User talk:Pixelface

Speedy deletion of Wikipedia:The Trivia Game

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages such as Wikipedia:The Trivia Game, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Wikipedia:The Trivia Game|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. GameKeeper (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC) .

I quite enjoyed it but its soon time for it to go. Uncyclopedia needs you! GameKeeper (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope you've got a copy of this somewhere and can put it somewhere more appropriate for posterity. Inspired, and potentially not such a bad idea for a real product either. --BrucePodger (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for your kind words, but I've been here long enough to know I shouldn't do that sort of thing. I'm glad someone saw the article yesterday, rather than having to g7 it later myself. I'm sorry Orangemike had to waste time dealing with it. I will put any future April Foolery on Uncyclopedia. --Pixelface (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No big. I'm just a grump about April Foolery on Wikipedia, since we spend so much time fighting hoaxes and disinformation every other day of the year. It's like "secret pages" and other Facebook-esque content of non-encyclopedic tone. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

List_of_top_100_web_sites_in_the_United_Kingdom

Permission from Alexa. Because Alexa Internet understands that we are an information resource, we are happy to have people refer to our data in their own work. As long as you credit us appropriately as the source, do not mis-represent the data or attribute Alexa Internet with your subsequent analysis thereof, please feel free to cite Alexa's information, including our charts and graphs, in your publications. There is no copyvio here. Can you please reconsider your vote?Anwar (talk) 01:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I initially only made a comment because I hadn't come to a decision, but after reading that FAQ, I've decided to say keep. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. --Pixelface (talk) 04:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip about Compete. It's an awesome site. Also, the list is now sortable with additional data from Compete.com. So, it is no longer a wholesale reproduction of Alexa ranks only.Anwar (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I do like a good Simpsons quote

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		"Keep, it's a perfectly cromulent encyclopedia entry." Heh.--Father Goose (talk) 01:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I am embiggened by your generosity :). --Pixelface (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Plot

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, you will be blocked from editing. You've been warned many times not to remove it. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't vandalize anything. Please read WT:NOT#Plot. A discussion has been going on for over a month and there is no consensus for the Plot summaries section to be under WP:IINFO. And don't template the regulars, Will. --Pixelface (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You need a consensus to remove it, not a no-consensus to keep it. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it needs to have consensus to stay in the policy, which it doesn't have. --Pixelface (talk) 18:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No, you need a consensus to remove. No consensus results, and always has done, in keeping the status quo. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If an item of policy has no consensus, it needs to be removed. You're thinking of AFD debates Will. --Pixelface (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope. It's always meant "keep the status quo" throughout Wikipedia. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You seriously need to stop the pointy edits, using a thread that was started by your actions as evidence shows how strongly you feel about this, however the discussion on the talk page still hasn't reached a consensus to remove the entry, the closest thing is a proposal to change but not remove, you are edit warring and you should realize that you can be blocked for breaking the 3RR in this case. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a bureacracy. I don't have to show consensus to remove an item from policy that has no consensus. Show me where there's consensus that plot-only stubs make Wikipedia an indiscriminate collection of information or go away. --Pixelface (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you even read the thread? most of the discussion going in there is dealing with the definition that will be used, there is no consensus to remove. Its obvious that you are pushing a issue that was started by your actions too far, and that my friend is the very definition of "disrupting the encyclopedia to prove a point". - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've read the whole thing. Have you? Do you notice all the people that said it belongs in WP:WAF and not a list of things Wikipedia is not? Plot-only stubs don't make Wikipedia an indiscriminate collection of information and I challenge you to show me consensus otherwise. --Pixelface (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

