User talk:Icerat/Archive 4

N21

The N21 page is starting to look a bit like a battle - Is negotiation getting anywhere? Clovis Sangrail (talk) 11:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There has been no negotiation, though Financeguy222 has finally at least gone to talk, so perhaps we'll get somewhere. Your assistance would be appreciated. --Insider201283 (talk) 12:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I got sidetracked. I've put a note in your support in relation to FinanceGuy's complaint, as its clear you were trying negotiate (Though its always hard to talk to a delete button). It looks like its gone quiet for now anyway. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 13:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm pretty certain I know who it is (thanks to their first edits) and they're in Australia, so possibly headed to bed. I'm sure they'll be back :) --Insider201283 (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Updated talk. There is no possible way you know "who I am". Financeguy222 (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I was just guessing you were the owner of the blog you tried to add, first anonymously and then as FG222. A reasonable conclusion given the similar types of nicks. I may be wrong, either way doesn't matter, I just thought you might have headed to bed :-) --Insider201283 (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You're free to think that if you like, makes no difference to me if you think i'm that person, or barack obama. I only realised after I added that link someone else had added it (or particular posts of it) in the previous week or so. Not sure how many other times it has been attempted to be added or by how many people. Financeguy222 (talk) 04:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Network Twentyone. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Financeguy222 (talk) 03:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD for Network TwentyOne

Hello. Per your request, I have looked at the current version of Network TwentyOne and added my comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Network TwentyOne. I am not sure what the article originally looked like when it was listed. It seems to be OK now, at least according to how I interpret WP:CORP, WP:N, and WP:COI. Ultimately, it will be up to the closing admin or crat to decide how consensus plays out and the relative weight of the arguments. I would suggest that you consider my suggestion at the bottom of my comments. Note also the scenarios that are likely to happen if the new article gets started outside of user space. I personally think that the combined article would be the best choice, because it will help many articles rather than just one. I always like to improve the big picture whenever possible. I don't mind taking the time to look at this, but I do not have enough free time right now for another lengthy MedCab case. It doesn't really look like this one is heading in that direction, though, which is a good thing. :-) —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 02:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. --Insider201283 (talk) 08:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

3rr

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Hipocrite (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

And you haven't posted the same message on USER:FinanceGuy222 for what reason exactly? --Insider201283 (talk) 14:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I bill $1,000 US an hour for wikipedia assignments - payable in advance, minimum 30 hour contracts. Would you like my wire instructions, or are you going to stop reverting? Hipocrite (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Reverting what exactly? You removed the same stuff I did. It's clear POV vandalism. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd argue that both of you are engaging in clear POV pushing. Hipocrite (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Really? I sourced, wrote, and included the entire controversy section. Yet IMO none of it is notable enough for inclusion. FG222 has done little more than vandalise and obstruct. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

How many times have you been asked if you have a conflict of interest by various people? Does that lead you to believe there is an obvious problem with your editing? Hipocrite (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

By someone with an NPOV? Never. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I sense circular logic, here. You can have the WP:LASTWORD, except if you revert on that article again, I'll strictly adhere to 3rr. Hipocrite (talk) 14:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

No circular logic all, based on independent reviews of the facts. In any case there should be no editing at all going on with an article under mediation. I reverted to the version that had been static for some days and asked FG222 to stop editing as well while we mediated. He ignored that request, and as usual wouldn't even dicuss it in talk.

