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)

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

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, Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikid77/Archive and ]).

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 Misplaced Pages account at the beginning of February, Zlykinskyja has accused me of hypocricy,, effectively of being a sockpuppet of User:FormerIP,, and of anti-American editing. She has repeatedly accused me of POV editing and cherry picking facts. She has suggested that I am inappropriate to edit a particular section because of my POV edits. She has gone so far as to accuse me of "conspiring to obstruct another editor" and getting "meatpuppets to do my dirty work". 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). 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 Misplaced Pages 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 (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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. - Nick Thorne 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)

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

• "Blaming the whole situation 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)

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)

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)

• 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. Misplaced Pages 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 has 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) Don't see a need to keep this.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• It's clear by now that this has to go to ANI as her conduct didn't change at all but did get even worse. Hope someone beats me to it since my time is limited.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

No, The Magnificent Clean Keeper, it is clear by now how utterly ridiculous it is for you to be attacking me and taking up all my time for my alleged failure to "assume good faith", while you have been engaging in a concerted pattern of trying to provoke incidents that would fray the nerves of anyone. There is no requirement to "assume good faith" when it is obvious that you are trying to instigate things--which is not good faith conduct. During the course of this discussion you WikiHounded me to the Linda Carty article and deliberately tried to provoke a response by repeatedly deleting my work---and you followed me there for the sole purpose of harassment. Then today you again WikiHounded me by going to an article that you knew I had just been invited to work on by Wikid, and you went there to obstruct things by proposing the article for deletion. At the same time you tried to provoke me into an edit war by repeatedly deleting all my new text on the Kercher article on a new news event for no legitimate reason and without prior discussion. During the course of this "etiquette" discussion you used profanity at me--the "F" word although you knew I am a woman and would certainly be offended. You referred to my posts as bullshit--by calling my posts B.S.. You called my polite responses "rants". You went so far as to say that you intended to "get rough" with me, and you have shown that with your WikiHounding. You have taken up way, way, way too much of my time and caused me a great deal of stress while I am dealing with a family crisis. ENOUGH. It is now time for you to stop harassing me. Zlykinskyja (talk) 07:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment from User:Wikid77 - I have been very busy on other articles (and fixing complex calculations in Template:Convert), but I noticed that User:Zlykinskyja has been warning people of WikiHounding activities. I did not realize, until today, that WP:Wikihounding (formerly called "wikistalking" until 27-Oct-2008) is part of WP:Harrassment and is a formal behavior problem that can quickly result in users being blocked. User:Zlykinskyja has been a part-time user, someone working on relatively few articles, and now working to improve articles on legal topics, such as the convicted Linda Carty. I think the claims of wikihounding are correct, and User:Zlykinskyja is in need of protection, at this point, at least in warning other users to not follow along, not hound, and not revert corrections to the next article being edited. Some users seem to have crossed the line, such as User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper, by twice reverting major improvements/corrections to another hounded article ("Linda Carty"), perhaps at the suggestion of another user to target that article. I'm not sure that any of them knew about policy WP:Wikihounding, but User:Zlykinskyja certainly asked them to stop, multiple times, both on article talk-pages and on their user-talk pages. They can't pretend they haven't been warned. I realize evidence is needed to support my views, so I suggest the diff-history of article "Linda Carty" (the British/American woman on death row in Texas). I finally took time to review the many improved edits made by User:Zlykinskyja, who corrected errors in that WP:BLP article (ranks #2 in Google, with 46,000 hits about Linda Carty), and then added sources, and then expanded the text. However, User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper decided to revert most of the improvements to article "Linda Carty", 2 times, and restored glaring errors, such as Linda Carty charged with "Capital Punishment" which, of course, is a punishment, not a criminal charge. Those erroneous reverts to "Linda Carty" were shocking:

• 1st revert re-adding errors (18:14, 13 March 2010): diff@revision 349650340
• 2nd revert re-adding errors (19:47, 13 March 2010): diff@revision 349666236

