Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

Welcome to wikiquette assistance
Wikiquette assistance is a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance. The goal here is to help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable solution. It is designed to function via persuasion, reason, and community support, rather than threats or blocks. Your first resort should be a polite attempt to discuss the problem with the other editor(s). No binding decisions are issued here. If you seek blocks or bans, see WP:ANI instead. Sections older than 5 days archived by MiszaBot II. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) Please notify any users involved in a dispute. You may use {{subst:WQA-notice}} to do so.
Search the Wikiquette archives Additional notes: Before posting, see that you've made every attempt to follow the advice at Guide to avoiding disputes. Consider the helpful advice here and see the dispute resolution process. Include diffs that show the situation. See the Simplest diff guide for help. The conduct of all parties will be taken into account. Assistance may involve suggestions for altering your own behavior to avoid conflict. Volunteers are welcome. See the volunteer instructions.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

Active alerts

User:Malke2010

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – drop or file RFC/U Gerardw (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User Malke2010 is alleged to repeatedly engage in uncivil conduct. The latest series of uncivil exchanges began when the editor was reported at WP:AN3 for a disputed edit by another editor, Izauze (talk). User:Malke2010 then accused [1] me on the 3RR noticeboard of edit warring as a plank in his/her defense. I requested a retraction and apology. None was forthcoming.

On the Tea Party movement talk page, the same editor then blanked [2] a reference I provided to support an edit and accused [3] me of: biting, "singling me out as a disruptive editor," and implied I was dishonest in my interaction there. After informally warning him/her there that I viewed such accusations as uncivil [4], User:Malke2010 then accuses me on the article talk page of uncivil conduct [5][6] and asks a leading question [7] implying an WP:SPI (please also see here [8] and here [9] where he/she seeks an editor's help in "fishing" via WP:CHK). In a subsequent discussion, User:Malke2010 again raises the same WP:SOCK/WP:MEAT/WP:SHARE allegation against Izauze (talk) in a leading question [10].

After admins found the WP:3RR complaint did not meet criteria for sanctions, User:Malke2010 then unceremoniously gloats [11] on the article talk page of "vindication" and accuses the said editor of disruptive editing [12].

User:Malke2010 has been afforded numerous opportunities to both apologize and strike uncivil comments but instead continues the same pattern of baiting and badgering other editors. I'd like to see if we can change this sort of behavior--Happysomeone (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that Happysomeone can probably state the case better than I can, so I'll try not to add any clutter, but if anyone regarding this inquiry wants any information from me, I would be more than happy to participate. Malke's previous temporary bans for disruptive editing seems to display a history that she is repeating here. She has AGAIN (I believe) crossed the WP:3RR threshhold in the last 24 hours (after my last 3RR report a few days ago), but I have not as of yet filed a report because I don't want it to interfere with my current attempts to extend an olive branch and ask for a truce both on the forums and privately via email. Wishful thinking, though that may be. Thanks. --Izauze (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be forum shopping WP:FORUMSHOP. Their 3rr frivolous complaint did not succeed so now we're here. I did not violate 3rr in the frivolous complaint being referred to that the administrator dismissed as no violation. However, the administrator did find that Izauze did violate 3rr, but felt that since the posting had gone stale that he would not block Izauze. And removing uncited material and violations of policy are not part of 3rr. The Tea Party Movement article is about living people and the rules of WP:BLP also apply, as does WP:NOTE WP:SYN WP:NPOV to name a few.

It appears that this is harassment and as Izauze has said in his many posts on his talk page and the administrator's page, he would like for me to be blocked so that I will be discouraged and leave. Asking an administrator about sock puppetry is not a violation of anything as far as I am aware. And this complaint seems like another attempt to get me blocked because the other notice board did not give them what they wanted. I asked Izauze on the article talk page is he has edited under another name. There is also nothing wrong with that. Editors leave and come back with new user names.

Please note also, Happysomeone and Izauze cherry pick diffs to craft a scenario. They also always agree and support one another on the talk page and in their edits. For example, yesterday I was asking about a comment made by Happysomeone about an earlier collaboraton between himself and Izauze. I could not find such a collaboration and asked. Immediately, Happysomeone signed on and under my question said it was time to look at something else.

The impression given is that I shouldn't ask about that. This is just a content dispute that they are taking to an inappropriate level. Please allow me time to collect diffs. Thanks.Malke2010 22:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Malke, I'm not going to respond right now to your (in my view) deceptive assertions above, because I don't have the energy to chase you in circles... And I really don't know how many different times and in how many different ways I have to say it - but I want to make it perfectly clear that this is NOT a content dispute. I would gladly make that paragraph the exact way you want it, if it meant we could continue developing the rest of the article in a calm civil productive manner. At the end of the day - no matter via what method of dispute resolution - all I want is to work alongside good, neutral, civil editors who generally understand what the idea of being an impartial collector of existing information is about. If I were able to get you to agree to be that with me, all of this would be history. We'd both be happier. And the article (and wikipedia) would be better. Sounds like a good deal to me. --Izauze (talk) 08:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved editor

The three editors above are working on a somewhat contentious article. Mostly they get along well enough under the circumstances. Recently, their discussions have been a little overheated. I recommend that all three editors pause a couple of days. Do not collect diffs to bolster your arguments. That is likely only to inflame passions further. I think that all three editors are able to edit in a neutral, civil fashion and can get past their current problems. Sbowers3 (talk) 15:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Sbowers. I came to this same conclusion and this is why I haven't posted diffs, nor have I filed a complaint with AN/I, which I would be justified in doing. The project is what is important here and the ultimate goal for the article is neutrality. If everybody keeps that in mind, there shouldn't be a problem with differing views.Malke2010 19:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the only diff I have to offer: look to the left, and note the page it's on: [13].Malke2010 19:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Malke, I'm glad you've now come to this conclusion and agree that all of us can work together civily and productively for the sake of the project. It may take a little time, but I think we should be able to collaborate just as before.

I would ask as a first gesture of good will in this new truce, that you either file an AN/I claim against me (I will not be mad at you for this if you feel it is justified and a valuable use of your time) OR not bring it up again. Because it is things like that and your dif to a piece of vandalism that seems in no way connected to this dispute that understandably can make the other editors feel defensive about being personally attacked.

I would appreciate a response to this so I know where we stand. I think that's reasonable.

--Izauze (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The following message has been delivered to user:malke:

Malke, I have posted a reponse for you at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. I will have to assume this matter remains unresolved until I recieve some sort of response from you. Thanks --Izauze (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Seeing an apparent refusal to directly respond to any of my good faith attempts to extend an olive branch (including a very sincere private email), coupled with a series of what seem like agressive deletions/blanking of contributions, I have little reason at this point to believe that the matter is resolved and Malke is able to stop her disruptive editing practices. I would like to believe we can return to civility, as Sbowers does, but I am beginning to lack faith in that possibility, though I remain hopeful. --Izauze (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is some advice I've already taken. It comes from a well respected admin who once gave it out in a similar situation. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.Malke2010 01:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Very well. I just wanted to make sure (for the sake of the project) that we were on the same page, and I didn't think a response was too much to ask. Here's to hoping to move on -- Izauze (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

A good place to stop

Yes - here's hoping to move on. This is a good place for both sides to stop (as Happysomeone appears wisely to have stopped). Nobody has won; nobody has lost. At worst you agree to disagree. At best you put this behind you and spend your energies on the content of articles. All three editors have made useful contributions to a difficult article and I hope will continue.

And so that nobody can complain about another having the last word, let me have the last word. Please. Sbowers3 (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Disagree - I have just become aware of this section. I do not pretend to be uninvolved with the user, whose edits - from what I have seen - push a highly opinionated POV, to the point of obsession. My interactions with him on the Karl Rove page have been some of the most unpleasant of my considerable Wikipedia experiences. I find this user to be highly disruptive and difficult to work with, uncivil in the extreme (to the point of corrective measures taken against him by an admin last summer), and I am not surprised in the least to find him being brought here.

In short, I suggest a more in-depth overview of this editor's edits and talk page interactions. I have moved on from my previous encounters with this unpleasant chap and do not intend to pursue this further, but I feel that I cannot remain silent in the face of complaints by other editors, and need to back up those with concerns for the sake of a complete overview. My thanks to those bringing this matter to community attention. Jusdafax 18:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

An Even Better Place to Stop

Sbowers3 if you read my posts above, I had wisely added a final comment, but Izauze kept coming back and demanding more comment. He hounded me on my talk page and here making more and more claims. To put a final stop to this, I gave him a suggestion that seems to have finally got him to stop. And then you come along and add your comment which is not helping, I'm sorry to say.

