Request made by: Tommac2 15:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the issue taking place?

This issue is taking place in the Atkins Diet section, and the talkpages of the involved users and the assigned mediator.

Who's involved?

BrianZ (talk · contribs) Tommac2 (talk · contribs)

What's going on?

BrianZ keeps removing external links from the External Links section. The history is as follows: 1) Brainz added his new site into the external links section and was asked to remove it. 2) BrianZ got angry and went back and started removing all other links that he felt shouldnt be there if his wasnt allowed. 3) I re-added the site and BrainZ keeps removing it.

What would you like to change about that?

The page http://www.atkinsdietbulletinboard.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=79 is a FAQ page for the Atkins Diet. The site atkinsdietbulletinboard.com is a non commercial site that has 25,000 members and 370000 threads on the subject of the atkins diet.

In addition there are many other similar discussion forums on the wikipedia. Look at the topic: Alcoholics Anonymous http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholics_Anonymous#Unofficial_A.A._sites_on_the_internet

I did a search and there are many others. So the pecident seem to be that if the boards are relevant and if they are added by other users and if they follow all of the rules in external links then they are ok to be added.

The initial link was added not by myself but by others in the atkins community.

I would like to have it re-included in the External Links section. Basically just have BrianZ stop from removing it.

He seems very animate about removing these links although noone else really seems to mind.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

You can call me at home or email me at tom@cuy.net

Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?

Yes

Tommac2 has approached me in regards to my denial of BrianZ's VandalProof application; this is a totally seperate issue. However, I'd like to attempt to resolve this and see the matter from the beginning to end (for personal experience in good faith), so I'm taking this case. --Xyrael ^T 17:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xyrael, I'm not sure how to fill out the template but I would like to report here that Tommac2 has been blocked for 24 hours previously (5 June, 2006) for a 3RR violation. I have just now reported him for another 3RR violation. BrianZ 14:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:BrianZ#External_Links User_talk:BrianZ#Your_VandalProof_Application User_talk:BrianZ#About_the_page_.5B.5BAtkins_Diet_Discussion_Forums.5D.5D User_talk:Xyrael#BrianZ_-_a_vandal_applying_for_VandalProof_membership User_talk:Xyrael#What_is_the_best_way_to_handle_a_case_where_there_is_a_content_dispute. User_talk:Xyrael#What_is_the_policy_BrianZ.3F User_talk:Tommac2 - vast majority of page here is on this topic

---

Please read this section as it is very disturbing and totally relevant. I feel that as a result of this research that BrianZ should be banned from wikipedia. Please read between the next two ----

---

I know this has been discussed adnauseum. But this is a must read to give you all a good idea of the history of these edits by BrianZ. Please read the following in its entirety. It is the discussion with Graemel about him not being allowed to post his site. Reading it after seeing all that has went on in the past few days is amazing. I will leave you all to your own conclusions about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GraemeL&oldid=53354796#Why_did_you_remove_my_link.3F

Then here is his next discussion with MonkeyMan :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Monkeyman#My_Atkins_Link

and Here is a list of his first posts to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20060516180354&limit=50&target=BrianZ

The bottom is the oldest. Very interesting ... and I feel throughs a bit of confusion and a bit of clarity into the situation.

One more piece of the puzzle. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20060601144407&limit=50&target=BrianZ

Now here is an interesting piece. He went on his own for a few days ... writing some articles about himself ... then out of nowhere went in and removed the link ... it was not like it was new or anything.

Wow!!!!!! ---- this is the proof!!!! --- - seriously this time!!! Look at this edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atkins_Nutritional_Approach&oldid=53352888 this is from BrianZ titled:

(cur) (last) 17:58, 15 May 2006 BrianZ (→External links - removed PETA-sponsored spam)

Cleverly hidden as removing PETA spam ... he removed all of relative Atkins Links.

Now Note the following sequences from the history of this forum.

(cur) (last) 17:58, 15 May 2006 BrianZ (→External links - removed PETA-sponsored spam) (cur) (last) 17:38, 15 May 2006 204.153.88.7 (→External links) (cur) (last) 17:38, 15 May 2006 Monkeyman m (→External links - {{cleanup-spam}}) (cur) (last) 17:36, 15 May 2006 Monkeyman m (rv to GraemeL.) (cur) (last) 17:35, 15 May 2006 204.153.88.7 (→External links - Why does it keep getting deleted, I'm just posting a link to a support forum.) (cur) (last) 17:33, 15 May 2006 GraemeL m (Reverted edits by 204.153.88.7 (talk) to last version by GraemeL)

Notice that there was 2 spam claenups by Graemel and MonkeyMan where AtkinsDietBulletinBoard.com survived. This is through where Brian added his site got it removed and then Monkeyman dis a spam cleanup and it was still there. So it was not determined to be spam by monkeyman.

Then as above. Concealed as the removal of Peta. He deleted all of the relevant Atkins Links and then went on his crusade of keeping all atkins links off of this board.

I am speechles.

Regards,

Tom Tommac2

Tommac2

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:204.153.88.7 -> BrianZ tried adding his link and Graemel rejuected it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:204.153.88.7 -> shows IP address is Brian Z

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Atkins_Nutritional_Approach&oldid=53359137 -> brianz clearly states that he is trying to promote his site: "Sure, we are promoting our sites, I'm not denying it. But by promoting our sites we are helping readers further educate themselves, which is what an encyclopedia truly is. In essence, support forum links are content for this article."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GraemeL#I_need_your_help_in_blocking_a_vandal_that_has_been_blocked_before - This is where BrianZ surely shows a vendetta against atkinsdietbulletinboard.com - The information he posts here was not true in fact he changes his stand later on.