"All the people"? only Taxman has gone as far explicitly saying that it should go in WAF, the others are still discussing what to do with it. You already know that PLOT was kept in NOT by previous consensus and you responded that it was a "consensus of a few" or something along those lines, there is no way I'm going to get involved in a circular argument. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay my bad there was also SmokeyJoe, that makes three with you. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Please read the thread again. I may have mispoke when I said "Do you notice all the people that said it belongs in WP:WAF and not a list of things Wikipedia is not?" And Taxman is against removing the Plot summaries section. However, Father Goose said "This is more a style issue than a content issue, so the appropriate place for it is arguably in a guideline, not in a content-exclusion policy."[1] , DGG said "More generally, NOT PLOT as it is written does not belong in NOT--policy should be general principles, not the details found there."[2] 23skidoo said "I agree with those who feel this is better suited for MoS rather than trying to pigeonhole it into a policy that, technically, is intended to supress content."[3] , Eubulide said "I object to treating plot details in a different way than other types of sourced information in WP." and "This is done only for plot summaries and nobody gave an explanation for this exception. If an article is missing real-world context, the reasonable approach is to add such context, not delete the rest."[4] , SmokeyJoe said "I think WP:NOT#PLOT, as written, belongs in WP:WAF."[5] , Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles said "We should remove the plot section of what Wikipedia is not."[6] , and Hobit said "I'll chime in by saying I don't think issues of plot summary should be here."[7]. Now you show me where there's consensus that plot-only stubs make Wikipedia an indiscriminate collection of information. --Pixelface (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing

Your consistent removal and blanking of sections of the Wikipedia policy page, what wikipedia is not, is disruptive and unconstructive. Collected and civil discussion with the wider editorial community (that means talk page discussion, for the record) is the way to address qualms with the content of policy, not blanking and forcing through your opinion with reverting. I have blocked you for 12 hours; please do not disrupt Wikipedia. Anthøny 19:05, 16 April 2008 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have removed a section of WP:IINFO that does not have consensus on the talk page. I have discussed the removal of that section extensively on the talk page. And I have not violated the three revert rule.

Decline reason:

No consensus means no change - this is standard procedure across the project, and applies to everything from deletion debates to policy discussions. Unless there is a clear consensus to make your changes, they should not be made. The manner in which you made the changes is also disruptive. You are encouraged to read WP:CON while you wait for your block to expire. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:13, 16 April 2008 (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.

I've read Wikipedia:Consensus. It says[8] "Policies and guidelines document communal consensus rather than creating it." and "In the case of policy pages a higher standard of participation and consensus is expected." and "Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for the community to change its mind. Past decisions are open to challenge and should not be "binding" in the sense that the decision cannot be taken back." and "if one person or a limited group of people can reasonably demonstrate a change in consensus, then it is reasonable to effect the change at a process page. " and "Remember that we try to document actual practice, not prescribe rule-sets." and "If you notice that a particular policy or guideline page is not in line with current consensus, feel free to update it."

If the Plot summaries section of WP:IINFO had consensus to be in WP:NOT on WT:NOT, I would not have removed it. But several people stated it belongs in a guideline, not WP:NOT. And I have shown on WT:NOT that the Plot summaries section did not have consensus even when it was first proposed in June 2006. I made one removal and one revert on April 16, 2008 and I have been blocked. Sceptre should be able to demonstrate a higher standard of consensus that plot-only stubs make Wikipedia an indiscriminate collection of information. He has failed to do that. If the Plot summaries section actually had consensus, there would not be people saying it belongs in a guideline.