Please understand that while I appreciate your efforts, your comments above are not helping anything here. This 'event' had already resolved itself. Whether you realize it or not, you appear to be assigning blame and making a value judgement. If you read the above posts made by me I am clearly trying to end this. Izauze would not stop until I posted WP:STICK. You should have left it alone when you saw him signing off. I put a hat on this thread to stop you from doing this again. And now you've come back and opened it again. Please stop. I will ask an administrator to now hat this. Please don't post again, and please do not open the thread again. Read this: WP:STICK and follow the advice there. Malke2010 17:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• WQA is an informal, non-binding forum. If you don't wish to participate, just stop participating. Gerardw (talk) 23:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Disagree - I think it's fairly obvious that nothing regarding the Wikiquette alert has been resolved. In fact, Malke2010 continues to describe other editor's actions in an uncivil manner, which is consistent with comments and interactions with others in the past, as recently as a Disruptive Editing block from a few weeks ago. It seems to me that rather than stop, an escalation of the dispute resolution process is needed, since it also seems that you've completely ignored this olive branch.--Happysomeone (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Happysomeone hits the nail on the head. I was unaware of the recent Disruptive Editing block, but again the news does not surprise me. The days drag past, and no contrition seems evident. The question becomes, does this move to the next stage? In light of the past issues and continuing current problems, that should be considered, in my view. Jusdafax 23:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

On what I believe to be a related note, editor Izauze has now apparently abandoned the project. This appears to be a case of some hard-charging mastodons frightening off a contributor, who felt he was "banging his head against a wall".--Happysomeone (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, this is not a surprise given my own experiences with this disruptive editor, Malke 2010. I submit it is likely this will happen again and again unless action is taken. Jusdafax 08:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know that this conversation was still going on, though I'm actually glad to see it is. It is the fact that I saw Malke be incredibly dedicated to disruptive and agenda-driven editing, and the fact that even post-"truce" (though she never actually bothered to respond to confirm that truce) she maintained her overbearing agenda (despite lowering her openly-confrontational tone a bit), that caused me to abandon the article. I felt that if the structure of wikipedia and its oversights could not prevent this from happening, I was better off moving on from that particular article. I understand wikipedia always wants to err on the side of inclusion over exclusion, but unless some proactive action is eventually taken regarding this disruptive editor (with an established history of other disruptive editing bans), I will be excluding myself from the debate there and letting the winds of Malke take the article where it may. As unfortunate of a result as that may be. --Izauze (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, it's a bit of a one-way conversation without participation of the editor that gave cause to begin this forum notice. And yes, the behavior continues, though less directed at me. I've been mostly observing the forum where we have interacted in the past & now see similar WP:CIVIL and WP:TE issues with another editor there. Izauze (talk), you shouldn't simply stop participating & I appreciate your comments here. Please try to stay positive. Kind Regards.--Happysomeone (talk) 22:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Malke2010's refusal to participate here further, in the face of several strong critics from different encounters, speaks volumes. I urge concerned parties, and hopefully an admin or two, to take a long look at this disruptive, agenda-driven editor's overall edit and talk page history and take appropriate action. The issue of Malke's civility and neutrality violations, which has dragged on here for too long, should not just be allowed to sputter to a halt here. This comes under the heading tendentious editing and should be dealt with as such. Jusdafax 18:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Just a side note: Malke, like any other editor, is under no obligation to comment on this board. Meanwhile good luck to all involved parties in the interest of WP.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 12:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, The Magnificent Clean-keeper, but I think that was already understood. I think the point another editor raised was it would be better for all concerned if there was more participation here by all concerned, rather than not, so we can all agree to move on. I note with some irony that this editor has in fact recently contributed to this board — just not here.--Happysomeone (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly right, and well noted. Given the clear message sent by that fact, a next step should be considered... possibly a RfC/U or ANI complaint. I freely confess that I am reluctant to do so myself, as my personal past issues with Malke2010 are quite stale, but I take ongoing interest in this case as what I see as a good example of a problematic Wikipedia editor, blocked three times in the past seven months, who continues to act in ways that do not benefit the project. Jusdafax 15:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

resp. to Happysomeone: I did see that what I said was brought up before although it seemly wasn't understood by all so my post was meant to be a reminder after Jusdafax's comment [No offence meant, Jusdafax] and nothing more.

"I note with some irony that this editor has in fact recently contributed to this board — just not here." Which editor are you referring to: Me or Malke? In either case, I can't see any irony or point in that but you might want to enlighten me at my talk page if you'd like (as this is not the right forum for it). And @ Jusdafax. Just do what you feel is right; That's all I will say.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• We should be done here. There is no evidence (i.e. diffs) of current incivility by Malke2010 and, in any event, they are exercising their option of not participating here. Gerardw (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Exchange between Nightscream and Jean-Jacques Georges

After I removed unsourced material from the Brigitte Nielsen article, and left this message on User:Jean-Jacques Georges's Talk Page, he reacted by complaining that message templates like the one I used was inappropriate, because it was only intended for newcomers, and that it was "arrogant", "obnoxious", not civil, and indicative of WP:BITE for me to have used it. When I tried to explain to him that it was not a newcomer message, nor uncivil, he did not see it this way. I tried to explain to him about the policies pertaining to adding unsourced material to articles, but he refused to concede any of this. This is a thread of our exchanges on my Talk Page. He blanked each of my messages from his. ([14][15][16][17]) I don't know if problems will recur with him, insofar as adding unsourced material, but I thought I'd report it for future reference. Nightscream (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if comments were offered on this before this discussion were archived. Nightscream (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Removing comments from one's own talk page is perfectly acceptable. Gerardw (talk) 10:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Nightscream, I think what he did was per Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. Correct me if I'm wrong, cheers~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 16:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that essay (though I notice it's not a policy or guideline). But do you think responding with language like "arrogant" or "obnoxious" was consistent with WP:Civility? It is this was I was referring to as a Wikiquette matter, and not blanking his talk page. Nightscream (talk) 04:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to start off by saying that the usage of terms like "cretinous" to address threads started by other editors is, as far as I'm concerned, to a certain extent, a personal attack upon the editor. Secondly, the perception that Nightscream's warning was "obnoxious" is misconstruing of the warning message, and kind of incivil. While I don't see severe incivility in this issue, that's not to say Jean-Jacques Georges is out of the woods yet. They'd be in the woods until the incivility stopped, though I don't yet know if this is still going on. We'll have to wait and see if they walk out of the woods. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Geez, I didn't even notice that "cretinous" comment until now. I would like to thank Mythdon for alerting Jean-Jacques to this alert, something I neglected to do myself, as this was my first time making a WQA, and wasn't aware of that. And while I don't dispute that a "welcome" template may give the impression that a editor is being spoken to as if they're a newbie, the message I used was the equivalent of a Level 2 or 3 message, without the "welcome" message, which I specifically used because I saw that Jean-Jacques was not a newbie. In any event, it was not intended to be patronizing, and I apologize if it came off as such. That said, it doesn't make sense to complain that I was violating WP:BITE while simultaneously pointing that he was not a newbie, nor does my message justify the language Jean-Jacques has been using. Nightscream (talk) 05:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Good thing that you apologize for coming off as patronizing, because you definitely came as such. If you wanted to "be [my] friend" as your user page claims, it would have been better to just leave a personal message like "hello, could you please give a reference to the fact that Brigitte Nielsen speaks German ? Thanks", instead of using unpersonal templates. They are inadequate and should be changed for a start, or not used at all. For the sake of "etiquette", I'll just ignore your posting here which I find highly useless. I find it rather irritating to be reminded AGAIN of our exchange as I had said repeatedly that I was not interested in continuing it. Dragging here a simple case of misunderstanding does not generally appease things. Apologies accepted, case closed. Now please don't bother me again with this as I have no interest in it whatsoever. Thanks. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing patronizing about using standard templates, since they are specifically designated to be used to politely communicate with an editor. I've been using them for years, and you're the first one I can recall who felt that he was somehow being insulted by their use. I am more than capable of becoming friends with editors with whom I may engage in disagreements, but that doesn't mean I'm going to change my use of perfectly polite, time-saving templates, just to walk on eggshells for one editor who complains about civility, only to disregard civility completely with language like "cretinous", "arrogant" and "obnoxious", and I doubt the rest of this project will either. It's a bit difficult to take your complaints of incivility over a template seriously when you then use such language, and then later complain that doing so constitutes a "misunderstanding". Nightscream (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

RolandR PA, bad faith and invicivility.

The discussion today on the "Invention of the Jewish People" talk page started like this [18], then it deteriorated to this [19] and that [20] where Roland just attributed me things I didn't write mor imply. And the crescendo is this [21] where he distract people from the subject and launched the most blatant PA (without name calling, but much worse). I had then no intention to complain here, but then he replied to another post of mine addressed to other editor [22] and when I told him that I'm not willing to discuss with him from obvious reasons he left me this message [23] and when I asked him to stop harrassing me he replied with this [24] . This is only from today, but if you follow the talk page you will see that this nature of discussion (e.g., constatntly taking my words out of any context, statments that meant to distract people from the subject and so forth) is typical for him. Also, because he was edit warring the article is protected from editing [25]. I implore you to come over all of edits there in this article talk and main page during the week passed. He have very negative contribution there-and I would like steps to be taken.--Gilisa (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

See above. RolandR (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I also would like to add and ask who ever choose to come over it to see the neutrality check proces on the article [26] maybe it may help in the understanding of my complain. Seem like RolandR strategy was to exhausted, distract, quoting out of context and to create semblance of discussion. His edits verged with article owenrship and with total lack of willingness to discuss genuinely and according to WP:CON. When checking, please see what came first in the edit summary as well. I'm exhausted indeed and I can't understand what interest had he have to bring me to this point.--Gilisa (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I have taken the time to read through the supplied diffs. Frankly, I do not see any civility problems with the edits made by RolandR. There does appear to be some degree of edit warring, but that is a content dispute and not relevant on this forum and both editors are equally guilty plus the matter was dealt with at AN/I. The only incivility I can see here is contained within Gilisa's comments here. This may be because of the user's admitted difficulties with using the English lnguage, but I am afraid you are making the claim too often in the discussions here and elsewhere so that it begins to look as if you want to use that as some sort of shield to hide behind when you make comments that other may take exception to. I recommend, Gilisa, that you take a break for a while from editing the contentious article and when you come back try to assume good faith. If you cannot do that, then I suggest that you drop the stick and go and find some other corner of Wikipedia to work on. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, but the incivility of RolandR is clear in here [27] for instance. I didn't balme my English here, and infact if you implying to the previous issue above then I didn't even there (quite the opposite -I was attacked for my English level and I objected to explensions suggested by others who refered to my English), you are wellcome to read it again if you find it helpful. I don't know where you come with the assertions like I use my English level as a shield, and too often. and I don't see what you just wrote as reflecting the issue or as helpful for it. Regards,--Gilisa (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Irony is not incivility. The post to with which RolandR is responding is closer to being incivil. Nick Thorne's advice about wp:STICK is good.- Sinneed 22:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

