people wouldn't have to have their images removed, but cartoon characters would? And what about, say, Red from Red Hot Riding Hood or Jessica Rabbit
            , cartoon characters explicitly created to be highly sexualized adults? I've seen pornographic images of both--should Wikipedia be purged of all images of them for that reason?

In short, I say that doing this is not only going against both the spirit of

WP:NOTCENSORED and common sense, but opening a huge can of worms that we have no real need to get into. Let it drop. rdfox 76 (talk

) 14:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to let it drop, but people keep misconstruing what I have said and coming up with ridiculous analogies. First off, I have not said that I think all Wikipe-tan images should be deleted (on any grounds). My reason for entering this discussion was to try and explain what I felt were some of the reasons that editors might be uncomfortable with the use of Wikipe-tan. Second, we are discussing cartoon images of a specific fictional character, not photographic images of real people, actors portraying fictional characters, or anything else. Third, I have neither said nor implied that I think any image should be deleted because someone, somewhere has made a pornographic image depicting the same person/character. Fourth, Wikipe-tan, unlike your examples, is a female child. This may seem obvious, but I believe it is fundamental to why some people may be uncomfortable with the character (and probably why some people are fond of the character). Fifth, Wikipe-tan is not an actor playing role or a person photographed by paparazzi. Wikipe-tan was created by User:Kasuga, an individual who also creates images containing "underage nudity" and sexual situations. While this makes Kasuga the ideal person to create the image used in Lolicon, they may not be the best person to create a mascot for Wikipedia. I cannot say that Kasuga intended there to be any sexual overtones to Wikipe-tan, but it is clear that some editors perceive one. If images are deleted on that basis, there is no reason to assume that all images of cartoon children will be deleted. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, then, what about, say, Shinobu Maehara? She was created by Ken Akamatsu, who also has made/still makes (depending on your source) pornographic doujinshi, and there's a great deal of hentai material out there starring her. If, hypothetically, there were a picture showing her in her swimwear at her canonical age of 13 that was on either en-Wiki or Commons, would that mean that image should be deleted on the grounds that it's sexual material? (It's a serious question... I just want to know where, hypothetically, the line should be drawn.) rdfox 76 (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, I haven't suggested here that Wikipe-tan images be deleted, so your question seems somewhat misdirected. I believe the correct wiki-response is

WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST, but I'll try to give you a real answer. The two situations are superficially analogous, but you seem to be ignoring the fact the Wikipe-tan isn't a character from a popular series but the creation of a Wikipedia user for use as a representation of Wikipedia. I have no knowledge of Akamatsu's work, but if the situation is as you describe, I would hope that editors were aware of that in discussions about adding, removing, or deleting such an image. Delicious carbuncle (talk

) 14:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Having been the target of some of Tarc's pungent comments, as well having received similarly pointed supportive comments from him in other discussions, I'd say his comments regularly go beyond what are generally seen as Wikipedia's civility boundaries. However, and more importantly, I've seen a clear double standard in applying civility boundaries to discussions involving sexual content, and note that far nastier comments than Tarc's have been tolerated even when directed at named editors (myself included). Civility standards shouldn't be used to bash one side in a long-running discussion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

it is unfortunately rather routine at Wikipedia to deal with content disputes by personal insult. Even if the insults do not bother the individual whom they are directed at, they poison the atmosphere, inhibit rational discussion, and discourage the less hardy sort of editors. Sometimes that's the purpose: what reasonable normal person would go into a discussion where they know there is an editor ready and eager to call his opponents morons? It's not complaining about extreme rudeness that is an attempt to influence content issues--it's the rudeness. I have been reluctant to even comment on matters involving this particular editor, for I know he considers that I do not act towards him with good faith. But this sort of thing must be stopped. It's hypocritical to complain that relatively innocuous possibly slightly sexualized images of the sort seen universally in the world harm the image of Wikipedia, when it's the continuing recourse to rudeness in discussing them --rudeness of a sort way beyond what is normally seem in public discussions in responsible publications--that does the real harm. I think the images harmless, but I would gladly ban them if we could also ban that sort of invective. If anyone with whom I have no prior negative involvement uses this sort of language and I should notice, I shall give a final warning and then block. I hope someone--preferably someone who supports the person;s underlying position-- will have similar courage here. DGG ( talk ) 08:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:Activist#Hostility. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Article is now at AfD; nothing left to do here.  Frank  |  talk  02:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I could be of some interest to you that

I think you are looking for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.  Frank  |  talk  13:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I know the page but since (1) as a sysop of fr-wiki, I was marginally involved in the deletion there and (2) I do not have enough experience on en-wiki to feel comfortable with such a request (and i know that notability guidelines are different), I do not wish to do what could appear as a

WP:POINT request. Bokken | 木刀

13:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The community would decide that either way. People might try to claim

WP:POINT but ultimately the issue is whether the subject is notable enough for inclusion. Deletion elsewhere and involvement on another wiki are not the point, unless you try to claim the reason for deletion here is that it was deleted elsewhere.  Frank  |  talk 

13:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:BITE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.195 (talk

) 14:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed (with IP). Bokken, there would be no issue if you wished to nominate the article for deletion, or indeed to edit it to remove material supported by dodgy references.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Also agree with IP - no need to