Some of his removals:

1. (cur) (last) 18:43, 3 June 2006 BrianZ (→External links - placed diet discussion forums link lower to seperate from external links.)
2. (cur) (last) 18:34, 3 June 2006 BrianZ (→External links - deleting link to support forum, but I like your idea of creating a seperate page for support forum links. We'll see what is said about this.)
3. (cur) (last) 18:30, 3 June 2006 Tommac2 (→External links)
4. (cur) (last) 18:04, 3 June 2006 Tommac2 (→External links)
5. (cur) (last) 13:15, 3 June 2006 SynergyBlades m (→Induction - Word mix-up)
6. (cur) (last) 06:30, 3 June 2006 BrianZ (→External links - Once again, deleting forum site links, even though I disagree with the current policy.)
7. (cur) (last) 01:05, 3 June 2006 69.252.161.65 (→External links)
8. (cur) (last) 23:36, 2 June 2006 69.249.44.98 (→External links)
9. (cur) (last) 14:55, 2 June 2006 69.252.161.65 (→Induction)
10. (cur) (last) 14:29, 2 June 2006 BrianZ (→External links - removed edits for support forum disguised as Atkins FAQ.)
11. (cur) (last) 01:27, 2 June 2006 Tommaciejewski (→External links)
12. (cur) (last) 23:40, 1 June 2006 Viriditas (Revert unsourced speculation)
13. (cur) (last) 23:01, 1 June 2006 67.185.160.131 (→Criticism)
14. (cur) (last) 23:45, 31 May 2006 GraemeL m (Reverted edits by 207.45.240.31 (talk) to last version by BrianZ)
15. (cur) (last) 21:03, 31 May 2006 207.45.240.31 (→External links)
16. (cur) (last) 21:01, 31 May 2006 207.45.240.31 (→External links)
17. (cur) (last) 16:29, 31 May 2006 BrianZ (→External links)
18. (cur) (last) 06:52, 31 May 2006 69.178.41.55 (more on Atkins diet JAMA origins per his book, "Vita-nutrient solutions" pp 31-34)
19. (cur) (last) 15:44, 30 May 2006 207.45.240.31 (→External links)
20. (cur) (last) 15:53, 29 May 2006 BrianZ (→External links - removed spam to forum site atkinsdietbulletinboard (As much as I disagree with policy))
21. (cur) (last) 14:10, 29 May 2006 59.95.18.182 (→External links)
22. (cur) (last) 14:09, 29 May 2006 59.95.18.182 (→External links)
23. (cur) (last) 01:21, 28 May 2006 71.65.205.26 (→Induction)
24. (cur) (last) 20:00, 27 May 2006 Zzuuzz (undo unexplained reversion to mid-April version)
25. (cur) (last) 19:24, 27 May 2006 Rotten
26. (cur) (last) 15:26, 27 May 2006 68.42.3.139 (→External links)
27. (cur) (last) 01:29, 26 May 2006 BrianZ (→External links - removed spam site added by 207.45.240.31)

___________________________________________________________

BrianZ's evidence and side of the story:

A few years ago, I found that I got referrals from Wikipedia to my site. I came here and saw my page linked on the Atkins Nutritional Approach. I have returned, every so often to edit the articles content and once in a while readd my link, which I thought was deleted by a competitor because all other low carb support forums were still listed. a few weeks ago, I tried adding my support forum link to the article and it was deleted immediately and called spam by the user Graemel. After a very small edit war, Graemel explained to me that links to commercial, personal, or user community forums are not allowed on Wikipedia. After a brief discussion, I accepted policy and asked why, if mine was deleted, every other site that is exactly like mine was allowed to remain? Graemel explained that he missed those links but caught me. I rejected the claim of being caught and, much like Tom now, thought I was innocently adding a link for further information. he asked me to delete the links in question if they are indeed support forums that I know of.

The next step I made was asking all editors on the discussion page for Atkins Nutritional Approach their opinion about all support forum links being needed on the article. Tommac2 polluted my text and made it so discernable that you can't even read my inital thoughts without a headache. I felt that what I was doing was leaving my link off of the article until a general consensus was made as to the future of all support forum links. I never asked that mine be included and others should not. (That's what Tommac wants). I feel this is a huge misunderstanding on his part based on the fact that I left his board for another, then created my own a year later. He's misinformed and ignorant as to my real reasons for doing so. He has accused me of having something against his bulletin board when I do not. I would be having this same discussion with the owner of everythingatkins.com if they were spamming their forum on the article.

After I posted a plea to allow all supoprt forum links, I then made this edit: 17:38, 15 May 2006.

Meanwhile, The user Tommac2 had an IP account 207.45.240.31 and another username Tommaciejewski. He continued spamming while myself, Graemel, and others deleted his continued spam links.