I was shocked about anyone wanting to de-correct a WP:BLP article, anyone wanting to re-introduce errors 2x, when User:Zlykinskyja had improved the notable article about this dual-citizen (of interest to both British & American readers) and had described her fate at Mountain View Unit (women's death row), on that very real hillside midway between Houston and Dallas, Texas. Why would someone risk scrambling and hacking such an article, twice, on Misplaced Pages? Articles about British-American citizens on death row should not be hacked and have errors re-added. So, if perhaps User:Zlykinskyja seems a little upset, please understand the prior massive rescue to a high-profile article on Misplaced Pages and having to correct problems 3 times, in total, to make Misplaced Pages seem a better source about such an important legal issue: the execution of a British citizen when capital punishment has been banned in the UK. I advise: tell other users to stop the wikihounding, stop reverting improvements to high-profile articles, and stop submitting frivolous alerts about User:Zlykinskyja. The future contributions of User:Zlykinskyja are incalculable to Misplaced Pages, and I've worked on many thousands of articles, so I think I know whereof I speak. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Wendy_Doniger

For some time this talk page has had heated debate, and despite several calls for more civility more than one editor there may benefit from having a neutral third party give them feedback on their language, personal attacks, and florid language. Can one or more neutral parties please take a look at the page and do whatever you can to try to get people to calm down and adhere to civility policies? There has also been edit-warring on article space that recently led to locking the page down. I wish informal intervention by some of you can avert escalation. Buddhipriya (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The edit summary of this edit is an indication of how disturbed a certain individual is, not to mention ignorance of the condition alluded to. rudra (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Full disclosure: this thread covers a further development, except for one fact. I already have the email address of the other party (from earlier correspondence), so my use of the WP email facility was a tactical error of sorts, and is duly regretted. rudra (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• On a different page, but relevant to this discussion: . Dlabtot (talk) 00:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle

(For the purposes of convenience, I have made all gender pronouns in this concern MALE. My apologies to those Wikiusers who are not, and please do not assume that I am male, either. No misogyny intended.)

My first interaction with Delicious carbuncle (Dc) was in an ANI. He stated that he was not asking for any AfD's, and I pointed out that, indeed, he was. This quickly escalated in only two posts later, where I was outright called a troll in both his reply and it's edit summary. The point I made was not addressed. In that thread alone, Dc referred to me as a troll 4 more times. As our discussion deteriorated, I placed a query on two other user's pages (Ash and Meco), asking advice on how to handle such as aggressive editor, to see if an RfC was in order. (I chose these editors since they had helped with my edits to the Jeff Stryker article.) They replied on my talk page here. I was given good advice: to discuss the matter on Dc's talk page, to ask for advice and support on a related project page, to open a WP:WQA, and to raise an ANI alert if the situation did not remedy itself. Dc shortly referred to my request for information on how to deal with his uncivil and aggressive edits as being fruitless, stating that he had “no interest in helping to build that” (meaning an RfC on the issue of his edits). I was also asked to take the matter to his userpage.

My next step towards finding resolution was placed on Dc's userpage, titled "Just some Wikilove". I repeatedly proposed a truce (without asking for his motivation for his hostile attitude), asked for mutual AGF, and asked not to be bitten. Dc beahved with hostility that I had taken the matter to his user page (even though that's exactly what he and two other editors had just suggested), accused me of editing from formal Wikiaccounts, requested my previous IP addresses, and called my Wikilove “slippery” and “insincere”. I invited him to Checkuser on me if he thought I was another user. In the end, he stated that he would “keep on looking” at my edits.

Later that same day, an another IP posted on my userpage with a “shit-stirring” reference to Dc. I replied that such edits were not constructive, promptly removed the vandalism, and placed an appropriate welcome tag on that IP's page. (That IP later commented again on my user page related to the same problem, but I quickly removed that edit as well.)

I mentioned the continued problems I was having to Ash. I agreed to try and not involve Ash any more than possible, since Dc and Ash were having their own issues.

Next, even though I was agreeing with Dc's vote on an RfC, he expressed that I misunderstood the matter, but refused to elaborate. Again, this thread was driven wholly off topic to the point that I collapsed the inappropriate section. Dc called me a troll 4 MORE times. There was clearly not one iota of effort towards the proposed truce, nor was there any reasonable AGF.