WP:BITE.  Frank  |  talk 

15:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, on this article sources are all from most popular French Newspapers

talk

) 23:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The question is not the reliability of the sources but the fact that they are barely talking about François Asselineau, meaning that his notabilty is questionable. Udufruduhu (talk) 09:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/François Asselineau.  Frank  |  talk  02:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Blocked by Mifter. lifebaka++ 02:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Editor

Chesdovi (talk · contribs) was blocked in December and January for >1RR and violates 1RR today on Israel, Palestine and the United Nations: two edits are clearly reverts (with an intervening one by User:Number 57): [15] and [16], restoring text, as seen in this earlier revision. My effort to bring this issue to the attention of the editor in question was rewarded with yet another edit on the article ("in your face"?). Insisting on strict adherence to ARBPIA strikes me as desirable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Surely, you're familiar with

WP:AE, no? -- tariqabjotu

04:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes -- though I've never started a "case" there -- I had the impression that one does so for "bigger" problems. I take it that that impression is incorrect and that I should go there instead? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no, don't bother. That's not a violation of the 1RR rule. Yes, Number 57 moved the article between the two edits, but Number 57's action was not an edit, so it's not an intervening edit. And even if it were an edit, so long as it wasn't relevant to a section Chesdovi was editing, any reasonable admin would consider Chesdovi's edits (just, what?, ten minutes apart) to be consecutive, with Number 57 just butting in with something irrelevant. There's nothing to see here. -- tariqabjotu 04:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Good evening,

I am requesting assistance in determining what happened to an article which seems to have disappeared. In particular, if the article can be recovered this would be much appreciated. Specifically, it is the article's history about which which I am most concerned. If the original article history can be restored under the article name Islamic metaphysics, I would be most grateful.

An overripe content dispute may have led to the deletion of

I lack the expertise to undertake these forensics. My immediate goal is the preservation of article history. My bigger fear is this may have happened to other articles as well.

Perhaps there is a reasonable explanation for what has happened. I hope so. Thank you in advance for your assistance.

-

This sounds familiar. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a different article, perhaps some different players, but the same bitter dregs. -

talk

) 05:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless I'm horribly mistaken, all the history seems to be accounted for. There are no logs for the page and no deleted revisions. Cheers. lifebaka++ 06:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I was about to write the same thing. Looking at the first few sentences here I strongly suggest not merely undoing the redirect; there are major POV concerns in the nuked text. We are informed from the get go that Avicenna gave the first ontological argument, but this is a minority view, see Ontological argument#History. I see that the main contributor to the nuked article, Jagged 85 has been chastised in a RfC/U for stuff like that. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I see the history remains intact under the original title, even though the name is redirected to another article. So the original article is still there, it is just blanked and redirected.

Not to worry, I don't plan on reinstating it "as is", and thanks much for your time. -

talk

) 13:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I have been editing on climate related articles of Pakistan, but there is the absence of consensus between me and this user, User:HunterZone i am trying to negotiate with this user in order to reach the consensus but this user is continuously deleting my messages on his talk page by insulting me (Personnel Attack), every edit i do is reverted by him, with out any explanation, please suggest me what should be done in order to avoid this. The user seems to be not interested in negotiating with me in order to resolve the dispute.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Former user 9172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has a long-going struggle to accept that we have a Manual of Style, especially with

Looks clueless, esp. about formatting. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I left him a note in Greek explaining the non-compliance to the MOS and advising him to comply. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Dr. K. I don't want to have anyone discouraged from editing here but if such a message is required in Greek, maybe they can be persuaded to contribute to el-wiki instead? Please let us know if they reply in Greek. Regards SoWhy 19:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you SoWhy. I think he is proficient in English; he has created a few articles after all. But I don't think he understands the gravity of

WP:CON and the importance of complying with policies/guidelines. Hopefully a reminder in Greek will bring this home. I will let you know. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis}

23:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that the matter is resolved. Further edits indicate compliance with

WP:CREDENTIAL and no further edit-warring. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis}

00:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I fear that optimism was premature. Further edits such as this one show the same behavior again. :-/ Regards SoWhy 07:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I fear that a short block may be in order. I really don't know why this editor is so unresponsive. But it is becoming time-consuming and disruptive to keep up with him amidst all this edit-warring. Give him a final warning and follow with a block if need be. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we can give up on this guy. Just keeps going... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It's gone beyond ridiculous. It's become similar to a Whac-A-Mole game. Only difference there is no redemption. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

No replies to any of the suggestions/warnings, no change in editing pattern, no apparent effort to conform with the MOS. I like seeing someone creating needed articles, and his English is not that atrocious, but against such persistent IDNHT perhaps only a temporary block might help. Constantine ✍ 00:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Now IP-socking. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

IP sock has now been blocked which puts this formatting feast on hold for 24 hours. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Great. Now we are playing Whac-A-Mole with the socks as well, not only the badly formatted edits. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This is becoming ridiculous; I had to self-revert because he now "wins" the edit-wars using multiple IPs. *sigh*. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this the incident that time forgot? Any admin out there? How can you allow this thing to fester days on end? I knew there is admin shortage but this is getting ridiculous. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 14:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked him 48 hours for block evasion (he went on editing when the IP was blocked). As to the rest, I don't think you've made it really clear to the admins what the issue is, that's why you haven't seen any action.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs)