So this, for example, is not incivil?:

I'm sorry, but I am too ignorant to understand your well-reasoned and subtle arguments. I am too ill-informed to have a valid opinion on this, or indeed any other matter. My view are worthlesas, and I bow to your superior understanding. [12] RolandR (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This is one, the most reflective, but surely not the only. To me it's clearly incivil and cosist PA. If itsn't, then I want to hear it from other editors as well. My post to Roland was very civil considering the fact that time and again he took blatently my words out of context and attributed me claims I didn't make (regardless my English level) --Gilisa (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

While that particular diff/quote is rather sarcastic and should be toned down since sarcasm almost never helps solve arguments, it is not a personal attack and doesn't really breach civility. I agree with Nick Thorne and Sinneed on this issue. --13² 22:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This particular quote of him followed two other quotes that were sarcastic and in case twisted my words. Sorry, but I fail to see how this quote don't breach incivility-as for dropping the stick, it's a good advice regardless this issue.--Gilisa (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not see any evidence that the user twisted your words. In any case, it would be difficult to prove they had, and even harder to prove they did so out of malice and incivility and not simply because they were confused or misunderstood you. --13² 22:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, nevermind.--Gilisa (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I see this issue has now popped up here at Wikiquette...so I'll reiterate what I said at the Invention of the Jewish People talk page: Comments like the one RolandR made, "bow to your superior understanding", is effectively an example of one editor taunting another editor. Such behavior does not help to contribute to a discussion and in fact makes the discussion personal. We all must remember to comment on content not editors -- no matter how frustrated we become. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 09:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the following exchange shows that RolandR is not the problem here:

Can you please explain why an anti-Zionist point of view would be more problematic than a Zionist point of view? RolandR (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not willing to argue with you from obvious and reasonable reasons. Just for the record, those who debunked Sand and mentioned here are mostly experts without any prefered side.--Gilisa (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you please explain the "obvious and reasonable reasons" why you are unwilling to explain your earlier comments? RolandR (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop harassing me.--Gilisa (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This might be harassment if I were following you around, or posting vexatious comments on your user talk page, But I am simply asking a polite question, to which I would like an answer, on the talk page of an article. I repeat the question: why is an anti-Zionist point of view more problematic than a Zionist point of view? RolandR (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Call it whatever you like, but you are certainly not polite[13]--Gilisa (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to see how Gilisa can justify behaviour like that as a language problem. Factsontheground (talk) 09:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the quoting Factsontheground, I never blamed my English (however, you repeatdly aimed to it). Please quote fully and in context. Also, I would appreciate if you avoid this discussion regarding we were involved very recently. Anyway, What you quoted came after this correspondense:

Yo are quite right of course. Sand had no right to write this book. It should be banned, and this article deleted, as a biased, incompetent act of charlatanism. RolandR (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

RolandR, I would appreciate your reference to the matter of the subject and to what I actually wrote-if you are realy discussing, and also if you avoid taking what I wrote out of context. I never said, nor do I think, that he had no right to write this book or that this article should be deleted. I do consider his book as pseudo historical, and Sand's attidue through population genetics as biased and pseudoscientific -and of course touched with charlatanism as he have absolutly no qualification to critizied this field of research. Thanks God that I truely not alone here, many experts say the same. What I said is simple: Supporters of Sand's book are WP:UNDUE as they are not experts in Jewish history and they are debunked by experts in Jewish history and in population genetics. Those are the ones you were dismissive about.--Gilisa (talk) 11:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

And there we have it. Supporters of Sand's book are by definition "not experts in Jewish history" since they support pseudo-historical charlatanism. Therefore their view are inadmissible, and this article is only permitted to contain hostile criticism of Sand, since only these critics are qualified to write on the subject. QED. RolandR (talk) 12:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Roland, I'm asking seriously-are you do it on purpose or that you realy can't see it? Do you take my words out of context on purpose? They are not experts in jewish history BECAUSE this is not their field of expertise nor do they seem to have the skills (e.g., training, language knoweldge and etc) to be considerd as such. Save the QED for logic, in context, arguments. Can't belive that I've to use bold and italic text, hope it will help you to understand.--Gilisa (talk) 12:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I am too ignorant to understand your well-reasoned and subtle arguments. I am too ill-informed to have a valid opinion on this, or indeed any other matter. My view are worthlesas, and I bow to your superior understanding. [12] RolandR (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear to me whether you wanted me to see the koke only and by its meaning to scorn me or that you implied to my Jewishness in some essence, or both. I will indulgently assume good faith regarding the last two options-but of course the blatant incivility of this PA is not hard to be seen. And by now I do assume that my understanding is probably much better than yours. You are just not able/willing/both to make even one statment to the case in question--Gilisa (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

And after this:

Can you please explain why an anti-Zionist point of view would be more problematic than a Zionist point of view? RolandR (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC) (My comment: I never argued that one is better than the other).

I'm not willing to argue with you from obvious and reasonable reasons. Just for the record, those who debunked Sand and mentioned here are mostly experts without any prefered side.--Gilisa (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

So, I realy want the all issue to be checked again. While the first editor to responde here assert that I use my English as a shield and refer to it as an excuse too often-it's absolutly baseless. And it's not reasonable that Roland behavior isn't considerd incivil --Gilisa (talk) 10:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot, and this-two days prior to my complain:

But that is the nub of the problem. As I have stated on the talk page, I do not consider the book to be at all controversial, and I would leave out the reference altogether. But Gilisa appears adamant that the article should state, not only that the book has been described as controversial, but that it is controversial. This has been discussed round and round on the talk page; and for every edit I make, Gilisa makes half-a-dozen, swamping any rational discussion with a mass of unhelpful extraneous verbiage. RolandR (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Takn from here [28].--Gilisa (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: User:Collectonian

Resolved

 – This is not the forum to request any form of block. One editor has been advised to cool it a little. Other's are now using this thread as WP:SOAP (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The filer of this report used the header "Threats To Bar From Editing" which has since been changed by DustFormsWords.

Yep, that was me. Thought this was more descriptive but if it's inappropriate or too attacky please, someone with more experience (and non-involvement) feel free to change it. - 05:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Expression of wp:own:

• [29]

Incivility:

• [30]
• [31]
• [32]
• [33]
• [34]
• [35]
• [36]

Threats:

• [37]174.3.110.108 (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk page revisions of constructing discussion:

• [38]
• [39]
• [40]174.3.110.108 (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Prior behavior:

• [41] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.110.108 (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Continued Wikihounding by User:174.3.110.108 for my response, which was being posted apparently as this IP was deciding to file this. Also note that Father Goose is an admin, and has made no statement claiming there was any threatening nor incivility going on. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

And claimed "prior behavior" is from nearly two years ago and on an entirely different issue. Same sort of stuff he pulled in his fake 3RR mentioned in the ANI. randomly pulling diffs to try to support a false claim. Will leave it to the ANI to deal with this person. Obviously, with the ANI, it is beyond the scope of Wikiquette alerts.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• While we're discussing it anyway, I'd draw contributors' attention to this exchange I had with Collectonian today. I'm not seeking any action on my part but this is the second time in a week that a polite, good faith attempt to interact with Collectonian has been returned with hostility (the other being to a lesser extent, and visible here). A quick browse of her edit history confirms (a) she's an excellent and intelligent editor when making substantive edits to articles and contributions to policy debates, but that (b) her somewhat controversial interpretation of WP:OWN, WP:V and WP:BITE, abrupt communication style and quick finger on the revert button can make her difficult to work with. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Note - due to an edit conflict Collectonian had not seen this comment when she replied below. - Sorry, it may not be clear - I'm not (and don't know) the IP address above, and have no idea of the context of their particular complaint. I found this discussion following my exchange above and just felt it reasonable to point out that the IP wasn't the only one who Collectonian has left more than a little disgruntled of late. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• This is a rather interesting addition, after you claimed you were not keeping track of me. Hmmm....When you go around condescending other editors, you can expect to get abrupt communications and a lack of desire to deal with you. As per the ANI report, this is a far biggest issue than whether you find my abrupt or not. The IP in question is also an editor who was indef blocked then unblocked by his "advocate" without any community discussion on the claim that he's been good since then, even though he was clearly evading his block. And if you want to argue that we should allow any editor, new or not, to go around adding their personal opinions to article, then please go petition to have WP:NOT and [WP:OR]] removed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Collectonian, I came here by looking through your contributions history to see if maybe I'd just come in at an unfortunate time when you'd been under attack by some more malicious contributor. I thought you might be having a bad day. What I find is that you seem to be always having a disagreement with someone, which, to be fair, seems to be a common danger of being an active, passionate and experienced editor, but doesn't explain your impoliteness or the examples (from the IP address above and elsewhere) of you explicitly claiming to own pages, and insisting that changes to articles be done your way, through your account, or not at all. If you're in any doubt of my motivations, please do a quick check of my contributions. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Please point out a single instance where I claimed I owned any article (and not counting my semi-sarcastic remark to the Wikihounder who filed this ludicrous report), or where I claimed that any change could only be done through my account. I clearly doubt your motivations as you are an ARS members which has made its mission in life to get rid of anyone they consider a "deletionist" and the examples of the "IP" are clearly explained in the ANI. Taking random stuff out of context just shows a lack of good faith on your part, which is what you lectured me on earlier today. He is hounding folks and has a long history of it. Anyway, this is clearly pointless. Your "moving" of our conversation to your talk page with that lovely note and your seeming deciding that you needed to come complain here because I decided to follow Wikipedia guidelines and disengage from talking with you, including removing my previous response to you which you still apparently decided to read and complain about do not show any good "motivations" here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• ARS - I'm an ARS member because I frequently try to improve worthwhile articles nominated for deletion and I like to be able to call on the resources of likeminded Wikipedians when doing that. An excellent example of that work is at Paul Randall Harrington, which, incidentally, I'd like help to further improve if you're interested. Just like any project anywhere on Wikipedia, the goal of ARS is to improve Wikipedia and if you've had bad experiences with them in the past I'm sorry for that but don't take that out on me. I posted here, in this thread, because it's a thread discussing the exact same experience I had today with you, and so I contributed what I felt was relevant information to it, while taking time to also highlight your many positive contributions to Wikipedia. That's the point of this noticeboard, and it's the point of community discussion.