That makes me wonder if FG222 is an alt id for the famous TheEditor22. Cyberherbalist (talk) 07:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of SA8 (detergent)

The article SA8 (detergent) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No sources demonstrating notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep your head up

I have appreciated your sensibility on the Usana article, and see you are battling through edit warring, wikistalking, and general incivility. If you are just an Amway product user and not trying to build your business, I fail to see how anyone can push COI arguments on you. In fact, it appears refreshing to have someone with an inside point of view as a former distributor. As long as your edits follow proper WP policies in regards to sourcing and due weight issues, you should be on solid ground. If there is one thing I've learned recently about WP, its no matter how ridiculously inane another editor can be, take the high road and use emotional intelligence to not respond to the baiting. I hope you'll stick around WP and work through the articles where you have an interest and expertise to make better articles. Leef5 (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, you to! Happens every time I edit here, these attacks. There's a number of dedicated anti-mlm zealots here unfortunately. Just so damn exhausting have to take virtually every edit through to arbitration. Rhode Island Red is currently reverting RS sourced information about a case that Amway won on appeal back to his version which only mentions the outcome of the original case. --Icerat (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Changing the medical guideline

One does not get the change the medical guideline without discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It's the same as RS/N (well use of word "primarily" rather than "mainly"). As it's written the guideline contradicts policy. --Icerat (talk) 01:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Bring it to the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

In the process. --Icerat (talk) 01:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

John A. Wise

I've declined the speedy deletion request for John A. Wise, as it doesn't seem to be an unambiguous attack page, and the now-dead links may have been relevant at the time. However, it does seem to have a non-neutral slant, and I think there is a good argument for non-notability too as there don't seem to be any independent sources discussing the man himself - only the company. So I've taken it for a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John A. Wise. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Taking a break

In re your comment at Talk:Amway: Consider using this rather than breaking several policies to get yourself blocked, if only to avoid wasting valuable (*snicker*) admin time. Or ask one of the folk here. Danger (talk) 23:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

ahh ... nice! Now if only they'd work on all my other online and offline distractions ..... :-) --Icerat (talk) 23:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Your comment about Barrett

Thanks for making your viewpoint clear in your edit summary [1]. Please note that such comments violate WP:BLP and WP:TALKNO. --Ronz (talk) 00:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't quite understand your comment? I see nothing I said that violates WP:TALKNO. --Icerat (talk) 00:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Then we both agree it violates BLP? Good enough for me. --Ronz (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Um, no. I assumed your BLP issues where summarised in WP:TALKNO. Just for the record, my second edit summary was submitted *before* I saw this message expressing concern. Despite not understanding the concern, I have noted it and would have worded the summary differently if I'd read this first --Icerat (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Same problems with [2]. As you note. --Ronz (talk) 00:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd still appreciate an explanation. --Icerat (talk) 00:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You've repeatedly made a comparison that's derogatory and not backed by sources or anyone else's comments. It's your personal opinion used to attack Barrett. --Ronz (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

From my perspective I not only had no intention of disparaging Barrett, I did not disparage Barrett - well, not unless he actually is god, and I expect he and I fully agree that he isn't. Still, your differing interpretation noted. --Icerat (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you adjust your perspective if you don't want to be blocked or banned. If you think my interpretation of BLP is incorrect, and you plan on continuing to make such comments, then we should take this to BLPN or ANI. --Ronz (talk) 01:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's impossible for me to retrospectively change my perception of what I intended in a summary comment. As I already stated, it was not meant in derogatory manner, I accept you took at that way, I'll be more prudent in the future. If that's a problem for you, then I guess you'll just have to take it further. --Icerat (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Good to know you'll be more prudent. If you have such a poor understanding on BLP issues, you should avoid getting involved in such disputes at risk of being banned rather than just blocked again. --Ronz (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for edit warring