Thank you Ellen. In short this editor uses formatting contrary to MOS and incessantly edit-wars against multiple editors, on multiple articles, for days on end without acknowledging or responding to repeated messages in English and Greek. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It is quite clear that somebody who refuses to acknowledge any sort of communication should be shown the door. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, If the block doesn't do the trick, and he continues once it's over I am willing to indefblock the account. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 17:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Theresa. I agree. This attitude is disruptive and antithetical to the collaborative editing environment of Wikipedia. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright. Block evasion again. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Blocked. Phearson (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Skucorp appears to be creating articles for his company "Skucorp" on voter election machines. I have reported him to

See his contribs: [17] Regards, Phearson (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Three spam articles deleted and a note left on the user's talk page.  Frank  |  talk  03:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

He will also need blocking, as his user name is clearly promotional. Phearson (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

An IP hopping anon which was previously discussed regarding their edits to Reporters Without Borders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), is now edit warring over the insertion of personal attacks on the talk page. They repeatedly remove comments to them, while restoreing an earlier version their personal attacks. Ironically, their actions are what they are accusing others of doing. I'm suspecting that talk page protection and/or a range block may be needed if the IP refuses to recognize that their behavior is the root of the current problems. I'm bringing it here to discuss as I'm not a huge fan of protecting talk pages, and a range block appears wide enough to impact a large number of other editors.

Note: I have no involvement in either the article or the talk page, other than reverting the personal attacks on the talk page, blocking one of the IPs involved, and posting a notice about the disruption to the talk page. I have no interest in editing the article subject at this time, and will leave the content and content discussions to others. --- Barek (talk) - 14:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Reference link to prior discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive678#Reporters Without Borders and Press Freedom Index. --- Barek (talk) - 16:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I looked into the possibility of the rangeblock previously. There appears to be some collateral last time I checked. I looked into the possibility of smaller rangeblocks though. Based on recent edits, 123.231.82.0/24 and 123.231.85.0, looks blockable, and 123.231.114.0/23 is a somewhat. Will look at others Elockid (Alternate) ^(Talk) 15:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Despite warnings, the IP continued edit warring over restoring a prior version that contained personal attacks, so I've semi-protected the talk-page for 31 hours. I invite comments on this action. If consensus is against the protection, please feel free to lift it without waiting for comment from me (as I will be going to bed soon). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Action supported.

Dreadstar ☥

00:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Less than 20 hours after the short-term talk page protection expired, the anon returned and again reverted to the same earlier version containing the personal attacks. As a result, I'm going to re-protect with a longer duration. Again, if consensus is against the protection, no need to wait for me to comment. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Paulioetc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Suspected of using a variety of sockpuppets to disrupt articles on friendly fire. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paulioetc. Is currently removing a number of SPI warnings from all of the suspected socks.

BLP violation is taht he persists in adding an allegation that a British Forward Air Controller (individual is named on talk pages related to the topic) faced manslaughter charges or was responsible for a friendly fire incident. This is based on an old report in the Daily Mail [18]. That information is seriously out of date, no charges were ever brought, the subsequent investigation cleared the FAC and the coroner found no individual to blame see [19].

Uses a variety of fringe and

Articles involved:

He is also removing discussions from talk pages, does not engage on talk pages, routinely ignores warnings and is now disruptively editing using a new User ID User:JamesHawks‎. He is editing faster than we can clear up the mess afterwards. Please could we have some admin action to stop the disruptive editing. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I added userlinks to the user in question (top of your message), if you don't mind. Remember to notify the editor about this thread on their talk page. 212.68.15.66 (talk) 13:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I have commented on the SPI page; I don't think there's anything more to do here.  Frank  |  talk  13:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser confirms sock puppets, noting Paulioetc has already been blocked once for abusive use of sock puppets could we have some action to stop further disruptive edits. At least a permanent block on the sock. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked the sock because it was being used in the same articles etc. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

New Sock?

Circumstantial evidence would suggest Paulio is back with yet another sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paulioetc#09 March 2011. Could I again request admin action. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC) Confirmed by Check User as a sock. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Now blocked. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that BKLisenbee (talk · contribs) is editing Brian Jones Presents the Pipes of Pan at Joujouka via 68.173.25.146 (talk); see diff. If so, this is in violation of the topic ban that User:FayssalF put in place (July 2008). Most recent occurrence was about a month ago; see ANI archive. FayssalF does not seem to be actively involved with English Wikipedia at this time, and BKLisenbee does not show any intention of abiding with the topic ban. I've notified the IP user as well as BKLisenbee, and I will leave another note at User:FayssalF/JK (which has additional background concerning this matter). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Forgot to mention this earlier, but in December 2010 the IP address (see contribs.) had made edits to other articles covered by the topic ban. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course it not possible that two separate people have the same thought, now would it?--Jojhutton (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course it is entirely possible. I should have re-phrased my last comment: the IP has only made edits to articles covered by the topic ban. This particular matter has been going on for six (6) years (again, see User:FayssalF/JK), so certain patterns tend to raise a red flag at this point. As FayssalF once pointed out (see ANI archive), 90% of the edits to the topic ban articles have been by the same two editors, and FayssalF also explained why he thought indefinite blocks/complete bans on the involved accounts would not be effective. However, FayssalF, who has shouldered the burden of moderation in the past, is currently inactive. Given the ongoing topic ban, I continue to raise the issue here. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I see that the main user, hasn't even edited since last October, and actually only made 6 edits in all of 2010. Seems to be inactive. The ip only made a few edits. Those edits should easy to revert if needed. I'm not an admin, but I've seen similar requests at ANI before and usually admins don't take action against inactive accounts. But of course that just my opinion and action may still be taken, if deemed warranted.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