The editor who reverted me[9] [10], Sceptre, mistakenly thinks[11] that that part of policy is in there because it has to do with "derivative works" and fair use restrictions, and it does not. I believe this is simply harassment by Sceptre, who was also an involved party in the Episodes and characters 2 arbitration case. --Pixelface (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is not the same as unanimity. You still disagree with consensus; that doesn't give you authority to rewrite things to fit your (distinctly minority) view. Sceptre and Hersfold are speaking for the consensus here in their actions. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no consensus for that section to be a part of policy. --Pixelface (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Pixel the reason behind you actions seems apparent, its common knowledge by your participation on AFDs that you have a tendency to protect some fictional articles, thus you seem to be trying to get PLOT degraded from a policy such as NOT to a guideline in WAF, in the process opening the door to future debates about the validity of the guideline in AFD just like FICT. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If you can show consensus that plot-only stubs make Wikipedia an indiscriminate collection of information, please do so. I'm all ears right now. --Pixelface (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There's also no consensus for it to be removed. Since it being there is the status quo, there it must remain until consensus is created to change it. If you really believe there is a consensus for its removal, a better way of doing this is to create a centralised discussion, similar to the one currently happening concerning non-free image policy. Black Kite 19:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If a section has no consensus to be a part of a policy, it doesn't belong in that policy. Period. Wikipedia:Consensus says[12] "Policies and guidelines document communal consensus rather than creating it." and "In the case of policy pages a higher standard of participation and consensus is expected." and "if one person or a limited group of people can reasonably demonstrate a change in consensus, then it is reasonable to effect the change at a process page." and "If you notice that a particular policy or guideline page is not in line with current consensus, feel free to update it." So policy pages have a higher standard for removing a section rather than leaving a section in there? And I won't be starting a centralized discussion, because I'm still blocked. --Pixelface (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The plot injunction at WP:NOT has been there a long time and you simply have no basis for asserting that it does not reflect consensus beyond the extension of your own views. That is tendentious and to remove it as you have done IS pointy and disruptive and vandalism. Eusebeus (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read my reply to Caribbean H.Q. in the section above (that begins with (outdent)). WP:VANDAL says "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." And WP:AIV says "This page is intended to get administrator attention for obvious and persistent vandals and spammers only". WP:AIV also says "The vandal must be active now, and have vandalised after sufficient recent warnings to stop." I received one warning from Sceptre, a level 3 warning — and the only warning for "vandalism" I have ever received in my 22 months on Wikipedia — incidentally by someone who was an involved party of the Episodes and characters 2 arbitration case. I've never vandalized Wikipedia in my life (although I did create a page on April Fool's Day that was deleted per WP:CSD#G3, but it was really more unsourced speculation than a hoax.) Was it "vandalism" when Hobit removed that section from policy? While it pleases me to see you and Black Kite take an interest in this matter, your claim of "vandalism" Eusebeus, is false. --Pixelface (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock |1= [[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not&diff=prev&oldid=206074309 reverted] my removal of a portion of policy that does not have consensus on [[WT:NOT#Plot|the talk page]]. [[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]] then gave me a {{tl|uw-vandalism3}} warning on my talk page.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pixelface&diff=prev&oldid=206075512]. Sceptre then again [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not&diff=prev&oldid=206076676 reverted] my removal of a portion of policy that does not have consensus on [[WT:NOT#Plot|the talk page]]. Sceptre then [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=206076760 reported] me as a vandal to [[WP:AIV]]. I was blocked by AGK for "Vandalism: at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not; per WP:AIV thread." I was not vandalizing [[WP:NOT]] and this block is completely unwarranted. If I am not unblocked, I will be leaving Wikipedia. I don't have to put up with this kind of harassment.}}

I'll leave my second unblock request that went unanswered for three hours here in case anyone wants to read it. --Pixelface (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Leaving

This "vandal" has left Wikipedia. --Pixelface (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Please don't! You're an asset to our project. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi pixelface, as a fellow burnout in FICT, I'm hoping you will reconsider leaving Wikipedia. Do like I did: empty your watchlist, focus on something less controversial. Abandon the sinking ship that is "fiction within wikipedia". There is no reason to keep it afloat if soo many crew-mates are shooting holes in the bulkheads. It might sound cynical, but I can tell you that my joy in editing returned instantly. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

? I'm a little confused. I don't recall Pixelface doing any work on fiction. Film, games, perhaps television, some non-fiction items; but not fiction. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

or even do as I do--keep working on it, but limit myself to one comment there every day or two or three, and not check back in the interim. We will get there yet, but The DJ is right that over-concentration destroys the fun of working here. DGG (talk) 18:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

We've disagreed on a lot of stuff, but I would say that you're a good guy who has a lot of good points. If you're feeling burnt out then take your time, but I do hope you return in some form. -- Ned Scott 06:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Just in case you read this, I'd like to add my own voice - I've seen you around while editing and at AFDs, and always thought that you had some pretty decent things to say. I too would be sorry if you were gone for good - especially over what looks like a poor block decision. - Bilby (talk) 08:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Virtual unblock

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Block_review_and_contributor_discussion:_Pixelface

It took longer than the 12-hour span of the block, so an unblock is moot at this point, but cooler minds are prevailing now, and asserting that the block was inappropriate. (Ignore the partisan comments, of which there are many: ANI is ANI.)--Father Goose (talk) 08:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

Do you ever stop being facetious? Sceptre ^(talk) 01:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what you mean. I asked you three honest questions [13] [14] [15] and you have refused[16] [17] [18] to answer them. I've tried to discuss with you and you have refused. It doesn't appear to me that you want to resolve this matter. Shall I notify the arbitration committee? --Pixelface (talk) 02:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you think will happen? I think you're inflaming the dispute way more than I am. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I take it you're not going to apologize for filing a false vandalism report on me which got me blocked? --Pixelface (talk) 10:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, AGK saw it enough to be blockable, and we're both experienced enough (35 months on Wikipedia for me, and AGK is an arbcom clerk)... and besides, saying you have consensus does not mean you have it; that's lawyering around the blanking clause of vandalism. That, and you were warned multiple times to stop removing the section. Good faith only stretches so far. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

AGK doesn't appear to have read the vandalism policy either, which I find extremely disturbing since he's an administrator — and especially since MedCom members are supposed to know the difference between content disputes and vandalism. Was this edit of yours vandalism because Bardin reverted it?