You've been blocked for your edit warring at Network TwentyOne. As this is not your first block, I won't go into all the details about how to appeal; I imagine you're already familiar with these procedures. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually I've no idea if there's no block tag ... --Icerat (talk) 12:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, OK. {{unblock|Your reason here}} Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Icerat (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I believe a block is unfair, at the very least an equal block is unfair. As noted by the earlier admin comment I have attempted to achieve consensus with the user both on talk and through third party input on noticeboards. The noticeboard consensus on the current issue was summarised on the talk page[17] and can be confirmed on the noticeboard itself [18] so there's no reason to "suspect" both our claims are false, you can (and should) check for yourself who is telling the truth. As it stands because I did not continue the dispute and exceed 3RR because of Financeguy222's edit warring I've now been blocked and false (and potentially defamatory) information based on an unreliable source remains in the article following Financeguy222's breaking of 3RR. Despite it being false (and potentially defamatory) I left the information in the article while getting noticeboard input. An equal block and allowing the information to remain would even imply I would have been better off (and more importantly, wikipedia would have been better off) if I had actually violated 3RR instead of stepping back and warning the user. Note that I warned him before his fourth revert, and only after that did I report him. I'm following all the correct procedures here, Financeguy222 is not. Indeed you'll find that despite our disagreements on this article he has never once submitted an issue for 3rd party comment on any noticeboard. His only use of noticeboards was to falsely (and unsuccessfully) accuse of me COI and attempt to get me banned from the article. I on the other hand have tried mediation [19], and noticeboards on numerous occasions [20][21][22]

[23]. (note that in one of those noticeboards, FG222 supports the argument that the very same court document he is insisting on using in this issue is an unreliable source and can't be used for information about the actual case, contrary to WP guidelines on primary sources. Now he insists on (and is getting away with) using the very same document for some judge comments about an uninvolved party, again contrary to WP guidelines on primary sources. The only time Financeguy222 stops with edit warring is when an admin steps in and actively disagrees with him on the article talk page, or I simply give up and let him have his way. Equal blocks in these circumstances is patently unfair. I try talk page consensus. I try to negotiate changes and tell "both sides". I try noticeboards. I try mediation. I warn him when he's about to break 3RR. I don't break 3RR. He rejects 3rd party opinions. He refuses negotiation and consensus in talk. He deletes "the other side of the story". He removes well sourced material. He breaks 3RR. And we get equal blocks? And his versions remain in the article? What message is that sending me? Why should I bother with talk page discussion, consensus building, noticeboards, and mediation when it apparently doesn't matter at all, and edit warring gets "better" results?

Decline reason:

You edit warred. Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is, essentially, "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you think you are right". (You may also like to read WP:NOTTHEM.) JamesBWatson (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

(1) Could you please point to me to further clarification. WP:WAR says "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion". I have clearly, multiple times, tried to "resolve the disagreement by discussion" and I did not cross the 3RR threshold. I was explicitly trying to avoid a charge of edit-warring, I sincerely do not understand the charge. (2) I also do not understand an equal ban with someone who (a) did not try to resolve the disagreement by discussion (b) ignores noticeboard consensus and (c) did cross the 3RR threshold. Is making every attempt to resolve a problem and avoiding 3RR considered the equivalent of not attempting to resolve the problem and crossing the 3RR threshold? --Icerat (talk) 15:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

(1) Nowhere in that policy does it state "if the discussion is not working, keep edit warring". You are also not accused of 3RR in any notice I have seen related to this block; let's stop using that term for the moment, please. Can you see how three terse reverts of a person you've been edit warring with in the past might be in violation the policy you've linked to? (2) As noted, this is not the correct forum to discuss blocks of other editors.