There has been a drip drip topic evasion which has substantially changed pages in effect of topic ban note just IP [20]having not been flagged due to off wiki time by the main admin and myself they go unnoticed but Gyrofrog will recognise the geo location Apopka, Florida which is where two Ips associated emanate from at certain times of the year. The diffs are numerous but the editor switches Ip an example diff is [21]This particular edit is in violation of several wiki codes eg

WP:BLP, and evades the topic ban while obscuring info in supposed well intentioned edit summaries. It would take several hours to go through all the pages to find similar but they exist on all pages concerned and include sneaky removal of external links and sources [22]If you suggest it should be done on an edit by edit is I will try later today. Catapla (talk

) 02:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

eg this diff [23] deletes a link while reordering the external links on page there are a lot of edits like this from various IPs on the various topic banned pages. Catapla (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

I came across this on new page patrol which appears to be a recreation of this, which has been deleted multiple times and salted. Not sure if this qualifies as a G4 since I couldn't find a related deletion discussion, but it's clearly an attempt to end-run the page protection with a slightly modified title. I've already G10'ed it once but the author has recreated it. 28bytes (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Jclemens took care of it. Thanks! 28bytes (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, and by the time I got back here, someone else had slapped a resolved tag on it. If the editor puts up a good unblock request, he can be unblocked by any admin who believes he understands and will comply with BLP. Jclemens (talk) 06:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Improper venue. User directed to

AIV if CRACK MONKEY13 (talk · contribs) continues vandalizing. Goodvac (talk

) 04:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• CRACK MONKEY13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not exactly an appropriate username, but more importantly, their first two edits in quick succession have been rather vandalous.[24][25] - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• • It's hardly a major incident when someone vandalizes Wikipedia once. It happens all the time. And the vandals get reverted and warned, like Mr. Crack Monkey already has been. If he keeps vandalizing to the point where an admin needs to block him, make a post on
    Administrator Intervention Against Vandalism. rspεεr (talk
    ) 04:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
    • My bad, wrong venue. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – no action required

Spartaz ^Humbug!

06:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

without contacting a specific admin, this AfD has been active for over 7 days and requires closure Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freedom Through Christ Prison Ministry. thanks LibStar (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

According to the DumbBOT notice within the AFD, it was not properly transcluded on the AFD log until about 12 hours ago. So although the page may have been created on 21 February, it hasn't been properly exposed for community discussion all that time. I'd say it needs to stay open a few more days to make sure there aren't alternative views or improvements to the article now that the AFD is fully visible. --RL0919 (talk) 01:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It was listed here by DumbBOT on the log for 8 March, so it should stay open several more days, yes. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Pokefan199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I don't really know what to do with this guy. Looks like he had an article deleted so he retaliated by blanking someone's talk page[26] followed by a taunt with the edit summary "Take this!"[27] After that he creates a nonsense page[28] and starts leaving random bullshit on various talk pages[29][30]. I considered leaving some kind of helpful advice on his talk page, but he's gotten a lot of it and he's one of those guys that you know damn well is never going to grow up and edit constructively. I wish someone would just hit the flush handle, but I'm not sure he's done enough damage for that yet. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

One thing I know damn well is that when you assume an editor is never going to "grow up and edit constructively", and state that on one of the more heavily-patrolled noticeboards on the project, they rarely do so. The problem is, when we keep just blocking accounts, we wind up with socking problems from people who might have contributed. I'm not saying every editor can and will contribute constructively. But assuming we know what's going to happen and then not making an attempt is not the approach that will have the best chance of welcoming and redirecting a user to productive pursuits.  Frank  |  talk  04:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

With those number of (vandalism) edits that user should have been reported to

AIV already for a vandalism-only account. Also, the reason why he blanked my talkpage is that I nominated his article for speedy deletion, which (according to him) is his company, so I think he thinks that he owns that article and I was the one who deleted that article (even though that article was still there by the time he blanked my talkpage). E Wing (talk

) 05:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Article that was deleted: Richard co. is a 1 man company that was created by Richard Schreurs in 2011. –MuZemike 07:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I am engaged in an edit war with

Why have you not posted a single thing on either of those articles talk pages? Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 14:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

ThanksTheresa Knott For your support to a newbie wikipedian who is only requesting not to be browbeaten from doing good work in