I took a two-day WP:COOL to assure that I was being clear and level-headed and to remain neutral towards this editor, despite not being given reciprocal courtesy.

Another, uninvolved editor placed a conversation on Dc's talk page, in defense of his unreasonable edits and attacks of my WikiParticipation and his hostility toward me. I replied on that user's page, thanking them and pointing them toward another topic where Dc had been unreasonable and where Ash was in need of similar support (an effort which Dc out and out taunted). (The uninvolved editor chose to remain uninvolved, a move which I mentioned was certainly understandable, considering Dc's attitude.) Short of that, I politely refused to engage with Dc any further.

THE BOTTOM LINE: While I continue to show good faith, remain civil, stand by the truce I proposed, and otherwise behave in a manner greatly in accordance with all of the 5P's, Delicious carbuncle continues to WP:BITE, Grief, violate WP:AGF and WP:CIV, make inappropriate comments and edit summaries, violate WP:NPA, and stray significantly off-topic. There are many more minor ways in which this user violates Wikipolicy, from berating and targeting a specific group of editors and article topics, to making a statistically significant amount of edit reverts (which, while may be appropriate the majority of the time, for any 1 editor to make such an amount of reverts is a misuse of Misplaced Pages).

I placed these concerns in preliminary form on Ash's talk page in the same thread where I addressed my concerns earlier, but in under 24 hours decided to move the issue here....and will notify all Wikipedians mentioned in this thread on their talk pages of this WQA.

I wish to be treated respectfully and appropriately, and for Delicious carbuncle to understand that his behaviors have not been fair in that vein.

Somebody please assist. Thanks much! 38.109.88.196 (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever edited under a logged in wikipedia account? If so, what was the name of that account? Thanks!Bali ultimate (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I have never posted from a Misplaced Pages account. I have never had a Misplaced Pages account. This was noted twice in my attempt to call a truce on Dc's userpage, as well as prominently on my own userpage . (And, as a minor aside, I don't see how that could be any more than tangentially relevant towards any of Dc's poor editing behavior against me.) 38.109.88.196 (talk) 21:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It appears from his talk page Delicious carbuncle is choosing not to participate. I've left a note asking him to stop with the troll stuff. It would be best if 38.109.88.196 stays off his talk page. Gerardw (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your making that note to him, and of course I will refrain from posting any further on his page. But this does little to assure me that any other of the aggressive and hostile editing behavior will change, as we have similar interests here on Misplaced Pages...What would be your advice towards a next step? Moving my notice here to an RfC or ANI? 38.109.88.196 (talk) 21:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

...and now, Dc has reverted a perfectly fair edit. I collapsed as section where he took a thread completely off-topic, in accordance with WP:REFACTOR, yet this was reverted without any reason. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 23:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Administrator User:Bwilkins

I was shocked by a recent decline message for a 24 hour block review here: The decline reason in part reads: Decline reason: "... and you jammed the page full of images to either show how much we'll miss you, or how important you must be. " This remark is belittling and inappropriate and a gratuitous personal attack on her and her motivations and which had nothing at all to do with the (imo and others, completely unfair) block. This administrator also added the comment "The block will expire on its own later today - you'll have some apologizing to do when that happens" though neglected to tell her for what or to whom. I think Misplaced Pages administrators should set an example for etiquette. I continue to be shocked by that first comment and hopes the community recognizes the inadmissibility of such comments and admonishes User:Bwilkins and urges him or her to apologize to User:Mbz1 for the remark. Thank you. Stellarkid (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Bwilkins status on his talk page indicates he'll be offline and therefore unavailable for discussion for some time period. I've removed the remark for now. Gerardw (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