Previous response - Just spotted your comment above about a previous response. Sorry, when we were both posting there were some edit conflicts. If I've removed something you've said, it's entirely unintentional, you have my apologies, and feel free to reinstate it at a relevant point in the thread. I don't feel I need to delete your opinion to make my point understood.

WP:OWN - Regarding the WP:OWN issue, I'd draw your attention to first of all, the edits the IP cites above, which, even in jest or under provocation, are extremely unwise things to have said and at face value directly contradict WP:OWN. I'd then direct you to the "revert" section of WP:OWN and then to edits such as this, where you've undone revisions until you have time to do them the "proper" way (read: "your way"). Or the one at Shark Swarm this morning, where you deleted a statement that - given your familiarity with this movie series - you had to KNOW to be true, rather than either (a) leave it alone, per WP:V's guidance as to when citations are necessary, (b) wait more than six minutes to see if the contributing editor would add sources or further content, or (c) find the sources yourself, which took me about five minutes with Google in the end. I have to say I thought I had in the past seen other statements of direct ownership on your talk page, but I can't find them now (or in its edit history) so to the extent that any of my frustration was based on such statements, I withdraw it.

Finally - At the end of the day, look, I don't know or care what your history with this IP is, but out of you and him, you're the senior editor here, and it's your responsibility to be the bigger woman. There's no dispute on Wikipedia so large that it needs you to be uncivil to solve it and there's no editor so worthless that they have nothing worth listening to. Even wikihounding - which I don't condone for a minute - is a sign of passion, and the tragedy is that the passion isn't being put to constructive ends, not that it exists in the first place. What I'm saying is, take the time to try and be a little more collaborative and less proprietary and, yes, sometimes that will result in imperfect pages, but that's the price you pay for working on Wikipedia rather than writing your own book. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Outside opinion Collectonian, dial it back a notch. You don't own any articles and you can't dictate who gets to edit and who doesn't "If you are not prepared to have your work thoroughly scrutinized...then Wikipedia is probably not the place for you. You certainly have a point if this person is a banned/indef blocked user; they shouldn't be here without acknowledging past wrongs and fixing things, but slinging profanity around and demanding that others acquiesce to your personal desires isn't appropriate either. In short, you're making a bad situation worse. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Dustforms, I vote to block her. This forum is nonbinding, but I've seen people blocked on it. I guess if they fall out of line, anyone can be blocked. Same as on a 30.

Shall we take this to a higher board to get her blocked?174.3.110.108 (talk) 10:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

As an outside observer of this little sorry mess, I have no intention of delving into the rights or wrongs of the case. However, I very strongly suggest to 174.3.110.108 that you strike the above comment. it is entirely out of order here. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Second that. No one is getting blocked here. BQZip is right tho, Collectonian, and I know you don't like to hear it, but occasionally you cross the line on the abrasiveness/tell-it-like-it-is attitude. You're at an eight; we need you at a three. Notice that this is in no way condoning the IPs behavior, which is less than exemplary here. Tan | 39 12:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Heard and understood from both, though I disagree that I do not have the right to ask someone who is clearly following/hounding me to leave me alone. Meanwhile, please note that the ANI has gone unanswered, which includes questioning why this IP/user (indef blocked User:100110100) was quietly unblocked by his "advocate" (his words) User:Father Goose. That, to me, is a far more serious issue considering this user has issued death threats in the past. Not exactly the sort of person you want to come following you around. And after his response above, the IP has gone on to deliberately make edits to other articles, despite the those same edits being rejected by both myself, Father Goose, and editors on those article talk pages, as being incorrect and not an improvement to the article.[42][43][44][45], and two more under his user account[46][47] I find this person's continued deliberate targeting extremely disturbing. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Whatever anyone believes that Collectonian's reactions is appropriate or not, it is fairly clear that 174.3.110.108 (talk) is WP:BAITing Collectonian. —Farix (t | c) 14:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed and the user should be blocked. Eusebeus (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I would support a ban of 174.3.110.108 (talk) or whatever IP he/she is working under so long as the WP:BAITing continues. It's clear by the IPs comments above that the aim is to provoke a reaction out of Collectonian that results in her being banned. This is disruptive behavior and should not be tolerated. If the baiting stops, no further action is needed. —Farix (t | c) 16:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Rehash Ok, I've gone back and reviewed the diffs provided and here's my opinion on the contributions of each editor:
  • 100110100 - Clearly seems to be following Collectonian's edits, but that is something that is explicitly permitted in WP (see my comments above). While Collectonian doesn't like it, it is permitted. I'm also not seeing anything that is baiting linked to in this discussion (If I've missed something, PLEASE provide diffs). The fact that Father Goose decided to unblock him is an issue that needs to be taken up with him and is separate from the behavior of the two individuals in question. I personally would not have unblocked him based upon the same criteria that FG used, but that was a judgment call and FG is allowed to make that type of decision, so I'll trust him on that.
  • Collectonian - Reaction is WAY overboard, as noted by multiple people above. The profanity and reversions are actively working against a viable solution. Demands for others to stay away from your pages is very improper and could be taken as quite hostile. The profanity alone has the potential to be worthy of a block, IMHO. In short, simply dial it back and discuss on the talk pages and I would have no issues with you whatsoever. As of right now, I don't see any recent talk page discussions on the related matters, so the consensus you allude to for your way to be used seems odd. Am I missing something?
  • Both of you - Multiple violations of the spirit of WP:3rr. The changes made by 100 (cited by Collectonian) were editorial changes (how to display a block quote). Neither 100's edit or Collectonian's were right or wrong. The MoS doesn't say how they should be done, so neither one is "correct" by our rules. I see no comments by either user on any talk page regarding the matter. If you have evidence of some sort that 100 has issued death threats in the past, it is incumbent upon you to show some proof. If this is true, but the behavior has not resurfaced, then the block has served its purpose and should continue to be lifted

  Solution: I think both users should be taken into a dark alley late at night and smacked around by a trout behind the trashcans. If you can both pledge to do the following, I think we can drop the whole matter:

  For edits regarding the other user, I will abide by WP:1RR. I agree to use civil discussion to resolve disputes on article talk pages or user talk pages (as appropriate).

  Sign here if you agree (Collectonian and 100110100 only)

  — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but that isn't happening BQZip01. He is clearly hounding, which is NOT allowed. Whether you think my reaction was "overboard" or not, that does not excuse his acknowledged behavior at all. Nor, quite honestly, do I feel you are being even remotely neutral in your response. I will keep further response on this issue at the ANI, which is the far more appropriate venue for it, as this has little to do with "civility" nor etiquette. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Collectonian, hounding is defined as

"Wiki-hounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor...Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles."

From the 6 diffs you provided, it seems as if he's adjusting the way you personally did a few quotes. While that makes them more inline with the rest of the text, your version makes a nice artistic touch to the article. Neither one is incorrect under WP:MOS, so it seems you have a difference of opinion, not hounding.

As Bill O'Reilly is fond of saying, you can't justify bad behavior by pointing to the bad behavior of others. If what you say is true, I just don't see how he is going out to annoy you personally. Perhaps a few more diffs would shed some light on the subject?

As I stated above, you BOTH need to use the talk pages, and I equally condemn you both for it. If 100 doesn't use the talk pages, then I would say you have a case since he is not willing to discuss anything. Since you are apparently equally unwilling (I don't see a bit of discussion from you about these edits on the talk pages), I'm not willing to condemn this as hounding, but as poor discussion by both editors. Why don't you give it a try? Build a consensus to do it your way on the article, or centralize discussion on my talk page if you don't want to clutter up those talk pages, and if the behavior continues without discussion, THAT will be evidence that he is not willing to engage in discussion (a violation of the basic spirit of WP:CONSENSUS).

As I stated above, "if you are not prepared to have your work thoroughly scrutinized...then Wikipedia is probably not the place for you. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That is your view, and I disagree with it, as you clearly have not really looked at the case as there ARE several discussions on the talk pages, where myself and others have ALL disagreed with his edits. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You've cited 6 diffs: ([48][49][50][51],[52][53]). In not a single one of these has the talk page been used to discuss the issues at hand. No one has discussed, much less criticized, his edits. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to chime in on this subject, as I've had an issue or two with Collectonian. Last month, I added some references to the Central Park Media article. The next day, I discovered that Collectonian reverted my edits for no apparent reason. Not only that, she took my edits and claimed them as her own. And the proof can be found on the edit history of the article. Thus, I must ask: is it right for a veteran editor to just flat-out steal someone else's edits? - Areaseven (talk) 07:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That is a complete and total lie. I noted in my edit summary that I had restored one of the refs you added and I gave a reason for my revert in my edit summary - you removed all of the article's tags while adding only one valid reference and some invalid ones. I did not claim your edit as "my own". Nor did you ever contact me asking for clarification to the revert. I do see, though, per your talk page, you have received numerous warnings on your talk page of late for attacking other editors and adding unsourced and unreliable content to other articles. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so now you're calling me a liar. Now how low can you get? - Areaseven (talk) 00:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

AreaSeven, what you have stated is at least somewhat incorrect. While I don't like tags everywhere on an article either (I think they unnecessarily clutter up the page), to place them in an article is generally an editorial decision. As such, if there is a dispute about their removal/addition, they should be discussed on the talk page. Collectonian did revert your changes, but fixed the references. Lastly, no one "stole" your edits. When you contributed to Wikipedia, you did so under Wikipedia's foundation:Terms of Use and "you irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." As such, your edits can be edited, modified, changed, altered, etc. at will by any other Wikipedia user; this is the entire precept upon Wikipedia operates. I concur with Collectonian, that the talk page would be the proper forum for such a dispute. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

user:Zlykinskyja. Repeated violations of civility in edit summaries and talk pages (conserning Murder of Meredith Kercher.