Dear Profitoftruth85 , Peace be upon us all!! It is not a war , or any thing like that. It ought to be areasoned exchange for which I have most made a couple of humble entreaties on your talk page , which you have removed.There are no POV issues , only unbiased reporting which is well supported by authentic references. First of all , You , Sir , had written that about this person that " He really is crap and teaches crap". Frankly , Isn't such filthy and abusive language apalling ,coming from an intellectually emancipated wikipedian whose name itself denotes The-profit-of-truth!!Is that consistent with BLP and libel guidelines? Mustn't we follow the ideals of wikipedia and basic civility while writing that? Must we take away the basic vestiges of respect which is every individual's birthright? Secondly , not a word is said about this person's opponent's etc in this version . No individual is named. Infact , I have avoided all personal references or even the mention of any other community or social group. I have mentioned terror attacks with RDX etc which have been proven to be the handiwork of zealots /communalist's/terrorist's and hence the wording. Whatever be anyone's grouse , can any sane person call such acts upon anyone as acts of charity? Who are we wikipedians to say that such violent means are jusitifed in silencing this man , whatever be his apparent foibles!? The enbloc deletion of the social work was uneccessary.If it bring out his contributions as a social worker , and that is not attributable to his followers/organisation acting alone , because he is their head and the chief ideologue. I have answered your queries on the POV joke pointwise on the page by supplying the references you had asked for.Please do take the trouble of going through the references and consensus shall surely emerge. All the references are truly neutral and are in the public domain.They are also written by the best experts in the chosen fields and published in prestigious places. Lastly , I have never made any personal attacks against anyone. Since I am a true believer of all religions , and like other faiths , I hold the Sikh religion in the highest esteem. Therefore , I quoted from the sacred Gurbani to illustrate the point and not to hurt anyone's feelings.It is the sacred writings of the Gurus , which says that , Not me.If I have been misunderstood , I most humbly apologise. Lastly , quoting from Saint Kabir, "I am the most wretched and the lowliest , no one is lower than me, Those who act thus, Says Kabir , are the only disciples of the True Guru" I dont say this for effect , but I hope to be able to follow this in its entirety , someday , soon. So , taking a leaf from your kind suggestions , I shall be mellowing down the words that you have objected to. God Bless! Best regards, (Bandagharka (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC))

TLDR - Same question for you - why aren't communicting on the article's tslk pages. Also cut it out with the poetry please. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 14:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you take a quick look at this static IP [36] coming off from a 3 day block saying "stupid magyar fasist" the next day. Hobartimus (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• He has a week's holiday. Moreschi (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm being harassed by another administrator by the name User:Maunus. I've already opened a section weeks ago. Here's the link [37].

After a series of content-dispute problems he had with me the past, he obviously took a personal interest against my person. His harassment is characterized by watching my contributions very closely as evidenced in my first complaint [38].

That time he got involved (without being asked to) in a discussion between me and a 3rd party, giving false and misrepresenting statements about myself, in what I can only assume to be an attempt to create animosity[39]. Maunus' problems with me were over months before this incident, which clearly evidence I WAS BEING WATCHED because we had no interaction at all for months. He finally theatened me to open a RfC, which he finally did. Please see comments of the outsiders to see.

After weeks of ZERO interaction between us, not even crossing into eachother's edit path, HE IS AGAIN DOING THE SAME. He's getting involved in a discussion HE WASN'T PART OF. He was not asked to get involved. I created a Wikiquette Alert against the other user and Maunus ALL OF THE SUDDEN gets involved [40], trying to LURE THE OTHER PARTY to comment in the RfC he opened against me in the past [41]. Finally, the other user was convinced and commented in the RfC [42]. I want to make clear that the ONLY WAY he could have found out about my Wikiquette Alert is by WATCHING MY CONTIBUTIONS PAGE. With no interaction between us, is clear that he's waiting for some person to have an argument with me, so he can missrepresent me and in this particular case, to get the other user to comment in his RfC. The other user was clearly mad at me, so it was easy to assume he would comment against me.

I cannot stand this. I've been a good Wikipedian, I've produced graphics to enhance this project and I'm a good-faith editor. It is not fair to be harassed this way by a person who is obviously WATCHING me in order to JUMP IN whenever I have a problem, just to make his point that I am not a good user.