GerardW, Mbz1 has been extremely disruptive (hence the block) and Bwilkins' comment was a quite appropriate decline and nothing like a personal attack. Please restore it immediately and in future leave other peoples comments alone per WP:TPO. Factsontheground (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I think removing "to either show how much we'll miss you, or how important you must be." with the edit summary "Removing personal attack" is a bit blunt and will leave some users wondering too... Maybe it's just me, but it doesn't strike me as a personal attack of such a degree that we should edit it out. --Taelus (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• Why does this need to be raised here now? The user hasn't been given time to reply to your initial comments four or five hours ago on their talk page, and has clearly indicated they will be away for a time. Additionally, this seems to be a one off incident, thus what can this noticeboard do that the users talk page cannot do at the current time? Personally I don't think WQA will achieve anything until the user responds, thus this is premature pending reply to the discussion you brought up at the users talk page. --Taelus (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you to Gerardw for recognizing a personal attack when you see one, and editing it out for now. Stellarkid (talk) 00:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Personal Attacks by definition are to be found here and conclude with "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." Clearly the comment was disparaging and insulting. Is there a policy on just how disparaging and insulting it needs to be before it is considered egregious enough to be removed? Stellarkid (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

What about Misplaced Pages:Civility#Removing_uncivil_comments? Are we claiming that Bwilkins actions were "obvious trolling" now? Anyway, I still don't think this thread will gain anything positive till the editor comments, thus this could be resolved without WQA needing to be touched at all. --Taelus (talk) 09:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

(OD) This doesn't seem to be a personal attack, and certainly not an attack to the point where it would rise to the level of removing a comment from an admin and filing a complaint against him. Gerardw, you are obviously very involved with this blocked user. I won't revert you, but I think you should have waited to hear from the admin before reverting a comment on a several-days-old unblock decline. There was no urgency here. Dayewalker (talk) 01:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"Obviously very involved with this blocked user?" Where do you get that? I can usually pick up on the obvious, and I did a quick check on Gerardw's contributions but didn't notice any interaction between the two. Please clarify. With respect to urgency, why would anyone responding to the etiquette board want to leave disparaging remarks on a user's page any longer than necessary? (Might just add that it was I who filed the complaint and Gerardw who followed up on it by removing it.) Stellarkid (talk) 02:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, you are right. I was actually looking at Stellarkid's contributions, not Gerardw's, and I have stricken the comments above. I stand by the rest of what I said, though, this didn't seem to be a personal attack and as such, I saw no need to remove it immediately. If the blocked user thought it was a personal attack, she can remove it from her own page. Dayewalker (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. And with respect to your last statement, that was what I had thought as well. However part of the reasons given for the unblock denial given by User:Bwilkins was - "Your entire set of activities on this talkpage during your block has been extremely disruptive. You removed declined block requests, you removed block notices..." , so you see the user would have felt herself terribly constrained to do so, under the circumstances. Stellarkid (talk) 03:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

While it may be true that administrators should set an example, we are all only required to be WP:CIVIL ("formal or perfunctory politeness"). Having had nothing to do with this (I saw the notification while discussing another issue on User:Bwilkins' talk page) I took a few moments to review some of User:Mbz1's recent edits and many/most of them are not only problematic, but appear to be well characterised by User:Bwilkins' remarks. Recall that truth is an absolute defense against such claims off-wiki, and I don't see how the showboating could have otherwise been described without calling a spade a spade. Nor is it obvious that there is/should be a correlation between quality of contributions and obligation to comply with policy. -- samj _in 12:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

WQA is a step in dispute resolution, and the premature escalation of this from talkpage to here (within a space of 3 hours) was poor form by the filing party, Stellarkid, and there was a clear neglect to note this by Gerardw, and a remarkably poor exercise in judgement of refactoring the comment. Even so, dispute resolution cannot work when an user is clearly unavailable to participate, let alone has not had a reasonable chance to respond to a concern. There was no urgency here, per Dayewalker: certainly not an attack to the point where it would rise to the level of removing a comment from an admin and/or filing a complaint against him. Poorly handled altogether. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The decline reason was insulting, unwarranted and unfair. The contests from my talk page were archived. I do not care to get an apology from Bwilkins, so I believe the discussion here should be archived now. Marking it as resolved. Thank you, Stellar and Gerardw--Mbz1 (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