Unresolved

Non admin closure by thread starter as no admin commented. Further problems should be taken to ANI.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Mediation will be formally offered by Zlykinskyja in the near future. Zlykinskyja (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Longterm pattern of attacking editors in person and not AGF at all with editors she disagrees (which would be pretty much all envolved with this article now and in the past).

While this editor has a lack of AGF, constantly attacking fellow editors and even making legal threads, this talk page section (starting with the title) is just the tip of the ice berg which should be enough to at least caution the editor in the strongest terms possible. The editor formerly edited as User:PilgrimRose who was blocked for one month after socking as user:Darryl98 (see blocklog, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikid77/Archive and [[54]]).

I don't think a block would do any good as they're not meant to punish an editor but rather to be preventative and a month long block didn't change the editors behaviour. I don't think any block besides an indef. one (which would be overkill and out of question) would do any good. But a polite yet strong advise by an uninvolved admin who would take the time and would be willing to follow the editors actions and keep advising when needed could have potentially a possitive impact on the editor and the project. I hope we can go w/o having to bother ANI or filing an RFC; I don't doubt the editors good faith but good faith is no excuse for such agenda. Thanks, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC) If one would like me to add a specific dif for a specific point I certainly can and will do so.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

REBUTTAL AND COUNTERCLAIM... Magnificent Clean-Keeper is presenting a very biased and inaccurate view of the situation. I feel that I am being harassed and intimidated by Magnificent Clean-Keeper. Although his Talk page has now been changed to look more benign, he had posts on there in which he was threatening to file a complaint about me and laughing about it with an editor named Malke. I found that intimidating. He is obviously negative towards me in his posts on the article Talk page, the edit summaries and various other Talk pages and I get the impression that he is hostile towards my views on the murder case. I feel that he is trying to intimidate me from participating, as he has done from the beginning due to having a different view of the murder case. He has treated another editor, Wikid, like that as well, and now Wikid has not been participating in the article.

Several days ago Magnificent Clean-Keeper actually deleted my text as I was composing it on-line. He did that a few times. He would not allow me even a few minutes to insert the cites. He deleted on the basis that the cites were not included, after only two or three minutes. Yet I was trying to type them in. I was so upset by his repeated tactics, on top of his prior conduct, that I had to give up adding the text and could not return to the article for a few days. He edits consistent with the belief that Amanda Knox is guilty of the murder of Meredith Kercher, while I edit with the view that she is still entitled to the presumption of innocence because she has not yet been finally convicted and there will be no final determinaton of guilt or innocence for a period of years. BOTH views should be allowed, but that is not what is happening.

I wish to file a counter-claim against Magnificent Clean-Keeper for his conduct which has been so very stressful and discouraging to my ability to participate as a minority view editor, I wish specifically to complain of him deleting my text as I was trying to compose it on-line.

It should also be noted that Magnificent Clean-Keeper filed a complaint against me when I first tried to participate months ago, but it was concluded that it was a "CONTENT DISPUTE." That is indeed what is going on and on and on. It is a content dispute in which I am having a difficult time contributing because I am GREATLY OUTNUMBERED in my view that the positions of the defense should be included in the article, given that the guilt or innocence of Amanda Knox will not be finally decided for a period of years. I think this article is greatly in need of mediation or some other form of dispute resolution so that this persistent problem of discouraging minority viewpoint can be addressed. I have repeatedly asked the editors to try mediation. Most agreed, but Magnificent Clean-Keeper did not agree. My understanding is that all must agree for mediation. Perhaps he can be encouraged to try mediation, since several of the others said they would be willing to try a formal mediation process.

As for the prior block of one month, that was due to a mistaken claim of sockpuppetry. I was simply trying to change to a new name and that effort was misinterpreted as an attempt to have two accounts, because I did not mark the original account as "retired" or terminated. I was not given prior notice or a chance to explain prior to being blocked. This is all now explained in full on my USER front page.

Thank you for your time and any advice you can provide. Zlykinskyja (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I wonder if its worth anyone's trouble. Z's non-response to my prior informal suggestions is not encouraging. If one wants people to take the trouble to help dial back disputes, it's usually considered the WP:CIVIL thing to at least acknowledge their efforts. User:LeadSongDog come howl 22:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is enough history going on that it is worth "the trouble". Even the "accused" editor thinks so. And again, since the next steps would be an user RFC or a post to ANI I'd rather have it settled here in a somehow polite and, to pick up your words, non-troubling fashion for the editor. Gosh, how much more can I do to solve this before having to go to an user RFC and or ANI? WP is not supposed to be a bureaucracy so why not settle this here? Do we really have to go to the "WP supreme court"? I don't think so.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems that this dispute is serious enough to warrant mediation, as I have said to the editors over and over. I think it is worth the trouble, although a quick fix on a Talk page would not be enough. It is complex, long term, and rooted in the two sides of a murder case that is hotly disputed in the media of three countries. Both sides of the murder case need to be heard. It is important that BOTH sides be heard, or else NPOV will be lost. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• I don't feel I have to debunk accusations made without difs to proof and would like to wait for other to comment on this issue. But I would like to give the link to a complained I made about this editor when s/he was still editing as user:PilgrimRose to put it in perspective (as the above editor didn't provide for whatever reasons).The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Regarding mediation, this arena has been suggested on the talk page but Zlykinskyja has not participated in a discussion that will get it there. I think some of the editing that's been done on Meredith Kercher could easily be taken up on the noticeboards that lead to this, and the reason it has not gone that far seems to be the editors do sincerely want to help Zlykinskyja understand that the article must present all sides in a neutral way and within guidelines. It is frustrating when this editor doesn't seem to listen to suggestions and continues editing without consensus. The attacks against Magnificent Clean-Keeper are uncivil and also so abrupt. I look at the edits and I can't figure out the reason for the attack because it looks like MCK is being reasonable and not obstructive or trying to block Zlykinskyja in any way. I don't think any of us over on MofMK have behaved in uncivil ways, or have attempted to block Zlykinskyja's contributions. But it is a live article and it involves BLP, and some of the things, like embedding markers to remember where she put something, is plainly disruptive. We're all trying to patient, but that is something that wears thin after awhile. Comments and suggestions would be most welcome.Malke2010 23:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

In that complaint Magnificent Clean-Keeper filed against me, Magnificent characterized the dispute as being rooted in editor conduct. (I don't know how to include diffs, so I did not include.) It was wisely concluded that the dispute was rooted in the CONTENT. That is still the case now. The problem is that it is just too hard for a minority view editor to participate in the article. Since I am now the only one left who is on the side of presenting the defense positions, it is making for a difficult situation for me. It is a waste of time to allow only one side of the murder case to be included, since that cannot be NPOV, because guilt or innocence has not yet been finally determined and will not be finally determined for a few years. This is why mediation is needed, since this same dispute just goes on and on. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

See WP:DIFF and you can also put the help template on your talk page and somebody will come along and walk you through it.Malke2010 23:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Malke (who has had a large number of official complaints against him/her)has been backing Magnificent Clean-Keeper, including laughing about filing a complaint aginst me on his Talk page (which has now been changed), and posting complaints and demands on my Talk page, including saying that I should not add text without the approval of the other side. Malke is NOT a disinterested party, but on the side of those who edit with a pro-prosecution/pro-guilt view. As I have said, I am greatly outnumbered. But BOTH sides of the murder case should be allowed. Now Wikid has been discouraged from posting on the pro-defense side and so am I. So soon, only the pro-prosecution side will be writing this important story, which is hotly contested right now in three countries. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You're loosing me and probably others too in your latest comment. Could you please carify and using diffs as you were just ponted to a page that showes how to include them? I would explain it in detail on your talk page but I doubt you would even look at it before erasing it as you did with all of my posts. BTW, here you can ask for advise of all kinds from uninvolved editors.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

If Malke can be Magnificent's witness, can I add information from Wikid or ask him to join in? The point is that he has done a ton of research and put a ton of time in, and so have I, but our work keeps getting deleted by those who clearly have a pro-prosecution agenda. So if the pro-defense editor's work keeps getting deleted, how can NPOV be achieved? It is impossible. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Malke is not my witness but is posting her own thoughts about this as everyone else and found her way here on her own. If you contact Wikid77 to post here it might be wp:canvassing but I'm sure he finds his way here anyways.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja, I'm an editor on the article. And the best witness is a diff. I've shown you how to collect some for yourself. We're trying to help you here. MCK could have gone to this place a while back. Take a breathe and reread comments.Malke2010 23:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Malke is an editor, but not an unbiased one as she has been backing the pro-prosecution editors consistently, and has at times made very upsetting remarks towards me,including before she even joined the article.(Such as spreading rumors that I am connected with one of the defendants, which is 100% false) Also, Malke's claim that I have not participated in a discussion about mediation is false. I have raised the issue over and over. But Magnificent has never said he would do it. Why not? Why will Magnificent Clean-Keeper not mediate this ongoing content dispute so that BOTH sides of the murder case can be included? That is the big picture issue. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

So if you think Malke is biased, which is of course possible as there are no persons w/o any kind bias, what do you think about yourself? Do you think you're biased and if yes how far does your bias go? And still, you're not using diffs for your accusations so they are complete senseless and possible just a complete fabrication made up by yourself. And the latter point of your post I explained above and there is nothing I can do I you just ignore it.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I have never done a diff in my life. I can cut and paste but it will take me while to find all the material. Meanwhile, I have to get back to the real world. Meanwhile, I ask that you think about mediation in a serious way. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You've never done a dif in your live but you learned quickly how to add refs to an article and add sources to your own talk page. The latter way you can use for diffs when comparing edits in an article's or talk page's history and then copy and past the URL you'll find in your browser like you do with other links like news sources. It's that simple, even easier than formatting refs. Got it? If not use the link I provided above or if you don't mind you can ask me on my talk page and I'll give you a step-by-step instruction.There is showing my good faith (again).