I demand some action. I demand a detailed view on this. It is not fair. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 21:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Maunus harassment is characterized by getting involved with the users I have a discussion with, even if he's not part of the discussion nor asked to get involved (he argues he tries to "help dispute resolution" but that's in request of any of the parties, something that has never happened). He also never does that with any other user. In plain words, he tried to "join forces" with that two users that had a problem with me, and succeded. I feel harassed because he's obviously watching me in order to see if I happen to have an argument with another editor. I'm so frustrated nobody can get this. He does not get involved in anybody else's discussion. Just mines. And he doesn't contact the other parties to help, he contacts them to "join" him in his arguments against me. I hope this helps to make you guys see my point. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 22:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I just want to make clear that he obviously is avoiding contact with me not to make it look harassment (he kinda admits that here [43] in the talk page of the OTHER user that was having a discussion with me), but HE IS WATCHING ME, "fishing" for users to comment against me. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 21:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Note - you do not seem to have informed Maunus of this discussion, I have done this for you. Please note this is required. Exxolon (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I have defended myself against these completely unfounded accusations at the RfC regarding AlexCovarrubias' conduct. I am not harrassing him or watching him (I have ANI and WQA on my watchlist as well as several articles that he frequently contributes to). Rather, I have fruitlessly tried to engage him in order to adress a problematic pattern with his editing that has been observed by several other editors than me. Alkex refuses discussion through talk pages but deletes requests for discussion without answereing them. This pattern of behavior left me no other option than to approach other editors who had also asked him to stop reverting without discussion and jointly file an Rfc. This is the standard dispute resolution process in wikipedia and in fact the only possibility to adress conduct issues of editors who are not willing to engage in communication. It is not harrassment to follow our dispute resolution process. Following the process of course entails notifying users who have complained of similar conduct issues of the rfc, this is what I have done. I don't need to fish for users to comment against AlexCovarrubias as long as he himself keeps reverting goodfaith users edits and uses personal attacks, accusations of harrassment or racism against them when they ask why their edits were reverted. I urge administrators to take a good long look at the many diffs provided at the RfC and then consider what interest I might have in harrassing AlexCovarrubias or whether I might be acting in goodfaith in order to get AlexCovarrubias to stop reverting edits he sees as "anti-mexican" without discussion.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Again Maunus, you're totally willingly giving false information. Your language is subtle so other people might think I'm actually doing what you're saying. I'm surprised that after I've clarified this in my talk page, in the past ANI post and in the RfC you're still saying the same over and over. To make it clear AGAIN: I don't refuse to discuss, I just erase messages after I read them. As you were told by another admin, it is my right to delete my user talk. Also you make it sound as if I delete only the messages "I don't like", I DELETE ALMOST ALL the messages. And this is about harassment. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 21:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You deletes messages containing questions and requests without answering them first (and continue with the behavior that you are requested to stop). You revert goodfaith edits with no edit summary. How is that not refusing to communicate? ·Maunus·ƛ· 21:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This is frankly very disgusting from you Maunus. Do I have to tell you AGAIN? You're just asking the same questions trying to misrepresent me. I delete almost all messages. Recently, out of frustration by some users such as you, when I'm asked to discuss some edit, I just rather STEP ASIDE and stop editing. Something that ANOTHER USER already commented about in the RfC you opened. Didn't you read it? This is very disgusting and frustrating. Hopefully, a comitted admin will read the whole RfC. And besides, this is about my complain of harassment. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 21:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Alex - you delete messages without answering. You admit you delete almost all messages. How does this constitute communication? You also evidently do not change your behavior when people ask you to stop reverting without discussion and without edit summaries, because if that were the case we wouldn't have 5 editors all saying that you did this at different times, each of them approaching you on your talkpage and asking you to discuss rather than revert. I simply don't get why it is so difficult to see that communication is essential for collaborative editing and communication require responsiveness to other editors concerns.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Since you're the one bringing the complaint of harassment, you have the burden of proof...but you insist on deleting the very messages that might support your case. IMO that's a classic example of shooting oneself in the foot. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I left the relevant discussion on my user talk page and a link in my main post above. Maunus harassment is characterized by getting involved with the users I have a discussion with, even if he's not part of the discussion nor asked to get involved (he argues he tries to "help dispute resolution" but that's in request of any of the parties, something that has never happened). He also never does that with any other user. In plain words, he tried to "join forces" with that two users that had a problem with me, and succeded. I feel harassed because he's obviously watching me in order to see if I happen to have an argument with another editor. I'm so frustrated nobody can get this. He does not get involved in anybody else's discussion. Just mines. And he doesn't contact the other parties to help, he contacts them to "join" him in his arguments against me. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 22:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Many users will discreetly monitor the edits of someone who looks like they might need help at Wikipedia. If they need help, we help, and if there are no problems, we soon get bored and stop looking at their contributions. That isn't, in itself, harassment. Harassment would be if this person were undoing your good edits, for example, or leaving personal attacks on your talk page. I'm having trouble finding any harassment in the links you've given. However, when I have more time, I'd be happy to review some of your edits to see if you do need more help in editing. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You should probably take note that neither shouting in bold text nor making demands on the admins will sway anyone toward sympathy for your situation. Just my 2p worth. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This is strange... it looks like you already know that most Wikipedia users will leave messages on their talk pages for a while, long enough to respond and allow a conversation to happen, and then, after a few weeks, will move them to an archive. You know that's so customary that many users will take the blanking of their notes as a negative, and that their feelings will be hurt. But you seem to be complaining that other people are reacting to you as though you've hurt their feelings? I don't quite understand... you chose to hurt their feelings, so I don't think there's anything that I can do to make them feel better- but you could. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This is also odd; you call another user 'racist,' but I don't see where the racism is. That's a very serious problem regarding one of you- if he is making racist personal attacks or adding racist content to articles, we need to stop that at once, but if you're calling someone else 'racist' without good reason, that's a personal attack in itself. Can you provide some diffs of this user's most racist edits? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

As Maunus correctly pointed out, there's no need for anyone to look for users who lament Alex's conduct, as his lack of manners and his habit of making grave, groundless accusations against anyone who disagrees with him make sure that there are plenty of users who are dissatisfied with his shabby, disrespectful behaviour.--LK (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

FisherQueen I'm not complaining about anything but Maunus' harassment. A topic that seems to have been left aside. I'm sorry to say that I had little hope for this to be reviewed since Maunus is an administrator, and this kinda proves me right. You guys are totally missing the point why I opened this. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 21:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

When there are concerns about an editor's behavior, we do use their editing history to find, fix or otherwise address any problematic editing or violations of Wikipedia policy - this is not considered

Dreadstar ☥

22:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

First of all, don't forget Maunus had serious problems with me in the past so there's a personal component here. Secondly, he does not get involved out of concern or to help. He basically is watching me to contact whoever has a problem with me, in order to "join forces". He doesn't offer to resolve anything. He just contact others to pick on me. That's harassment. And has happened two times now, at least that I know of. And finally, he does not act or gets involved in other's discussion. That's shows his personal interest against me.AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 22:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You realize that it is a requirement in order to file an RfC that two people endorse it? How can one file an rfc without approaching an other editor who has a similar problem to ask if they thing it is an idea to file an RfC? Also, of course I have had personal disputes with you, how can one file an RfC against an editor with whom one has not been in a personal dispute? I can appreciate that in this case I asked someone one your talk page, which was probably a little rude, but he was asking you to stop reverting his edits without edit summaries just like I had done several times in the past so it seemed fairly logical to ask him there. Underlying Ik was having the same problem with you again today. I am not harrassing you - you have a pattern of behavior that causes you to have troubles with editors repeatedly - I am just the first editor to call you out on that in an Rfc..(well the second editor actually since there was already another rfc about the same topic).·Maunus·ƛ· 22:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, no matter how you spin it, this only shows that there are at least four users who are tired of your disrespectful behaviour.--LK (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You're really going to have to provide diffs to prove your accusations.