There are other concerns here that are unresolved - especially as the subject is not available to respond. It can be archived, but it cannot be marked as resolved. Please stop inappropriately closing and archiving threads relating to you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It is unbelievable. It was filed not against me, but in order to make the user to apologize to me for his PA at my talk page. I said I do not care about the apology from that user. The user is out. The matter is resolved for me. Once again I am asking you please butt out, and stop following me around. Today you followed me around at three pages, if I do not count my own talk page. That's enough.--05:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Serious accusations require serious evidence. I participated in this discussion prior to you adding you 2 cents and making an inappropriate close; LHvU's talk page is on my watchlist and you seem to be in yet another petty squabble there (as characterised by LHvU himself); you were then engaging in the same behavior on ANI - another page on my watchlist. Finally, although this may be resolved with regards to you not expecting an apology, Bwilkins lack of participation does not automatically mean the dispute is resolved. You seem to have trouble assuming good faith, and I'm considering proposing a sanction on you to prevent this constant problem. Cut it out already. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I really do not like the users who are playing in being administrators, and I cannot care less about you "considering proposing a sanction on me to prevent this constant problem". Please do. I would not even bother to respond there. I have more interesting things to do. Goodbye --Mbz1 (talk) 05:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I might just add that it was I who filed this report because I thought the comment was unacceptable coming from an administrator. This report had nothing to do with Mbz1's edits but the photos that she put up on her web page and the way that Bwilkins characterized them. They are the very essence of lack of etiquette. Mbz1 did not file this complaint nor was she even aware I planned to file it. The remarks made with respect to Mbz1's photos was the only part I brought up, as well as his comment that she "had a lot of apologizing to do." Please do not turn this into more than it is and escalate the drama. I am sorry that Bwilkins is unavailable to comment, since he had apparently made his comments moments before he left. I agree with Mbz1, just to "archive" or file this and forget about it since people cannot seem to stick with the complaint as it was made but attempting to escalate it into something more. Stellarkid (talk) 05:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems you have a fundamental misunderstanding as to how dispute resolution works on Misplaced Pages. If you have a concern, you take it up directly with that user, be it an editor or an administrator - even if it is via email in cases where the user might not be very active. Although you did post on the talk page, it seems you expected a response within 3 hours; that's not a reasonable amount of time to wait before escalating a dispute as you did here. All of the users (except Gerardw) who have responded in this discussion disagree with you and think it did not rise to the level that it needed to be removed, let alone apologised for. Bwilkins may find that there are issues that aren't resolved and require something more due to Gerardw's poor handling which is cleary unsupported by consensus - in saying that, it doesn't mean we leave this open indefinitely, but it does mean this complaint cannot be marked resolved. Had you not escalated this here so prematurely, this wouldn't even be an issue. When the inappropriate closes stop, and the sticks are dropped, it will be archived without further notice. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Note to Ncmvocalist, read point 63 & 65 of WP:OWB. Let's move on, shall we? Cheers~! --Dave 05:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Edits by User:UplinkAnsh to article PNS Ghazi

I would like some input on the above editor's actions and what should be my next step. PNS Ghazi is a Pakistani submarine that sank during the 1971 Indo-Pak War. UplinkAnsh insists that it was sunk by an Indian warship and is adding Indian sources to back this claim, while removing a Pakistani source that disputes it. He claims the Indian sources are neutral while the Pakistani source is merely "Pakistani propaganda". UplinkAnsh has also removed information from one of his Indian sources which disputes the above.

The following are the sources he uses to justify his edits:

• http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20030824/spectrum/main6.htm
• http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/jan/22inter.htm
• http://www.thehindu.com/mp/2006/12/02/stories/2006120202090100.htm
• http://en.allexperts.com/e/i/in/indian_navy.htm
• http://www.tejwebworld.com/category/military-and-defence/
• http://www.orbat.com/site/cimh/navy/kills%281971%29-2.pdf

The first 3 links are Indian newspaper websites. The fourth is an old copy of a Misplaced Pages article, the fifth is a blog that appears to of Indian origin. The last one is a website on military affairs which is edited by "Ravi Rikhye" and "Mandeep Singh Bajwa", hosts articles that have an anti-Pakistan tone and a forum which contains posts such as this one (http://www.orbat.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=18386&start=0) which is all about India invading Pakistan in the future and dividing it into several smaller states.