I've read through some of the history here; not all, as there is too much to take in quickly. If you really have extended questions, I'd be happy to help and will watchlist this page. Kuru (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's the more general problem I have with what's going on. Sometime back BLP protection offered some protection for organisations. That was removed, with the argument essentially being "organisations can look after themselves", which to my mind conflicts with WP:COI. In many company/organisation articles, not just the ones I'm involved with, this leads to editors being allowed to add controversial, even potentially defamatory, poorly sourced information into articles on organisations and it's pretty much allowed to remain there while disputes are going on. On more than one occasion I have seen this material repeated in media sources, clearly having been sourced from wikipedia. Now, on articles like Scientology there's a significant number of editors involved so things get fought out pretty quickly by a number of editors and attract attention from experienced editors and admins. Poorly sourced controversial material doesn't stay very long. On the other hand, if we look at an article like Network TwentyOne, its about an organisation with several hundred thousand people affiliated with it around the world. The article gets views thousands of times a month. Or Amway, which has over 13,000 staff and over 7 million affiliated business owners (official figures of around 3.5million are for people who elect to maintain affiliation for more than a year), and whose article gets thousands of visits a day. A much bigger group of people than say Scientologists. These people are not corporate employees, they're generally small family owned businesses. Information that gets put in these articles directly affects their livelihoods and reputations, and they pretty much have no recourse to correct what's put in wikipedia. On MLM related articles virtually every time a new person comes in to edit them, and contributes something that might be construed as "positive", they're immediately challenged as having a COI. I have worked on articles for multiple different companies in the direct selling arena - and every single time I get accused of having a COI by editors with a "negative" POV except when I've put in "critical" information. These companies are competitors of each other! Yet there is next to no protection at all for poorly sourced, POV or controversial material that gets inserted. There are few editors working on them, and when things get sent to noticeboards they often attract no attention at all from uninvolved editors.

Look at the "controversy" section on the Network TwentyOne article. The first section is on a UK court case. Network 21 wasn't even involved in the case. The complaint was sealed, but some interested parties leaked some false information to the press about what the case was about. So this false information got repeated in the press, giving it RS support. The case got very little other coverage. I happen to have access to the complaint through sources so I know the description is false. If you read the judgment for the case, the judge even explicitly states that the case wasn't about what the newspaper said it was about. I tried putting "both sides of the story" in the article, both the newspapers description of the case, and the judges description that contradicted it. It just kept getting deleted. Trying to get noticeboard consensus failed as the anti-mlm cadre came in and claimed court document primary sources can't be used. The false newspaper description remains, and a year later that same cadre is defending, successfully thanks to this ban, using the very same source for derogatory comments about a company that wasn't even a party to the case.

Then look at the other "controversy" issue. In Poland years ago a movie was made that was critical of Amway. Some Amway distributors sued the producers for defamation and breach of copyright. The defamation case was initially dismissed and breach of copyright upheld, but on appeal the producers were found guilty of defamation and fined. So we have a movie where courts have found it defamatory. FG222 (aided by some others with anti-Amway perspectives) has continually deleted the fact that the producers were found guilty and fined, and expanded the information in the article about the movie. This is defamatory information affecting hundreds of thousands of individuals. But it remains. I tried getting the issue addressed in mediation [3]. It wasn't. No mediator took the case and more than a month later it was closed and I'd given up and taken a wikibreak. FG222 (and a handful of others) simply keep removing the sourced fact the case was dismissed, and that's how it remains, with court assessed defamatory statements about hundreds of thousands of people. The current sources don't even support the claims made there, I tagged them as such, but nothing will get done about it. If I try to remove it, FG222 will just edit war it back in. I'll try noticeboards and get swamped by the same handful of anti-mlm zealots (alas including some admins). I might even get consensus the info should be removed. That won't stop FG222. He'll just keep deleting it. Eventually I'll get frustrated, we'll both get banned and the false information will remain. This is my experience on virtually every network marketing related article. That's not what wikipedia should be about, but it's precisely why the wikimedia foundation is wondering why new wikipedians don't hang around long and old ones are quitting in droves. The zealots with more time on their hands are winning. --Icerat (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

Comments such as "The zealots with more time on their hands are winning" are not allowed per WP:CIVIL [4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh good grief. I wasn't just referring to wikipedia editors. Interesting though that it's just fine to disparage huge groups of defined people in an article, even individuals in one of the cases I've recently been involved in, without or even ignoring RS and BLP, but dare say something that might be construed as referring to an unnamed and indeterminate group of wikipedia editors!--Icerat (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Amway Reference Monitoring

• to move to subpage when I get editing rights back :) --Icerat (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)