Dreadstar ☥

22:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This is just disgusting. You're making this personal, and willingly giving false info. I told you why I thought your behaviour in particular was not appropiate [44] and then I even THANKED YOU [45] after you understood my point. And it was me who opened a Wikiquette alert because of your behavoir. You're just sore and that's why you're commenting here. Anyways, this is about harassment, remember? You're the only one trying to "spin" the conversation. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 23:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict x1)(Full disclosure: I am not an admin)

Alex without evidence that prove your accusations there isn't much anybody here can do. Furthermore, when you file a complaint at ANI you can expect your own behavior to be analyzed as well.

If you really believe you are being harassed here is what you do: Lay it out for us. Give us links to your evidence along with a brief summary of why you had a problem with Maunus's conduct in that instance. --*Kat* ^(meow?) 23:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Your point being that it is ok to repeatedly reinsert uncited information removed by another editor because VP:V says that "uncited information may be deleted" but not that it "has to be"... That is a fairly innovative interpretation of that policy.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Attention please

I need someone to take a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/AlexCovarrubias2#Question_to_Participants and tell me that I am not crazy. I really don't see what I have done wrong. I will give a short summary of the development from my viewpoint:

1. . I have had several disputes with User:AlexCovarrubias regarding articles related to Mexico. These have been content disputes, where I feel that he is trying to push a certain Nationalist Mexican POV into articles and censor information that he views as negative and that I see as central to describing the topic (e.g. social inequality, discrimination against indigenous groups). He often simply reverted my edits without edit summaries, and whenn I started discussions on the talk page he didn't participate, or he simply said "I disagree" with no arguments and then continued to revert. When I asked him why he reverted on his talk page he deleted my messages without answering, then left the topic for a while untill one day he just removed the material I added again. This was a pattern that repeated over several months. The few times we did have interaction he would accuse me of being "anti-Mexican" (which is ridiculous since I study Mexico professionally, is married to a Mexican citizen andhave lived in MExico for several years).
2. . Looking at AlexCovarrubias talkpage I saw that several other editors also tried to ask him why he reverted their edits - their messages where also deleted without being answered. Some of them tried several times to get him to answer. I decided to approach one of them and suggest that we open an RfCU about AlexCovarrubias conduct. We did and this enfuriated AlexCovarrbias who began to argue that this was harrassment to contact other users to ask them to take such steps against him. I don't see how this can be true because openeing an RFC requires to people to endorse it - how can two people decide to open an Rfc without one asking the other? How can it be harassment to follow the dispute resolution process after trying to communicate civilly on his talkpage but being denied?
3. . Yesterday AlexCovarrubias was in a dispute with Underlying Ik, - AlexCovarrubias had removed fairuse images used outside of the scope of the rationale form the article Mexico, AlexCovarrubias reverted and accused Underlying Ik of being a "racist" - presumably because he only left a picture of a desert (the only one that was properly licensed) which AlexCovarrubias found to be "stereotyping Mexicans". Underlying Ik also remove duncited material in the article about certain Mexican companies (Alexcovarrubias focuses a great deal of his efforts on trying to portray Mexico as a very important industrial nation). Alex reverted the removal first without an editsummary, and then the second time he argued that "WP:V says that uncited material may be removed, not that it has to be". Then he opened a wikiquette alert against Underlying Ik accusing him of racism(with no evidence). I saw the thread at WQA and as Underlying Ik tried to defend himself against the accusations of racism, I joined the thread and told him the RfC was still open - this seemed loigical since he was experiencing the exact same behavior from AlexCovarrubias that the three other editors endorsing the rfc did. This made Alex even more furious and accused me of hounding him and watching his contributions. (This is false I am watching Ani and WQA, and the Mexico (but notice I had stayed out of the dispute between him and Unerlyinh Ik because I didn't want to inflame the issue))
4. . Now AlexCovarrubias started accusing me of harassment, because I have had the audacity to start and rfc and suggest to other editors who have been affected by his problematic conduct to comment there. At the RfC several editors are stating that I did not go about the issue of creating an rfc in the right way, but they don't say what I and the other editors who have had problems with AlexCovarrubias should have done instead. I need to know: what should I have done in this situation? Talkpage discussion didn't work, messages were deleted without being responded to. The behavior of reverting without discussion continued. How were we supposed to deal with this without it being "harrassment"?·Maunus·ƛ· 16:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I really don't know what to think about this. You were extending peace at the RfC you opened against me, and I have accepted and agreed. Oh and I haven't opened a RfC against you, that's false information. Can you please provide the RfC link that I supposedly opened? Now I'm surprised to see this message here. I don't want to think that you only extended peace there and not here, just because this is the administrators board. I won't answer any of your claims (all of them very missleading), since I have already answer them and addressed them properly in the entire RfC. So I only hope that whoever is gonna read the RfC reads it all and patiently. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 17:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I wrote this before the statement at the rfc. It was a typing mistake that made it look like you started the rfc - you haven't started an rfc about me, but you have been accusing me of harrassment in the rfc that I started. I just wanted to clarify the chronology of this and am now entering into the voluntary interaction ban in regards to you that I decided to impose on myself afer having posted this above. I still think it is problematic that I am being accused of harrassment when I have follow the letter of our policy on dispute resolution and I hope that when you are less angry you will realize that I have not actually been harrassing youbut have been trying to resolve our dispute in good faith and publicly retract that accusation. This is the last you will her from me in a while.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• You're not crazy, Maunus. I've watched this unfold, and looked into it enough to see what's going on. If I had the energy I'd try to figure out some way of getting Alex to see the light, but I don't have the time, desire, or energy to deal with someone like him. Sometimes people who just repeatedly scream the same silly things over and over can win because others aren't willing to take the time to deal with them in a productive way, and I'll fully cop to that shameful attitude right now. There are some promisingly sane people who've commented above, with orders of magnitude more patience than me, and perhaps one of them can make some progress. But whether they do or not, you deserve to know you're not crazy. Walking away seems wise. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add my two cents here. I am a user that has had difficulties with several administrators, especially in Spanish, to the point that I dropped Spanish articles altogether. Started to have a problem here with Maunus, but we both managed to resolve it constructively. The issue at hand seems to be getting too long and at a point somebody will start adding “Legally Privileged”. It is next to impossible, frustrating, tiring, time consuming and useless to continue these exchanges.