Here's reverts made by Admin Graemel deleting his links:

• 17:46, 22 May 2006
• 23:45, 31 May 2006

Tommac also adds his links to South Beach diet and Low Carbohydrate diet and those are reverted by others as well:

• South Beach
• 03:33, 2 June 2006
• 05:33, 4 June 2006

And even Graemel here too: 23:45, 31 May 2006

• Low-carbohydrate diet:

22:46, 4 June 2006

You can see by Tommac2, Tommaciejewski, and his IP contirbutions that Tommac has nothing of value to add to the Atkins Nutritional Approach article besides his site link. This is the very definition of spam from Wikipedia and I can't even believe this issue has gone as far as it has.

I first extended an olive branch to Tommaciejewski. I think he stopped using that account because it basically told him everything that I felt and he wasn't happy with it I guess.

He is trying to slander me and make me look poorly. For example, when finding out I applied for VandalProof he jumped at the chance to paint a clouded picture of my reasons. When I actually signed up for VandalProof because after thinking about it, vandals have so much more free time than actual editors and I now have a passion for fighting it. I do thank Tommac2 for igniting the fire though.

Tommac2 has cluttered up about 8 valued Wikipedia contributors talk pages with slander about me and acting saintly so that one of his biggest competitors can be blocked, allowing him to reign freely over the article with his advertisements. As a contributing member to Wikipedia I implore you to stop this madness so that I can continue to write, edit, and wikify other Wikipedia articles. I've been spending too much time on this and it's very draining. (One reason why I asked for VandalProof authorization.)

I'm adding a note from my main userpage which explains why Wikipedia policy works:

I tried adding my support forum to the Atkins Nutritional Approach article and it was deleted. Once I understood policy, I began policing the article while actively contibuting to many other articles on Wiki. Many people do not understand that personal external links are not allowed on Wikipedia. if you're here because you are pissed at me, this will help you realize why I delete your spam:

Video games have articles on Wikipedia e.g. Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter. Video games have tons of fan sites and all of them think they are the best. Should Wikipedia allow one fan site to link themselves on Wikipedia because they feel they have the most valuable content and highest membership? of course not.

The same goes for any other Wikipedia article. If a site is not the offical site of the article in question or is neutral in all aspects, it hould not be included in the article. In that same vein, creating an article that is blatant self-promotion is also against policy. For further information, please see Wikipedia's policy pages.

____________________________________

Note: The below information is of no consequence to this mediation but it will give you a background story as to why he holds so much hostility towards me and why he is beyond capable of using objectivity. It is the email that I sent Tom in the very beginning, trying to calm him down and stop the madness between our two sites:

_______________________________

Hi Tom, this is BrianZ,.

I wrote on your talk page on Wikipedia the same sort of peace offering you're reading here except a little more personal. It's clear that there is a huge misunderstanding and I want to finally set the record straight and stop the hearsay that seems to driving a wedge between us. I never had a chance to talk to you about why I left ADBB and I want to tell you everything now. Please feel free to comment in reply.

It was October 2003. I started Atkins and found Atkins Diet Bulletin Board on the same Wikipedia article that we are in a huge huff over now. :) I even found my fiance on ADBB!! :) Beyond my knowledge, DON and Milhouse (Danny) created ABTB, Brook joined them after ADBB was down for almost a week. Many people stayed in touch via email with each other. One day, I got an email from Brook, asking me to moderate a few forums on this new site. I checked it out and liked what I saw. I was only an active member on ADBB for two months and I was excited to be thought of as informative. I emailed a few people that were friendly with me and they immediately came over. None of us ever tried to steal membership. There was no reason why people couldn't visit both ADBB and ABTB and we never discouraged it. A few weeks later, you came back and upgraded the site and made it reliable again. I actually thought to myself, All those people leaving was actually a good thing for you. It made ADBB good again.

Fast forward 8 months, Don decided to block out Danny and Brook from admin duties and FTP. I didn't accept money from them either because he wanted 100% ownership. Once Don personality shifted, I realized that he could snap at any minute. I began messing around with my own site so that we had something, anything, so that all these people had a place to go if Don lost it. It took about 3 months because it wasn't a priority to me. They couldn't go to ADBB because everyone that went to ABTB was meant to feel, by your staff, that they weren't welcome. (You'd think it was like early Camelot. We heard from many people that you felt betrayed and banned several people and we all, myself included, felt we weren't wanted there.)

One day, Don said, "I've had it, I don't want to do this anymore" and he locked the site. I opened my site and invited as many as I could. A moderator on ABTB, Linda, had the membership email distribution list for ABTB and she sent out an email. Within a day after that, we had 400 members. That is how AATW came to exist. I hear many things that you and your staff say about me and some of our members and it made me angry. I hope, that by reching out to you, we can stop with hearsay and speak directly to avoid other problems.

Here's a policy on our site that will prove that I'm not trying to steal members from ADBB:

Any contributing member on AATW is allowed, at any time, to link to any low-carb site, including ADBB, with interesting information that could be of use to any Atkins Dieter. I would rather link, then steal information. If I thought for a minute that people wouldn't come back, that policy would not exist.

I encourage people to join as many forums as they need for full support. Many people choose to make a home elsewhere and that's okay. I'm not trying to horde people.

Honestly, from your point of view, I wouldn't want half my membership to leave for another low carb forum either. I can understand how angry you were, if not a little hurt. But you have been directing anger towards the wrong person. I am an innocent guy that is being hounded here. I never expected to have an Atkins support forum when I joined ADBB way back when. But I have one now and I do the best I can.