You say and I quote:"Meanwhile, I ask that you think about mediation in a serious way."!

Did you miss everything editors said about how mediation works? Did you even miss me pointing this very same issue out further up? Please start reading editors comments no matter where you find them when they're related to the issue in question or you'll keep missing out on very useful information for your own good. So again, I'm not refusing or against mediation in general but there has to be a clear laid out dispute that goes beyond the NPOV issue that almost every article has to deal with on a daily bases. Ask a mediator about it. Take his word, not mine.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Could finally some admins step in and comment? I know this thread is still fresh but some admin input (or more uninvolved editors commenting) would be highly appreciated. I really don't want this to end up as a drama thread at ANI where it sure will end up sooner or later if it "fails" here.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the original claims of Zlykinskyja's incivility and personal attacks, many of these have been directed at me. Since creating her Wikipedia account at the beginning of February, Zlykinskyja has accused me of hypocricy,[55], effectively of being a sockpuppet of User:FormerIP,[56], and of anti-American editing.[57] She has repeatedly accused me of POV editing[58] and cherry picking facts.[59][60] She has suggested that I am inappropriate to edit a particular section because of my POV edits.[61][62][63] She has gone so far as to accuse me of "conspiring to obstruct another editor" and getting "meatpuppets to do my dirty work".[64] As of yesterday, I was treated to her views on my beliefs (regarding the Defense case in the Meredith Kercher trial) and of being labelled as being "Anti-Knox" (one of the defendants in the case).[65] Most of these accusations have been made without being supported by particular examples or instances of my editing, so they really amount to slurs on my integrity that I cannot directly counter with facts. I am personally sick of this. PS I too have had to work out how to record diffs.Bluewave (talk) 12:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment First off, Zlykinskyja needs a change of attitude pronto. I suggest the editor go read WP:BATTLEGROUND. Second off, manipulating a Wikipedia article to push your WP:POV is verboten. Using language like "pro" and "anti" Knox editors itself reveals an inappropriate premise of engagement in editing this article. As far as I can tell, you are compounding your already serious violations of procedures and etiquette (POV-pushing, sockpuppeting) with an unacceptable tone. Shrieking at other editors and making wanton accusations because their edits do not match your POV is bad enough; Hiding behind WP:NPOV to mask your own agenda is even worse. So, User:Zlykinskyja needs to disengage forthwith or else risks being blocked for an extended period of time. If this behaviour continues, I recommend seeking further action at AN/I. Eusebeus (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

First, I did not know of Bluewave's comments and should have been allowed to respond before a ruling was made. I have been subjected to personal attacks as well on that article and a lot of my work has been deleted and therefore my efforts wasted. Second, there was no intentional sockpuppeting last year, only a name change that was attempted incorrectly as is explained in full on my User page. In terms of the NPOV, there is a very legitimate issue on that given that in the real world there are two hard and fast views on this bitterly contested murder case and the editing is divided along those two views. Unfortunately for me, I am now the only one left on one side of the case. As I have explained, there needs to be mediation so that both sides of the murder case can be included in the article. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• The editor now extended his/her POV editing to Linda Carty's article which was broght up as an example at Murder of meredith Kercher's talk page here. I'm pointing to this because of what I see as further POV editing (OR included), not because of the editors usual acussations against fellow editors.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

And keeps on coming [66] (same link up to 3/13/10, 22:22 in case it's getting deleted)The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

In response to the above, I will state that after driving me away today from the Meredith Kercher article, Magnificent Clean-Keeper followed me to another new article and started deleting all of my edits without any discussion on the Talk page. He deleted the edits while I was actually writing. I have asked him repeatedly not to delete text while I am trying to write. I have told him that I find it highly annoying when he does that. Knowing that I would find it upsetting, he followed me to a new article in which he had never previously been involved and twice deleted a large number of my edits there. He deleted over a dozen edits, while it was clear that I was still trying to write. The fact that this incident occurred while these charges are pending against me should not be overlooked. It is a fair inference that he engaged in conduct that he knew from previous discussions I would find greatly annoying, so that he could then present my annoyance here as further evidence of what an uncivil editor I am. This was an obvious baiting tactic on Magnificent Clean-Keeper's part. I have asked him to stay away from me and leave me alone but he persists in trying to contact me to stir things up. This is certainly uncivil conduct on his part. I have repeatedly suggested that the problems rooted in the content dispute in the murder of Meredith Kercher be resolved through mediation, which is certainly needed, the sooner the better, to avoid these escalating tactics.Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You're repeating yourself again and again and again and... even in the same thread right here and after being debunked twice you still don't provide any diffs as there aren't any which would proof your ongoing accusations but would rather show your behavior problems pointed out here and elsewhere. So proof it or loose it but stop wasting editors time! And BTW, you NEVER respond to editors questions. The latest thread (if you didn't delete it by now or will do so when reading this) is a good example for it. Stop thinking everyone else here is wrong and only you are right and you'll get a lot further.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I have repeatedly asked you to leave me alone, but you won't stop. It is very upsetting. You are trying to escalate things and provoke an angry response from me so that you can then have me banned. That is what these tactics on the new article and your last threat are about. Now you say I have no proof because I provide no diffs, when I have already told you that I do not know how to do diffs. I could take the time to learn how to do diffs and how to file for mediation if you would please leave me alone. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment I support Eusebeus's comments above. Also, you have already several times been offered advice as to how to learn to include diffs. Everyone else hereabouts seems to have managed the task, so I am getting a little tired of hearing you claim you do not know how. Advice: learn it now or shut up. Your claims are as of now unsupported - it is up to you to provide evidence to back up your claims and you do that by supplying diffs. Unless you can manage that simple task - I did it without any assistance or needing to read any how to guide, so it's not that hard - then you need to drop this whole thing right now. - Nick Thorne ^talk 01:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, your approach here seems to back up the claims of uncivility that have been lodged against you. It is time for you to take a step back and have good hard look at the way you are interacting with others. Are you really interested in working with others, or do you think that you know better than everyone else? If it is the latter, then maybe Wikipedia is not for you. If it is the former, then welcome, but please learn to act in a less confrotational way. As things stand, you should hope that this does not come to the attention of a passing admin, lest you find yourself taking an enforced holiday from Wikipedia. - Nick Thorne ^talk 02:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I have already stated that my plan is to seek a comprehensive review of the issues in the Kercher murder article via formal or informal mediation. That is the proper way to address the matter.Zlykinskyja (talk) 03:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

"The matter" that we are addressing is "repeated violations of civility in edit summaries and talk pages" (see title of this section). Zlykinskyja, if you think that mediation is the proper way to address this, you are completely missing the point. Bluewave (talk) 11:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Mediation will provide the formal structure that can educate and guide us through the various disputes that keep coming up and which have saturated the Talk page for a long while such as: 1) repeated deletions of the work of certain editors; 2) removal of large amounts of material from the article over the objections of certain editors; 3)problems with allowing the inclusion of minority viewpoints; 5) disputes over how BLP should be handled when the subject is a defendant charged with a serious crime; 4) disputes over sources; 5) disputes over the propriety of certain quotes; 6) disputes over whether or not one group can prohibit others from editing a certain section; 7) even disputes over how disputes should be resolved. Mediation will highlight how and why the various tensions appear in the article, and what steps can be taken to work through those disputes more efficiently. As it is now, these disputes drag on for hours and hours. There needs to be a structured, formal arrangement set up so that the article can be written in NPOV and BLP, without all the wasted time and dysfunction. Mediation can provide that answer. These references to "incivilty" in the edit summaries, are essentially disputes over the way materials are being removed from the article over the objections of certain editors, including myself. It is understandable that if the work of the same editors keep getting deleted over and over and over and their time and effort wasted, and that this is being done by the same editors who hold a different view of the subject matter, that objections will be noted on the edit summaries and Talk pages. The way to address these tensions is to get at the underlying content dispute through mediation. That is the only way to really resolve this so that the article can move forward in a more positive, efficient, NPOV manner. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

To spell out even more clearly the point that I think you are still missing: there is only one person who can address your repeated violations of civility in edit summaries and talk pages and that person is not some mediator. Bluewave (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Agree with Bluewave. And further: You still keep piling on to your unsourced accusations while missing the point about what this thread is about. It is NOT about content disputes; It is about user conduct where you are the named person and you didn't respond to this besides continuing making unsourced [still NO DIFS provided from your side] accusations. That won't lead you anywhere but real trouble which you could prevent. It's up to you so take the chance.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It is the content dispute that is the precipitating factor in the tensions and unpleasant remarks, which go both ways. That should be obvious to anyone looking at the Talk page. There are very serious content disputes rooted in the fact that there are two views on this murder case. Blaming the whole situation one person does not deal with the reality that there is a huge, bona fide, obvious, content dispute. Both Wikid and myself have felt that we are being excluded from contributing to the article. Our work keeps getting deleted, our comments and objections overruled by those who hold a very different view of the case. The essence of the tension, and what is provoking these responses in the edit summaries, are these efforts to exclude the work and participation of two minority editors. Now it looks like Wikid has given up contributing completely and I am the only one left who holds the minority view in the case. If you succeed in getting me banned or blocked, which you are obviously trying to do, all you will be doing is removing yet another minority view editor from the article. Then another one will try to participate, and you will need to go after that one too. That is not a solution that serves the interests of the Wikipedia goal of producing an NPOV article.