On the one hand, we users, have a hard time dealing with the fact that we working ad-honorem , doing something that we like, simply for the satisfaction of doing it. The actions of some administrators are very negative, viewed from our side.

On the other hand, I am certain that administrators have a hard time dealing with us commoners, and perhaps they do not have the time to be, at least polite, in their also difficult work. I believe it is a fcat that if Administrators had a little more patience and polished a little their communication skills, many problems would be resolved. We newcomers need help and guidance, if possible some comfort every now and then. I believe it is up to Administrators to make us more productive and have better quality, all we need is help!

And solutions is what I propose here, both parties need to apologize to one another and find common ground to work collectively at the tasks at hand. The abstract Wikipedia atmosphere makes it nearly impossible to execute a fair trial. And at the end what is to be gained? Absolutely nothing. Maunus knows I have a short fuse but, again, we managed to resolve and are working together now. To AlexCovarrubias I offer that I know the frustration and feelings experienced. Rather than exchanging witnesses and proof and whatever, I respectfully propose to use your time more constructively and move forward to do what we all like to do.--Raúl Gutiérrez (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how this commendable outpouring of goodwill would do anything do address the legitimate concerns expressed by other editors about Alex's conduct, some of whom are not administrators. I'm one of them, by the way, and don't feel I have anything to apologise for.--LK (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Sock blocked, pages speedied. Nothing left to do here. T. Canens (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Chinaraileng38265 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Chinaraileng38265 has been mass creating articles on non-notable Chinese railroads. I think similar things like this have happened before.(not necessarily with this user though). Not sure where this should go.205.155.141.9 (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: Just realized that a thread was started here as well:WP:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Chinaraileng38265.205.155.141.9 (talk) 19:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I find Wikipedia useful for traveling and this information could be helpful. Google has some possible refs. I am sure that there would be Chinese verification. I do not have a problem with it.

talk · contribs · email

) 19:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't a single article better show all these stations than 50+ one sentence articles?

"Zhongliangshan Station is the station of Chongqing Metro, services of spur part of extension Line 2, and the code is ???"

This doesn't appear that useful(and it's the only sentence in the article), and all the info on various stops in a railway system could be centralized into one main article on that system.205.155.141.9 (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes agree better as one article that is than split into pieces when becomes to large. Either way referencing is required.

talk · contribs · email

) 19:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Whoops. Unaware of this conversation, I've been marking these pages as patrolled. While there's certainly a larger discussion on notability to be had, I don't see any reason to immediately tag them. Should I cease and desist? elektrikSHOOS 19:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been marking them as patrolled too; the pages themselves aren't speedyable. It's the enormous amount of them that's the problem, for two reasons. First of all, it's disrupting Special:NewPages to be flooded with 150 articles all at once, and the second problem is that none of them have any references whatsoever. Doc James has warned them about creating articles with no references (that's the second warning; there's another one in the talkpage history as well); if it continues, I think a block may be in order until this user gets the point. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• The
  bot policy is clear on issues like this. Article creation in this manner is prohibited without prior agreement. NW (Talk
  ) 19:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Is Chinaraileng38265 a bot? I may just be missing it, but I see no indication that the account is such. Silverseren^C 19:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• The policy applies to any user, whether they be a bot, AWB-ing, or simply copy/pasting. NW (Talk) 20:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)How about this BRFA, filed by a user that has since been blocked as a sockpuppet? I'm not certain, but it does look similar in both username and contributions. Reach Out to the Truth 20:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• The linked policy actually says "...automated or semi-automated article creation task". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)And as noted at the village pump thread, the bot request to do this exact task got shot down a little less than a year ago. Whether it's actually automated is of minor consequence; it's so fast it's as if it's automated, and is extremely disruptive to those of us on NPP. I think we may need to block this user until they get the message, if they start up again. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)