I understand how SEO works and I know we compete for traffic. Beyond that, there is no reason why we have to attack each other anymore. We should create content and culture to attract users. I also understand that Wikipedia is a great place to add links back to your site. This is why Wikipedians don't want it included. But from our side, support forums are an important resource for these articles and should be included. We need to work together to change policy and allow support forums to be included either under "Reference" or "For More Information." Let's do this and stop the insanity and adding forum sites until a decision has been made.

I've heard many things from former ADBB members about things you say about me or things you think about AATW and ABTB. I just wanted to say it directly to you now and get it out of the way. Hopefully, we can be civil and remain competitors, but respectfully.

If you've heard things about me or things I've said about ADBB, please bring it up in a reply and I will tell you the truth. There are alot of assumptions and hearsay between us and I want to squash it. Wikipedia is not a place to do this though because it makes us look like two spammers arguing that the other is more of a spammer than ourselves. It looks ridiculous. I apologize for alot of the things I said about you and ADBB on Wikipedia at first. But you must understand that I was angry because it seemed as though you kept adding ADBB to the article despite warnings and repeated deletions. I don't want my site listed on Wikipedia if ADBB, low-carb friends, and everythingatkins, etc. is not. I hope the feeling is mutual after you've read my stance.

I sense alot of anger from you towards me and I understand it may be from misinformation. I'm really a good guy Tom, as I'm sure you are too.

Looking forward to hearing from you,

-- 
Brian Zimmerman 

________________________________________

Now, here's his response:

________________________________________

the question is why are you deleting them off the main page? They are not in violation!!!!

Regards, Tom

___________

Obviously not someone that wants to have a mediation. his goal is to have me banned so he can freely post his site while forcing out his competitors. It's the behavior of a Madman/Vandal/Spammer. He has no intention of making the article better, he simply wants traffic and more Google PageRank.

I would expect no less than a firm statement about adding external links to Wikipedia. Reading it from a policy page is not good enough. He needs words from others. If you have any other questions or need more info from me, please let me know on my talk page. BrianZ 19:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

______________________________________________

Rebuttal by Tom, moved by BrianZ as not to interrupt my text:

-- Brian, How many posts did you have before your link to AATW got denied? You want to paint the picture that you are a wikipedian at heart. I personally dont by this and I feel that the evidence is there that there is an alterior motive. Above you tried to paint a negative picture of me. However here is your history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20060516180354&limit=50&target=BrianZ

Note Here are your first posts -- you can see that your affiliation with wikipedia started with your adding of your site to the Atkins Diet site:

18:50, 15 May 2006 (hist) (diff) m Talk:Atkins Nutritional Approach (→Ketosis)

18:36, 15 May 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Atkins Nutritional Approach (→External Links Discussion - Asking for exclusion)

18:35, 15 May 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Atkins Nutritional Approach (→External Links) 18:33, 15 May 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Atkins Nutritional Approach 18:14, 15 May 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Monkeyman (→My Atkins Link) 18:14, 15 May 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Monkeyman (My Atkins Link) 18:10, 15 May 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:GraemeL (→Why did you remove my link?)

18:08, 15 May 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:GraemeL (→Why did you remove my link?)

18:01, 15 May 2006 (hist) (diff) User:204.153.88.7 17:58, 15 May 2006 (hist) (diff) Atkins Nutritional Approach (→External links - removed PETA-sponsored spam) 17:57, 15 May 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:GraemeL (→Why did you remove my link?)

-- This is the very interesting conversation with GraemeL ... Please read in its entirety!!! ---

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GraemeL&oldid=53354796#Why_did_you_remove_my_link.3F

some exerpts from Graemel:

I've posted a standard warning message to your talk page explaining the removal. Please add content, not external links to articles. Adding links to your own site is also specifically against policy. --GraemeL (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC) I understand your thinking, but my site is not spam, I am not selling a single thing on my site, it's a forum for Atkins support for those on Atkins. The fact that you remove my forum, yet leave everyone else's there shows me that you are either a competitor for traffic or you think you know more about my site than you do. I've deleted every support forum as they to "violate policy."

More for Graemel: No, it's an attempt to stop people spamming the wiki. I caught you, not the others. Live with it. --GraemeL (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC) Even more ... very relevant: I caught you adding a link to your own site which is specifically against Wikipedia policy. I do not have any axe to grind about the article in question. The only reason that I watch it is that it gets a lot of spam. I'm likely to call anybody who only adds links without actually contributing anything to the project a spammer, registered or not. I do see that you've removed the "resource" links from the article. That's probably the best solution to balance it out. I was going to add a tag to get somebody interested in the subject to take a detailed look at the links, but you removing the section kind of trumped that. I wont be adding them back in. --GraemeL (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

WOW !!!! the kicker by BrianZ to Graemel !!! :

That's fair and if that's the consensus, I'm okay with that. I just want you to know that I'm not a spammer. I would add every low carb forum if I came upon this article without any listed because there are so many people doing Atkins wrong and it gives it a bad name. Sites like mine and atkins diet bulletin board help them do it correctly and get better results, it's not about spam at all. I could care less about Google rank actually. I just want to help people that want to do Atkins, do it right. I'm not going to delete "all" I'm just going to delete extremist sites like Peta sponsored Physicians Group for Responsible Medicine and other PETA agenda sites.