The following is a diff of the latest reversion by User:UplinkAnsh. Note that in the infobox he has added that the PNS Ghazi submarine was "Sunk by Indian naval destroyer INS Rajput" and then added the above 6 links as references.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=PNS_Ghazi&action=historysubmit&diff=351041236&oldid=350998040

The rediff.com article above (link), which is an interview of the then Indian Navy commander Admiral S. M. Nanda (retired), quotes Nanda as saying that "In narrow channels, ships, during an emergency or war, always throw depth charges around them to deter submarines. One of them probably hit the Ghazi. The blow-up was there, but nobody knew what it was all about until the fisherman found the lifejacket." I added this in the Aftermath section but it was removed by UplinkAnsh in his recent reversion.

UplinkAnsh has also removed the "Independent sources" sub-section of the "Aftermath" section (see above diff), which contains an eye-witness account by an Egyptian naval officer who observed an explosion but no Indian naval ship in the vicinity. UplinkAnsh justifies his action by claiming that the source is a Pakistani website which, according to his statements on the article talk page, is "created for the sole purpose of spreading Pakistani propaganda" (diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3APNS_Ghazi&action=historysubmit&diff=351060464&oldid=350993876).

I have recently found a new Misplaced Pages article, Sinking of PNS Ghazi, created by User:UplinkAnsh on 18 March. He again uses the above 6 links in that article to justify his edits stating that the submarine was certainly sunk by the Indian warship, despite one of the sources in the article stating otherwise. This source, hosted at an Indian website, states the following (among other paragraphs which dispute UplinkAnsh's edits):

"The official version of the Indian Navy is that the Ghazi was sunk by the Rajput's depth charges at around midnight of 3/4 December. However, there have been several opposing theories put forward mainly due to the confusion of dates and when the Rajput sailed out on it's mission which led analysts to conclude that the Rajput was nowhere near when the explosions took place."

Nevertheless, UplinkAnsh refuses to acknowledge that not only are the Indian sources he is using biased, but that some of them clearly state that the Pakistani submarine sank under unclear circumstances. Although UplinkAnsh has offered to continue dialogue at the PNS Ghazi talk page, I feel that it is a waste of my time to continue any discussion with him for obvious reasons and would like some advice from the experienced users here. I am notifying him of this report at his talk page now. Thanks. --Hj108 (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Left suggestions on article talk and edit war warnings on both user's talk pages. Gerardw (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

User:TechnoFaye

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

This is in relation to a previous thread that was posted at ANI

TechnoFaye has on at least two occasions, , made statements, involving words such as "stupid" that are quite inflammatory. The user acknowledges that she has previously been banned from another online forum, so she is aware of the consequences of incivility . The user states that she is autistic, and this is the reason for her impoliteness. I don't know about that, but all I can say is that wikipedia is better off without such inflammatory statements. Is there anything that can or should be done about this. I have already mentioned to the user that her tone isn't helpful . Seems to have ignored it. But realistically, saying stuff like "Blacks are so stupid", in my opinion, is a blatant violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on civility. Neither is Misplaced Pages a forum nor a soapbox to express ones views in ways that will never make it into an article. Wapondaponda (talk) 10:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC) These are the specific quotes

This unfounded, ugly charge of racism is not only untrue (see below), but is an attempt by an outrageously POV editor to intimidate another editor (me) so he can push his politically-motivated POV without being questioned.

This personal attack is about my objection to Muntuwandi suppressing information published by the the American Psychological Association, the University of California, and dozens of peer-reviewed journals. In the WP Race and Intelligence article, Muntuwandi wants to replace serious academic research with a bizarre "theory" that the IQ test-score gap can't be real because there's no such thing as "race":

You can not have Race and Intelligence, as race does not exist, and intelligence is undefined, and hence their exists no data on it.

This contradicts accepted science and was rejected by Dr. Pesta, an associate professor specializing in intelligence who graciously serves as our expert consultant. So I objected. Now Muntuwandi is telling blatant, obvious lies in an attempt to get me thrown out of the discussion.

He quotes me as saying "blacks are stupid". As a former Head Start volunteer and a very left-wing Liberal, I take particular exception to this.