There needs to be an addressing of a major issue--which is that those editors on the "other" side of the case feel that they are being treated badly and their work excluded, yet under NPOV policies minority viewpoints should be included. Yes, such a situation does raise bad feelings and can lead to inappropriate remarks out of stress and frustration. But the precipitating factor in this content dispute is that most editors see the case one way, and a few others see it another way, and the minority editors are being squeezed out. For a dispute like this, there needs to be mediation. Instead, you are trying to blame the whole situation on one person, get me banned or blocked, and now that Wikid is gone your group will be able to delete a lot of our work, which has already happened before on this article. That is not a solution in the best interests of the Wikipedia goal of producing an NPOV article. There needs to be a full and comprehensive review of what is going on in the article so that BOTH views of the murder case can be included and that requires mediation. I think that any refusal of mediation in this situation is unreasonable and counter-productive.

In sum, I am happy to pledge to try to avoid uncivil remarks, but ask that you will pledge to participate in mediation. I am confident that with structured, formal mediation, the problems will be resolved, the frustrations removed, and in the long run, the unpleasant responses avoided. (I will even settle for informal mediation.) In the meantime, I will be reviewing the materials on mediation and sample cases in the hope of submitting a request for mediation that will work for everyone. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

* "...there are two views on this murder case."

there are several views in this case, not only two (yours and the others as you still seem to think)

• "Blaming the whole situation [on] one person..."

You put yourself in this position by "It's your way or the highway" approach.

• "Both Wikid and myself have felt that we are being excluded from contributing to the article."

Speak for yourself, not for another editor who didn't chose to comment here.

• "Our work keeps getting deleted."

With reasons pointed out to you.

• ",our comments and objections overruled by those who hold a very different view of the case."

Again, speak for yourself and not for other editors as pointed out above. If you're overruled it might be mostly because you don't have a point or didn't bring it to editors attention; and you can't just ignore and overrule consensus w/o.

• "Now it looks like Wikid has given up contributing completely..."

You don't know that and it's up to him to decide what to do, not yours. I gave up last December but as you see I decided to come back. See how this works?

• "I am the only one left who holds the minority view in the case..."

And? Sometimes this happens and mostly the reason is that an editor has a agenda and doesn't want to allow anything contradicting his/her views in an article. There you go again accusing everybody else than you of bad faith.

• "If you succeed in getting me banned or blocked, which you are obviously trying to do, all you will be doing is removing yet another minority view editor from the article.'""

The same old agenda driven complaint and insult against fellow editors. I wouldn't have reported you here if I would've just be out there to get you blocked or even banned. Start bothering reading the whole thread and what was pointed out to you by other uninvolved editors here.

I could keep on going but it's endless and IMO useless unless the editor starts acknowledging some misbehavior and promises to do better in the future.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

As for wasting your time, (which you brought up constantly), think about the time your fellow editors had to waste commenting on your lack of good behavior here and else. I don't think your time is more valuable than others but if you disagree you're not only wrong but a waste of time yourself. WP is meant to be edited by everybody and everybody here is contributing their time for free and don't like it to be wasted although sometimes it is as it is the nature of an open encyclopedia.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You left out this part: "In sum, I am happy to pledge to try to avoid uncivil remarks, but ask that you will pledge to participate in mediation. I am confident that with structured, formal mediation, the problems will be resolved, the frustrations removed, and in the long run, the unpleasant responses avoided. (I will even settle for informal mediation.) In the meantime, I will be reviewing the materials on mediation and sample cases in the hope of submitting a request for mediation that will work for everyone. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)"

You have not answered my direct request that you to agree to mediate the major issue, which is the general dispute over the content of the article. Without an agreement to mediate the underlying content issues, the problems with the article will never be solved. As hard as you have tried to paint this dispute as the fault of a particular person, there are pages and pages of Talk pages archived which show beyond a doubt that there has been a major dispute over the content of the article. That is the reality. Without resolving that, the dispute will just go on and on--although with other editors--as they try to participate and then feel they are being driven out, as Wikid and I feel.

Please answer the question on whether or not you will engage in mediation of the most recent content dispute, for example, which is whether I can add text to the section on the Courtroom Events, on the defense arguments in the case. My read on the policies is that an editor can't be restricted from adding text like that by other editors. It is my understanding that adding the requirement that the other editors must approve first on the Talk page of any additions is not legitimate under the policies. Every editor can contibute, is how I see it. I believe the policies are on the side of allowing everyone to add text. But if that is not true, then let us mediate that issue for starters. Zlykinskyja (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja, I have not seen anyone object to your proposal for mediation, so I don't think this is the place to discuss the details. Perhaps people have held back enthusiastic support until they know exactly what they would be agreeing to. Why don't you make a concrete proposal on the article talk page where all interested parties can see what you have in mind? Bluewave (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

A concrete proposal for mediation is a good idea. That is definitely my goal on the Talk page, here and with the Mediation Committee. But I need a little time to prepare something that is neutral and workable and not just a re-hashing of incidents. To prepare a usuable proposal I first need to put the time into the research and preparation, since I have never done something like this on Wiki before. I want to present something that the Mediation Committee will accept. They don't accept everything, so my first shot has to be my best shot with the Committee. If that they will not accept the case, then we could try informal mediation, which might have easier access. So I will try to do that soon, although it won't be tonight, but as soon as I can get it done with all the real world stuff I have to deal with at the same time. I will do my best to get something prepared. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

AGF is by now clearly exhausted IMO. See diffs here. So let's cut out the clear BS and still unsourced accusations [STILL NO DIFFS, ONLY RANTS] from Zlykinskyja.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Being nice or at least trying doesn't reach the editor (and I'm not just talking about my experience with the subject of this thread. I proofed to be quite harsh against editors like this and my change in approach which I made quite a while ago doesn't seem to work at all. Should I go back to old behavior to reach this editor? No, I don't think so, but I'm very close to go back being the "rough" kind of editor that only a few want to see. CHEERS. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems like there is not much left to do here. Although there was some helpful input from non-involved editors, no admin seems to be willing to comment in this case, one way or another. Can't blame them as none wants to get his hands "dirty" in this case. So what? Does the next step has to be filing a complaint at ANI to get admins attention? I hope not and I hope that after the end of the week-end there will be some useful admin responses and by useful I think about useful for the article and project and if this doesn't happen here, it will happen at ANI, probably ending up in a huge thread with and more consequences than (I think) are needed. Am I going over the top her? No, I don't think so or I would have filed a comprehensive complained at ANI right away. Just fucking think about it (and please excuse my french). The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You say: "I'm very close to go back being the "rough" kind of editor that only a few want to see. CHEERS. The Magnificent Clean-keeper(talk) 23:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)" "Just fucking think about it (and please excuse my french). The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)" ...........I don't find your comments helpful. I have clearly stated that I am trying to put in the time to prepare a mediation request. Swearing at me and insinuating that you may now get "rough" with me is just not appropriate. I have had enough of this, and will not be proceeding here any longer. Instead, I need to put the time into preparations for mediation. Zlykinskyja (talk) 03:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja, enough is enough! Cut and paste is not a satisfactory substitute for diffs, primarily because they lack context. Learn how to use diffs now. This is not a request. Also, this thread is not about the actions of others, it is about your actions. You need to address your actions here, not try to shift the blame onto others. This is not the place to be talking about some content dispute with other editors and even if other editors have been uncivil towards you (and until you provide actual evidence, ie diffs, you have no evidence) then, regardless, you still have to answer for your own actions. "He made me do it" is not a satisfactory excuse. There is no satisfactory excuse for uncivil bahaviour. Until you get this you will continue to be having these fights with people until eventually some admin will get sick of hearing about you and will block or ban you. The power is in your hands. Stand up and take responsibility for your own actions. Apologise for your own incivility. If others are uncivil to you, then just ignore them. Do not reciprocate in kind, it will get you nowhere except blocked or banned. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for all inputs from non-involved editors. They're much appreciated. Although I also was hoping for some admins input here (which didn't happen unless I missed it) and was hoping for some I assume there will be nothing more said in this thread and won't be (as weekend is over). So I'm closing this thread not as resolved but as "non admin closure as no admin commented. Further problems should be taken to ANI". If any one disagrees please reverse.

I agree with closing it, but the part about "Further problems should be taken to ANI" suggests that there has been some sort of finding, consensus, ruling or determination as to what the next step should be. The use of the word "should" especially suggests a ruling or finding or determination of some sort as to the next step. That did not happen in this discussion. That is only the opinion of the accuser. My opinion is that the issues should be resolved by mediation. In order to avoid a situation in which someone looks back at this and thinks the "proper next step" per the outcome of this discussion is ANI, I have added note about mediation being offered shortly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlykinskyja (talk • contribs)

Just adding a note that there is no consensus that ANI is the next step. There was extensive discussion about mediation being offered by me as an attempt at dispute resolution. I intend to offer that formally as soon as I have the time to have that formal request properly prepared, which will take me a bit due to real world circumstances and time constraints. But I anticipate that with mediation, there should be a great improvement. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

ANI is the next step one must take to address this if any editor chooses to do so. Consensus has nothing to do with this at all and as you see by now, I reopened the thread as I'm not going to engage in edit warring about simple format issues.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, Eusebeus quite clearly said "If this behaviour continues, I recommend seeking further action at AN/I" (see above). The other editor who commented expressed agreement with Eusebeus but was not specific about AN/I. While mediation may address some other problems, I am concerned that Zlykinskyja still thinks it is a remedy for her incivility. Bluewave (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I altered my note on the closing to simply state my intention to make a formal offer of mediation. That part about the offer is certain. The note will alert the reader to check the mediation database if they wish to follow up on additional discussion. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, as pointed out to you repeatedly: Mediation has nothing to do whatsoever with your conduct. See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I have a very different view of what is going on with this. I think that you are trying to drive me off the article and get me banned or blocked, and that you WikiHounded me and have tried to intimidate me. You have said that you intend to 'get rough' with me and you have directed disgusting profanity at me. Congratulations, you have done a very good job of intimidating me and taking up huge amounts of my time and causing me a great deal of stress. I have real world pressures and stresses to deal with. Wikipedia I had hoped I could turn to as a relaxing hobby, but that cannot happen with someone WikiHounding me as you did when you followed me to the Linda Carty article and then deleted all my edits and also dragging this dispute on and on. I feel that you are trying to intimidate me. That is my opinion. I have made a good faith offer of mediation. That is the best I can do. I have tried and tried. I cannot spend more days dealing with this under my circumstances. You do what you want, but my offer of mediation should remain on the closing. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I will not even bother to respond to your repeated unfounded accusations as I can't see any point in doing so by now.