-- Now after BrianZ posted all of that here is his discussion with monkey man -- I've had a discussion with Graeml (sp) and I understand why it was deleted, but I didn't understand why other sites, exactly like mine, were allowed. After having the discussion with Graeml, I've removed all links to forums as well as PETA-sponsored "expose"-type sites that sell a vegetarian agenda.

I apprecciate the help and less-accusing tone. BrianZ 18:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

-- BrianZ I am asking you again not to take this personally. All I am asking for is to have the links you are removing added back. That is all. I am not interested in anything else. You seem to be taking all of this too personally. You have accused me of bein a spammer, a vandal, of trying to increase my google page rankings and much more. you have posted many times "Tom thinks ... and Tom feels ..." again dont speak for me.

Can we just stop with all of that.

I am trying to reach an agreement with you. What would it take for you to stop removing the links ( To my site and to the others that you removed )

I have shown above that there are other forums that are listed in wiki. Alcoholics Anonymous for example ( official and non official ).

I have shown that atkinsdietbulletinboard.com does not violate any of the external links rules.

You have stated that Graemel has stated that adding community forums is against the rules.

You ( BrianZ )stated: After a very small edit war, Graemel explained to me that links to commercial, personal, or user community forums are not allowed on Wikipedia.

But in reality this is what was said: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:204.153.88.7&oldid=53348521

Graemel stated: Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. See the welcome page to learn more. Thanks. -- GraemeL (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that BrianZ had added the part about community forums. The note was more of a warning about him adding his own site.

I dont have anything personal against you Brian. I really dont. I just dont think it is fair for you to make up your own rules. I have asked numerous times why you are removing the link and you continue to say it is against the rules. I again ask ... Which rule does it violate?

You state you agree that forums should be included. Yet you have made it your quest to remove them. No one had mentioned that they are against policy.

The initial link was there added by someone and you are removing it. It seems that you are removing it because you dont think it is fair that it is there and that you site was removed. Is this correct?

All I am asking is that you dont remove the site. Just sit back and leave it. The site can help people. It is not commercial. It is one of the leading sites in the communtiy. It follows all of the Wikipedia rules. It is relevant. It has tons of information about the diet that would not be plausable or desirable to be kept on wikipedia.

And I think this could be said about a few of the other sites you are removing.

In addition I it seems to be wikipedia policy to allow community forums as can be seem by the external links in many of the other sites.

Regards, Tom Tommac2

____________________________________

More from Brianz BrianZ 21:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see from Tom's words above that he isn't aware that a link to my site AtkinsAlltheWay.com was on the article in question long before this mess occurred, added by other people as well.

His argument that I wasn't a Wikipedian by heart before my article was deleted is true. I visited Wikipedia many times as a guest and even had an account long ago but forgot the password. But after Graemel explained to me why Support forum links shouldn't be included and that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertisemnt, I began editing the Atkins Nutritional Approach article to ensure that it was clean. Tommac has pasting away all my comments as if to "unviel" my true colors, but he falls to bold the correct things. For instance:

You pasted the following text with your bold type included for effect:

That's fair and if that's the consensus, I'm okay with that. I just want you to know that I'm not a spammer. I would add every low :carb forum if I came upon this article without any listed because there are so many people doing Atkins wrong and it gives it a bad :name. Sites like mine and atkins diet bulletin board help them do it correctly and get better results, it's not about spam at all. :I could care less about Google rank actually. I just want to help people that want to do Atkins, do it right. 'I'm not going to :delete "all" I'm just going to delete extremist sites like Peta sponsored Physicians Group for Responsible Medicine and other PETA :agenda sites.

When you didn't even see this:

That's fair and if that's the consensus, I'm okay with that. I just want you to know that I'm not a spammer. I would add every :low carb forum if I came upon this article without any listed because there are so many people doing Atkins wrong and it gives it a :bad name. Sites like mine and atkins diet bulletin board help them do it correctly and get better results, it's not about :spam at all. I could care less about Google rank actually. I just want to help people that want to do Atkins, do it right. I'm :not going to delete "all" I'm just going to delete extremist sites like Peta sponsored Physicians Group for Responsible Medicine :and other PETA :agenda sites.

By saying, "I'm not going to delete 'all'", I meant every single external link on the article and become a menace (like you have become).

Your behavior the last few days has ensured the outcome of this situation and has changed my stance again. Would I like my site listed along with everyone else's? Sure. But I don't need it there like you seem to need yours there. I no longer think that all Support forum links added and I don't reluctantly delete these great sites from the article anymore. Because of your behavior, I'm now a convert and I am a Vandal fighter and I will delete your spam and anyone elses on the Atkins article until they pry my cold dead fingers from this keyboard.

You have added atkinsdietbulletinboard.com to the article as Tommac2, Tommaciejewski, and your IP. You've also enlisted your own membership to do the dirty work for you and have since gotten the article locked. You seem to be doing yourself tremndous favors. This type of masking and poor behavior has no place on Wikipedia as noted by the lock placed on the article by Admin Theresa Knott.

Tommac2 says:

All I am asking is that you dont remove the site. Just sit back and leave it. The site can help people. It is not commercial. It is :one of the leading sites in the communtiy. It follows all of the Wikipedia rules. It is relevant. It has tons of information about :the diet that would not be plausable or desirable to be kept on wikipedia.

And I think this could be said about a few of the other sites you are removing.