Here's the statement he's referring to. When Muntuwandi attempted to rename the article to conform to his peculiar beliefs, I explained:

It's about pushing a political POV, and is just like renaming the article "Why Blacks are so stupid". I would hope that editors on BOTH sides of this issue would agree that this kind of subtle propaganda is EXACTLY what we need to scrupulously avoid, lest we confirm all of Fox News' dismissive badmouthing of our beloved Misplaced Pages.

See?

I also used the word "stupid" here:

Unbiased, duplicated IQ tests show that whites are, on average, stupider than Asians. SO WHAT?? I'm a white woman, but that doesn't make most white people as smart as Asians."

Is that uncivil? Muntuwandi himself said that he has to "read between the lines" to find anything wrong with it. I imagine he'd have to, since I offered to let him include his strange theory on race:

Including this fringe idea in Misplaced Pages at all is improper, but I'm willing to compromise and let it be one short section if it includes a statement that most experts DO believe that there are three races of humans... However I'm willing to forgo including that disclaimer in the name of consensus.

Does that sound "inflammatory"? He has already been banned for a month for making unjustified personal attacks in the same discussion page. He was also banned for using multiple Misplaced Pages identities which agreed with each other. This also let him vote on things more than once. He is currently on probation, and when he made more personal attacks (like the one I am responding to now), the moderator of the mediation page warned him, then later had him banned again for continuing to wildly attack editors he disagrees with.

But Integrity demands me to tell you that Muntuwandi DOES make one true assertion about me:

The user acknowledges that she has previously been banned from another online forum.

That's correct. But he said that it was due to incivil argumentation. He made that up. In fact, I was banned for including in my profile of myself. TechnoFaye Kane 16:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Diffs provided do not show incivility. Marking NWQA. Gerardw (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ, do you think the average person could go into a crowded place and shout "blacks are so stupid". It's not civil discourse at all. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to mark this as NWQA as (1) this was a concern about civility and (2) the filing party was not referred to any other place, so it's been removed. However, like Gerardw, I also reject your claim that there is incivility by the subject; you're just taking words out of context and misrepresenting their position - if anything, that is the incivility. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I am quite disappointed that you suggest that I am being uncivil. Are you telling me that it is perfectly acceptable and civil to call any individual, group or ethnic group "stupid". I take offense when someone says "blacks are so stupid". I have previously ignored these statements and tried to put them in context, but because she keeps on repeating them I have come to WQA for an independent opinions. I don't enjoy reading such statements, and I don't enjoy discussing this subject at WQA either. But as these statements are a distraction I felt it necessary that they be addressed. Wapondaponda (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

These are the quotes,

• So how is R/I different? Eye color = self-reported race, and 11 toes = stupid (or whatever the polite word is). Why is this a false analogy?.
• My best guess is that, like Gould, some well-meaning editors feel that a genetic basis for blacks being stupid should be denied 'even if it is true.'
• "It's not about the data-centric structure; that's just the disingenuous cover story. It's about pushing a political POV, and is just like naming the article "Why Blacks are so stupid".
• What do you think of the theory that the IQ difference is due to everyone else believing that blacks are stupid
• No, it means it's extremely unlikely that one exists, because it would have to be something powerful enough to make a whole race of people stupid, yet hidden and secret enough that no one ever thought of it

Wapondaponda (talk) 07:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC) I have taken this to ANI at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility_by_User:TechnoFaye. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

comment by third party

By the way, for those who are confused by all of the references to content-dispute at a mediation page, you may ant to know:

• the proposal Muntuwandi was favoring (in pretty measured tones) was to change the title of the article from "race and intelligence" to "race and i.q." which in my view hardly calls for the histrionics
• I don't think Muntuwandi ever said races do not exist. He made two points: one that when people take IQ tests they identify their race or ethnicity. This is known as "self identified race" (which is different from, for example, taking a blood test) and M. has repeatedly asked that this be made clear in any revised article
• Muntuwandi has also pointed out that sociologists and anthropologists are the real experts on "race" and he has refered to their research.