On a more personal note, as I said in an edit summary yesterday, I'm sorry to hear about the flooding and your family problems related to it as I can relate to it since I'm living in a hurricane region and had to deal with storms, flooding and everything that comes with it (including a dying family member) by myself. Wish you the best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The latter was a response to what the editor's now removed in part from his/her comment above (what s/he does a lot if I may say so). I will, of course, remove my response to it in this case if asked by the editor even so s/he chose to remove it from here but not from other threads what I find quite strange.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

User:RHB100

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Now moved to WP:ANI (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

RHB100 (talk · contribs) has made statements on Talk:Gravitational potential which I regret being forced to draw everyone's attention to. See [67], [68], and [69], or read the discussion starting at Talk:Gravitational potential#Dimensions are very important and continuing for the rest of the talk page. Ozob (talk) 05:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It would be preferable for RHB100 to comment on the content and not the contributor. Gerardw (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That is a bit of an understatement. Saying that another editor is the "most poorly educated character" that he has ever encountered is never acceptable, and is good grounds for a lengthy block. I have even seen editors indefinitely blocked for less. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm amazed at how calmly you reply to him. You are made of steel. Ozob (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• The goal here is to come to amicable resolution of wikiquette related disagreements. It works best if RHB100 is given a chance to respond before piling on the accusations and rhetoric. (Of course, the viewpoints of other uninvolved editors is also frequently helpful.) Gerardw (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Very unacceptable. Comments such as "you are about the most thick headed, poorly educated character I have ever encountered. " are never acceptable- whether you think they are "thick header" is irrelevant. Also, referring one's own credentials in content disputes, as far as I'm concerned is also unacceptable, as they mean nothing to the article writing business- credentials or not, you're skills are still the same. All that matters is whether you're a good user. Credentials mean nothing. Instead of discussing the intelligence of another editor or referring to one's own credentials, we should be discussing the content of the article, and how to improve it. Continuing behavior should lead to a block. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying referring to one's credentials is incivil? Gerardw (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not so much that it's incivil. It it that it is irrelevant to the content disputes, as it would be any discussion on Wikipedia. Getting too wrapped in the credentials of an editor is disruptive, and makes the discussion about the editor and not facts of the matter. Content disputes are about the facts and not the people. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• It continues: [70]. (Also I believe Ozob left out [ this diff from his original post.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

...and continues: [71]. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

And this on another editor's discussion page: [72]. Here perhaps both WP:BITE and WP:KETTLE should probably be observed more judiciously. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Since RHB100 has chosen not to reply here but rather to continue his behavior, I have posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:RHB100. Ozob (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New section for response of RHB100

I have removed my offensive comments. I regret having made offensive comments. I have been incensed over the fact that the section on expansion in terms of Legendre polynomials that I researched and wrote in its entirety has been destroyed without in any way consulting me. RHB100 (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Having removed my offensive comments, I think that I can contribute by making criticisms. RHB100 (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

One problem as I see it is that there may be some editors who deliberately attempt to make the Wikipedia confusing and difficult to understand. These people may be in the service of those who want to sell more books and want to lower the quality of Wikipedia so as to reduce competition. I think the attack on my work was motivated by an editor who wants to degrade the quality of Wikipedia. RHB100 (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Sławomir Biały has repeatedly destroyed my well written section. He has turned a well written section that I researched and wrote in its entirety into a poorly written section. He removed the block diagram which provided clarity. He appears to have the goal of making the Wikipedia confusing and difficult to understand. RHB100 (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You're on the right track but need to take it further... just focus on the contributions without ascribing any motivations to the editor. Gerardw (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Block Request For jpgordon

Resolved

 – This page lacks any jurisdiction to perform requested action Rodhullandemu 22:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The user typed a very offending comment to me on the Bill Clinton talk page and violated the good faith policy by personally attacking me. The IP I use is shared because it is a public computer. I feel it is neccessary for this administrator to be blocked for a certain period.Dr real (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks very much like you commented while logged out, then logged in in order to agree with yourself. That is a violation of the rules related to sockpuppeting, and also unnecessary- if your ideas are good, there's no need to pretend to be two people. User:Jpgordon didn't do anything wrong in letting you know that your actions were against the rules, and that you aren't fooling anyone. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

If you believe that being told that you might not be cool is a personal attack, then Wikipedia might not be the place for you. Seriously. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The personal attack came from assuming I was the same user.Dr real (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack, and you actually agreed with the other user. Move along, please. Rodhullandemu 22:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Why Was My Content On The Bill Clinton Talk Page Erased?

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Gerardw (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I was checking the talk page, and I saw my content was erased for sock puppetry. What sock puppetry was committed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.169.161.1 (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Repeated racism allegations

The single-purpose account Undefeatedcooler (see monotonous reverting pattern on "Bruce Lee") has thrown two times racist allegations at me, although he has been warned in the recent past to stop it.

• Revision as of 11:32, 12 March 2010
• Revision as of 13:18, 15 March 2010

Bruce_Lee/Archive_4:

Against me:

“Bruce Lee was not Chinese”, that’s ridiculous. He was surely a Chinese person, I know there were a lot of anti-Chinese in America, but please put your bias and racism away. Undefeatedcooler (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Against User:Shaolin Samurai:

You are the one being immature, bullheaded and racist (anti-Chinese) with your insults and ignorant attitudes to this discussion page. You are only interested in criticizing me, and you were completely no help to these discussions. I don't want to start an argument with you. This discussion has come to an end. Undefeatedcooler (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Please provide diffs for these two allegations, and have you notified Undefeatedcooler, as required? - Nick Thorne ^talk 23:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

? The diffs are right up there. And no, I found his talk page already full. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I believe Nick Thorne was requesting these diffs. The accusations in those two diffs were the subject of a discussion on ANI and Undefeatedcooler had already been warned not to repeat them when he or she made the subsequent remarks contained in Gun Powder Ma's first two diffs. I have notified the editor of this alert and left a sternly worded warning on his or her talk page. In my opinion, continuing to accuse other editors of racism so soon after being warned not to do so constitutes a blockable offence. However, since Gun Powder Ma has chosen to post here rather than to ANI, it would appear that he is mainly interested in getting Undefeatedcooler to stop making accusations of racism, rather having him or her blocked. So I would suggest that no further action is required at this time. It would be nice if Undefeatedcooler were to acnowledge that his or her accusations of racism were unacceptable and apologise for them, but I doubt if that is going to happen. If he or she makes any further such accusations, I suggest the matter be then immediately taken to ANI.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 01:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

User: Ryulong

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – off wiki behavior not relevant to WP Gerardw (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

User: Ryulong, having taken appropriate offense to the creation of a User:AntiRyuLong account (which I note has already been deleted) has decided to take the issue off Wiki and into a non WP discussion board.

• First post
• Second post
• Third post

Two specific sections i would like to point out

• "I finally found out the ass who kept calling me Double Dragon and Dragon Dragon. I guess "Merlin" was already registered on Wikipedia and "Howa0082" was all you could think of."
• "Rules exist on Wikipedia. I learned them. If you don't want to learn those rules, don't do things on Wikipedia."'

While these are off Wiki issues, I feel it is acting in incredibly bad faith for Ryulong to take a resolved issue on WP and carry on an off-wiki manhunt. While it is fair to note that the thread he is stepping into contains posts that criticize him (some more tasteful than others), it still seems in rather bad taste to seek out the user (and apparently attempt to provoke them further) once the problem has been taken care of. If Ryulong has any specific issues with the editors, I have difficulty understanding why he would choose to make these accusations (potentially falsly) on an off-WP forum instead of using the appropriate WP resources. Especially when he closes his post with an apparently flaunting of his knowledge of "how this site works". -- TRTX ^{T / C} 02:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Further explanation: This post further demonstrates my concern that Ryulong is using an off-Wiki account to continue "resolving" what he believes is an ongoing issue on Wikipedia without having to respect the appropriate guidelines regarding ettiqutte and behavior. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 02:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

What utter bullshit. My actions at other websites that I have been a member of for some time should never cause problems of any sort on Wikipedia. And this holds for any and all members of this website. The fact that TRTX went out of his way to bring this back onto Wikipedia is tantamount to stalking.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I would normally agree that a wikipedian's behavior offsite shouldn't be held against them, but when a wikipedian takes on-site issues and begins to attempt to "resolve" them offsite in an openly hostile fashion, it's something that is definately blurring lines. If there are users on WP who you believe are causing trouble, there are appropriate channels with which to deal with them that don't include storming into the lion's den and getting hostile. Especially when it's off wiki where nobody can do anything anyway. Also, I would suggest you refrain from accusing people of "stalking" when this issue began with you attempting to track down a wikipedian off-site. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 02:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right about it not being stalking at least. However, this is not an issue for either website. And certainly not one you should have dragged back onto Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)