Your site can help people? Better than mine? It's not commercial? yet you have adsense and a low-carb storefront? It is one of the leading sites in the community. I don't doubt that. You know where they get the phrase "One of the leading?" It's when other sites exist that are exactly the same as yours. My site, atkinsalltheway.com is exactly like yours. Mine is "one of the leading" too. They do not follow all of the Wikipedia rules for external links. You're the only person desperate enough to try and find a loophole in the system. I agree, your site is relevant. As is mine, and everythingatkins, low-carb friends, low-carb for life, etc. But they don't belong in an encyclopedia.

Also, you no longer need to slander me by discussing this on talk and the Atkins discussion pages. Any further communication can be settled here. I have to admit that it was wonderful while you were blocked from the site for 24 hours, yesterday afternoon until this afternoon, because I was able to actually do some fun work with Wikipedia by editing and wikifying several articles including adding the book, Dr. Atkins "Atkins for Life" to the Atkins Nutritional Approach article.

I also implore you -- Don't interrupt my edits here with extra points. Place them after my comments please. You are making this a very confusing read. BrianZ 21:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allow Atkins Diet Bulletin Board to be added. I believe that BrianZ stance is that he doesnt want to see sites that do not follow wikis rules added to the wiki.

If someone states that this site is following the rules then it would appear that BrianZ would stop.

From the research that I did it seems that there are many cases where similar sites are listed like on : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholics_Anonymous#Unofficial_A.A._sites_on_the_internet

There are many others. In addition this site abides by all of the rules of the external links section.

Brian what exactly is your stance on this? What would it take for us to work this out?

Here is my stance - All Support forums should be allowed in my personal opinion. However, at this point it is against Wikipedia policy to have external links to personal and commercial websites unless they are the official site of the subject of the article. It is absolutely an unfair practice to allow one support forum and deny all others the same respect. My support forum is no less important than Tommac2's and should be added as well as several others that provide information and help to those on the Atkins Diet. I have already tried to explain why these links are important for the article. I realize that even if we do allow inclusion of these forums to the article that there will be constant deletions from others that are unaware of this discussion and we will continually need to monitor our links. This Wikipedia policy exists to ensure fairness and I'm in agreement with it. Tommac2 is trying to enforce his site as different from all others when it is actually not and he never, ever understood, no matter how hard I tried to explain, that I think we all deserve to be listed.

However, If we are added, I know that this user - based on past experience - will sort lists so that his is first instead of a normal alphabetically list, like any other encyclopedia. That is why I feel current policy should remain. The success of my site does not depend on being included in the Atkins article.

You said, "What would it take for us to work this out?" Maintain Wikipedia policy and not allow links to support forums. The past few days has clearly shown that anything else will create unneccesary hostily on every form of Wikipedia page including: Admin Talk Pages, Editor Talk Pages, mediation pages, VandalProof Application pages, and Article discussion pages. BrianZ 20:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:External links is the external links policy. Cowman109^Talk 16:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- Yes. I didnt see a violation of any of the External Links rules. It actually seems to fit in quite well.

The site is non commercial, on topic, one of the largest Atkins Diet sites, Free, and has tons of relevant information. It was also added by someone other than the owner.

Tommac2

Now Tommac is employing his site's membership to add his link to the Wikipedia article.

• 20:37, 5 June 2006
• 19:44, 5 June 2006

As you can see, he has no plans of stopping. BrianZ 22:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Thanks to Theresa Knott who protected the page from guests. 21:05, 5 June 2006

BrianZ 22:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BrianZ please dont make accusations!!! This is simply not true.

Tommac2

This will be my last post in this discussion and I appologize for getting into all of this with BrianZ but I am disturbed about what I discovered today and just wanted to make it absolutely clear what has happened. The evidence is above and is very clear as to the series of events. The way I came about this evidence is that I was looking to see BrianZs first posts on WikiPedia. SO I went to his history and I was suprised what I found.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/BrianZ

Here is the series of events I will keep it short and precise:

1) BrainZs 1st post to Wikipedia.org was to spam his site "Atkins All the Way"

2) Site removed and handslap by GraemeL

3) Long Discussion with GraemeL about why his site was removed ( Self adding and promotion of site ) -- Note: AtkinsDietBulletinBoard.com and other forums and sites still remained.

4) Disucssion with how it was unfair to have his removed but others stay with user MonkeyMan

5) Spam cleanup of the Atkins Diet section by MonkeyMan - Note: AtkinsDietBulletinBoard.com and other forums and sites still remained.

6) A simple edit of the External Links section with comment "Removing Peta Links" - this edit was really to remove all of the external links from the Atkins Diet site. Note: AtkinsDietBulletinBoard.com and other forums and sites removed.

7) A crusade about removing external links from all diet sites.

8) Accusations about me being a spammer and the following edit war.

All of this can be followed by looking at his contributions since becoming a member. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/BrianZ

I am appauled about this. This is not what wikipedia is all about.

I would like to see him banned. Or at least an appology from him. Am I overreacting?

Regards, Tommac2

Tom, I'm not denying anything but #6. The PETA remark, was probably just one sample of items I deleted. I believe in that edit I also categorized the links into seperate groups.