There is a conflict dispute ate the heart of this: a considerable number of university researchers question the value of defining races genetically. Technofaye says these people are not real scientists; I think Muntuwandi disagrees. But this is not the place to address a content dispute. The question is, is Technofaye's responses to Muntuwandi, and her characterization of his views, appropriate? I think you can get a little bit of a sense just from what you read in this section Slrubenstein | Talk 17:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of talk pages is to improve articles; in this case, it is to help mediate a dispute. I would think the litmus test for etiquette is, does someone's demeanor sooth conflicts or inflame them? I certainly have seen no evidence that Muntuwandi has written anything inflammatory or that deserved an inflammatory response. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Offensive materials on Userpage

Is this userpage allowed in wikipedia? It's highly offensive: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mr._Wheely_Guy&oldid=350321728. Should I remove/blank all such offensive userpages? Thank you. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 08:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I openly invite all Willypedians to vandalize my user page. The end result: a user page that represents the total creativity of everyone who has contributed to it. Mr. Wheely Guy (on wheels!) 12:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is already removed; not sure why a diff was posted above instead of the current talk page state. At any rate, it seems that if Mr. Wheely allows anyone to edit his talk page, it stands to reason that anyone is allowed to removed anything they want, also. This certainly didn't need to be a WQA; the original poster should review the purpose of this page. Tan | 39 13:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey Tyw7, if you find it offensive then don't look at it. Anyway why are you wasting your time looking at user pages? Work on articles instead. Caden 13:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

One man's "offensive" is another man's "funny". Who are you to decide? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalising a user page is against WP:Talk whether the user wants vandalism or not. Dmcq (talk) 18:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Rubbish. If the user wants it, it's by definition not vandalism. WP:Common Sense. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Rafablu88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and consensus on Remain in Light

Please advise Rafablu88 has been working on the page Remain in Light for awhile and part of his edits included deleting a section on the album's release history and inserting information about areas where the album did not chart, citing his understanding of featured article criteria. I reverted these edits based on my understanding of the guidelines at WP:ALBUM and I found his appeal to FAC lacking. After reverting one another, I created a space on talk to discuss these two matters and requested assistance from a relevant WikiProject. Two other editors added their perspective and it seems like a consensus was reached a month ago, so I reverted based on that understanding. Rafablu88 has reverted again claiming that there was absolutely no consensus (twice) and posting an uncivil message on talk. I asked him to be more civil and respect the consensus, but he responded with another uncivil message. He has also called my efforts trolling.

I am afraid that this user is not going to engage me or the other editors who have expressed their opinion in a civil manner, so I am posting here to see if someone else can intervene and possibly correct me if I am misconstruing what consensus is and whether or not it has been reached on that talk page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Addendum Note that editor also edits as RB88public (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Have a look for yourself people. I am fairly busy to engage Koavf's fancies again. All my rationales are explained in detail here after each and every contention. PRB88 (T) 18:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Well first of all, since you're so concerned with "Wikiquette", perhaps you'd like to explain why you chose "Vandal" as opposed to "Userlinks" in providing User:Rafablu88's talk, contribs., etc.

Secondly, you were edit warring at the article in question. What sort of "Wikiquette" is that?

Thirdly, you are once again claiming incivility on the part of yet another editor whose patience you have exhausted with your petulant insistence that your edits are correct because such and such template says so.

Have you received the opinion you were seeking, or is it just one more example of a wikihound being incivil towards you? Radiopathy •talk• 01:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Geekiep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Chris Edgecombe

• The article Chris Edgecombe is currently nominated for deletion, and while I would normally wait until the conclusion of an AfD before bringing the situation here, User:Geekiep (whom I suspect is an SPA) has been causing some trouble. S/he disagrees with the deletion, which is fine, but now s/he's going as far as to leaving uncivil comments on the talk pages of everyone that agrees with the deletion, including Karljoos, Phil Bridger and myself. Furthermore, s/he created articles for HTF-15 and Biofuel 5, two coolants Chris Edgecombe supposedly created, and the articles appear to be hoaxes because I can't find any information about either of their existence at all. After my AfD nomination of the latter two articles, Geekiep threw around uncivil comments again, more or less stating that I have never heard of the products simply because I'm ignorant (s/he even posted such a comment on the article page at one point. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)