I've never tried to hide the fact that I first arrived here to check on my site and if it was still here, it wasn't so I added it. If you check my user page you will see that I have been a professional writer for over 10 years. I have been to Wikipedia and was a minor user at one time, but only recently decided to become more involved as I now work from home. Do you really think I would waste my time editing all the articles I have been editing just to "seem" like I was a regular member of Wiki? If so, check my edits and make sure they werne't just some rush jobs. Attention everyone: My first posts to Wiki this year were to add my site to the external links section of the Atkins article again. I have since seen the error of my ways and become a true Wiki editor. There, I said it, so you can stop trying to make me look like I am hiding it. Maybe, when you are shown the error of your ways you can start contributing in other places and maybe you'll get in a stupid flame war with another support forum admin.

Whatever is decided, I will continue to be a part of Wiki, even if it is decided that I am the one who is wrong. Will you? Based on your contributions and previous shady edits by using multiple accounts I doubt it.

I was wondering if we are supposed to talk this out. If so I dont think that this is going to happen. I think both of us have provided all of our evidence.

What I want in the mediation is that the External Links section be reverted until before BrainZ made his deletions. This is fair. If an admin later decides to change policy or whatever I am OK with that. The only issue I have is that the External Links section is being changed with what seems to be an alterior motive.

Brian, do you think this is fair? Can we agree on that? Later on if someone at wiki decides that the link rules get changed then so be it. For now we just revert to before you started making your changes.

I really do believe that this is fair and I can assure you BrianZ that I have no alterior motives. ADBB has been a quality site for going on 11 years now ( through different names ) and almost 4 as ADBB. We have done lots of good things for the Atkins Community and I personally would just like to ask you to respect that. We agree on a revert and let the admins take it from here.

Regards, Tommac2

Absolutely not Tom. I'm not sure if you are able to see anything that I have posted on this page above. Your site is no different from mine except for the fact that yours is older. Other than that, our sites are exactly the same, essentially "Atkins Diet Fan Sites" if you will. So, to you, fair means that your link as well as everyone else, but mine should be allowed? What you suggest is the opposite of fair. You claim that your site was added by someone else, not you. I claim the same. My site was removed prior to me even coming here in mid-May to add it back. Check the history prior to Me being here, you'll see the site. I'm not even sure if who added what can be proven either. It's all hearsay so far. You've already denied, to the person that semi protected the article, telling your members to visit and spam your site when it was obvious what was going on.

At this point, Slandering me and trying to make me look bad is your last resort. You've already been blocked for spamming your site with your IP, then you were warned by admins to stop with Tommmajewski or whatever it was, then you were were just blocked for 24h for a violation of 3RR yesterday. I think you truly know you are wrong but you are trying to circumvent the system and policies in place. Reqesting to have me banned when I have done nothing but conform to Wikipedia's policies and enforced them is nothing short of "Last Resort."

Anyone with an open mind is going to side with policy. Otherwise, why would it exist?

Here's what I think is fair and what is currently Wikipedia policy:

All external links which are commercial or personal in nature and are not the official links of the subject in question should be deleted. Your site does not deserve exclusion from all of the 50 support forums because of it's age alone. That is the only difference betweeen our sites. Whether you value the information on my site or not is your opinion and shouldn't be a basis of inclusion so there is no need to even bring it up anymore.

The basis of your argument is, "I want my support forum link added because BrianZ keeps deleting it" Nothing more, nothing less. The why is up to the mediator and fellow Wikipedians to decide. Adding extranneous information is only skirting the issue at hand.

I'm sorry for writing things like, "Tom thinks" and "Tom wants" too. I never meant to convey that I knew what was going through your mind. It's just, by the things you say, I think that sometimes you are actually joking with me.

You say that we have both provided the neccessary evidence. I agree. Let's leave it alone and let Xyrael form an unbiased opinion now. He'll get to it when he can. Continuiously posting on every possible Wiki members talk page isn't going to get you on anyone's good side, nor is it going to make this proceed any faster. As a matter of fact, I haven't seen one person agree with you in any of your rants. BrianZ 01:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found the following revisions on the article in question after digging for more evidence to dispute the untruths:

• 16:21, 4 December 2004 4.157.26.227 User IP: 4.157.26.227 added a link to atkinsalltheway.com
• 05:38, 20 December 2004User IP: 68.193.60.122 made a nice description of the site. That was pretty nice of them.
• 13:12, 29 March 2006 Graemel parsed many links on the article because, as you can clearly see, the edit before Graemel deleted things, being huge and very unorganized. He left yours and some others because of the decieving domain names. Kudos on grabbing those domain names BTW, I guess that's the advantage of being older.

As you can see by those edits, my site was including in the external links section from 20 December 2004 through 29 March 2006. Proving that my site was listed on here prior to my May 06 arrival as BrianZ. Which my first entry: 14:09, 15 May 2006 was putting it back after just about 45 days off the list. Can you see why I was a little upset with Graemel for deleting me link to the site??

Oh, and I found my old username: BrianZimm Feel free to look up that account too and dig all kinds of dirt up on me there too. :)

If all old sites had exclusivity on the Internet, we would be without Google and even Wikipedia. Can you imagine?

BrianZ 02:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- Firstly how is this relevant to solving this issue Brian? secondly these two appear to be spam. Again seems suspicious that a unregistered user comes in and all that they add is a link to your site. 2004 would put you at the beginning of your site with very very few members.

In any case please stop with the smoke screens. DO you want to work this out or do you have no intention Brian. How can we work this out?

I am proposing that we agree to leave the links as they were before you edited them away. Lets let the admins deal with this.

Can we work this out? Are you willing to mediate at all Brian? Or is this thing over? Regards, Tom Tommac2

It's relevent because you keep bringing up your opinion that I was spamming my site on the article. The above proof was to once again disarm you from further slander.

Tom, like I said, I believe policy should win out. You say it seems suspicious that an unregistered user comes in and all that they add is a link to my site.

That is the exact same thing you did! Then you created a username, then switched to the one you are using now and continued spamming BrianZ 13:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really doubt Brian will agree to anything short of whatever it is he is looking for. What is the next step?

Regards, Tom Tommac2

It's plain to see, to anyone reading this and keeping up with this mediation, that I am on the side of policy, and you are on the side of wanting to advertise your site. Like I have said, I no longer care whether my site is listed, I don't need listing here for my site to succeed. The point is, the external links section gets completely out of hand if this policy is not followed and you can see that by looking at any revision between 20 December 2004 and 29 March 2006. Many editors and Admins have removed links to these support forums, not just me and you continue to fight and fight and fight with me instead of trying to maturely ask for a concensus, as I did in mid-May. You cannot see that I used to agree with you about support forum links, but your behavior this last week proves to me and to everyone why the policy shuold remain for this article. And I'm sorry for that because I actually used to think that support forums were a viable resource for the article. I can see now that we are the reason why it will never happen. BrianZ 14:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I wanted to add: You cannot revert the article to revisions made two weeks ago. There are too many edits to simply erase. Also, if you revert the page one more time, I will have no choice but to report you again. 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. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. BrianZ 14:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, Again it seems that your plan is to keep throwing accusations out there to cloud the issues. The evidence is as above. People can read it.

What can we do to mediate this? The sites you removed are not against any wiki policy. And your motives are questionable.

That being said I would suggest that you step back and let someone step in to police the external links section.

Here is what I am suggestion for mediation solution.

1) You step back and stop deleting links from the Atkins Diet Site. 2) We get in an unbiased third party that will police the External Links section. They can keep it clear of spam and if they decide that the current links there do not follow the wiki rules then they can do as they please.

Brian, That is as fair as it gets. Basically saying we both step back and let wiki do what wiki does best.

Deal?

See, that's the thing. You want to revert the article so that your site is listed there and you want us to wait until mediation is resolved. Why do you want your link there so badly? Alterior Motive? Why is that as fair as it gets? I know that the best way to mediate this is to enforce policy until it is decided that the policy should or should not be circumvented. No more, no less BrianZ 14:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is reverting the article back to what it was on May 26, 2006. Nullifying other edits besides my deletions of his spam. I also believe he is trying to avoid the semi-protect placed on the article by Theresa knott.

-- Brian ... again why do you believe something. I am not trying to avoid anything. Stop making accusations.

-- Brian this is all smoke screen. there is an offer on the table. Do you accept it? Or do we need to continue all of this. It is a fair offer and it resolves the issue at hand. --Tommac2 14:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are reverting as much as I am. Please stop with the smoke screens.

I have put an offer on the table to resolve this issue. Do you accept?

1) You step back and stop deleting links from the Atkins Diet Site.

2) We get in an unbiased third party that will police the External Links section. They can keep it clear of spam and if they decide that the current links there do not follow the wiki rules then they can do as they please.

It will be solved if you agree to the above. Then this is over and we go on with our lives. It is fair as another unbiased person will be making the decision.

Do you accept this offer? --Tommac2 14:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have fully protected the article and blocked both editors for twelve hours to enforce a cooldown period. When the blocks expire, please discuss changes to the article on its talk page, and when both of you come to an agreement, you may request that the article be unprotected. Thanks Naconkantari 15:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- Thank you Naconkantarti! Do you think we should continue it on the Atkins Diet talk page or here?

Brian,

   Can we discuss this issue civally.  I have put the following on the table:

1) You step back and stop deleting links from the Atkins Diet Site.

2) We get in an unbiased third party that will police the External Links section. They can keep it clear of spam and if they decide that the current links there do not follow the wiki rules then they can do as they please.

Do you find this reasonable?

Regards, Tom Tommac2

The following is a cut and paste from the Atkins discussion page:

Due to the fact that you weaseled your way by having the last edit before the article was locked, Policy has been averted in this case. It's a wonderful victory for spammers like you and I applaud you for being able to stick it out and find a way around common sense. I will continue to edit Wikipedia articles. However, external links on any page will never be something I take care of again. I have been completely and utterly victimized by the Wikipedia community that tells me it's good to police spam, yet I get blocked for protecting an article's honesty.

I still have faith in editors like me, that stand up for Policy on Wikipedia. I just wish them Godspeed in fighting spammers like you. I guess they are going to need it, because I know you will never, ever stop vandalizing Atkins Nutritional Approach, South Beach diet and Low-carbohydrate diet. You will never stop the multiple account spamming and telling your friends to post your link on the article, you will never stop deleting people's edits on talk pages and interrupting them making them unreadable. Maybe I just don't have the time or the fortitude to fight these massive battles against Vandals and spammers. From now on, I prefer to stick to the high ground and not let individuals like you drag me down to your level.

It's going to take a very long time for me to build trust in Wikipedia again, but I have seen many pluses, as a writer, for being here. They still outweigh the individuals with hidden agendas like you and I'll be damned if I let you dictate which sites I visit.

BrianZ 05:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]