You've been here 35 months, do you think you have a good idea of what vandalism is and is not?

Please read the vandalism policy if you haven't already. It says[19] "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism." It also says "Avoid the word "vandal". In particular, the word should not be used in reference to any contributor in good standing or to any edits that can arguably be construed as good-faithed. If the edits in question are made in good faith, they are not vandalism. Instead of calling a person making such edits a "vandal", discuss his or her specific edits with him or her. Comment on the content and substance of his or her edits or arguments, not his or her person."

WP:VAND#NOT list the following as "What vandalism is not":

• Making bold edits
• Stubbornness
• Policy/guideline/essay/other project namespace page alteration

It also says "If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as such, then it is he or she who is actually harming the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors."

WP:AIV says "This page is intended to get administrator attention for obvious and persistent vandals and spammers only". WP:AIV also says "The vandal must be active now, and have vandalised after sufficient recent warnings to stop."

Did I vandalize after a level 4 warning Will? Did I even receive a level 1 or level 2 warning? Why did you give me a level 3 vandalism warning for an edit to a policy page? I would have been treated with more dignity if I had added "is an idiot" to the George W. Bush article.

And please read my recent summary of the thread at WT:NOT which is my interpretation of the discussion and why I removed the section. Could you please provide diffs to show that I was "warned multiple times to stop removing the section"?

Either you don't understand the vandalism policy or you've been abusing AIV. So which is it? I see you've made 636 edits to WP:AIV. How many of those have been bad reports? I don't know what's worse. That you've been here 35 months and have made 636 edits to AIV and don't know what vandalism is, or that an admin MedCom member doesn't know the difference between a content dispute and vandalism. --Pixelface (talk) 10:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)\

Tu quoque. You can read the history of the page, yes? Besides, the line "Policy/guideline/essay/other project namespace page alteration" applies to bold edits (such as typo fixing, example adding), not repeated removals. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's still not "vandalism" Will, as has been explained by multiple people in the AN thread that you filled with misinformation. And the "blanking" portion of WP:VANDAL says "However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary." Now, did you mean to call my second removal vandalism or did Twinkle do it for you? --Pixelface (talk) 11:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Again with the lawyering. And an explanation wasn't really given on the talk page. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I gave an explanation in my edit summary. The discussion had been going at WT:NOT for over a month and there was no consensus for that section to remain in policy. You can read the thread again if you'd like. Hobit removed that same section from policy. Why didn't you put a vandalism template on his talk page? --Pixelface (talk) 12:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And Will, regarding a comment you made at AN, it contained three false claims. You said "His actions caused the Episodes and characters 2 case." and that is totally false. My actions caused Corvus cornix to start an ANI thread where he falsely claimed I was reverting all of TTN's edits. That's easily disproved by looking at my first 15 reverts. It was Eusebeus and TTN who turned them into redirects (and Eusebeus, by the way, was blocked for editwarring over them, and continues to editwar over them, as can be seen at WP:AE). I was turning the Scrubs episode articles back into articles because I saw no consensus for them to be redirects on Talk:List of Scrubs episodes. And if it was *my* actions that "caused" the Episodes and characters 2 case, why did the arbitration committee restrict TTN? You're second false claim was "Specifically, edit warring on Scrubs episode articles." The arbitration committee and other editors found no evidence I was edit warring over Scrubs articles, look at the Workshop. Look at the history of articles like My Mentor and tell me who's been editwarring. Finally, you said "Him saying there's no consensus for PLOT is just wrong - only he agrees that it should be removed." and that's easily disproved because Hobit also removed that section from policy. And I can certainly provide more diffs if you'd like.

• Father Goose said "This is more a style issue than a content issue, so the appropriate place for it is arguably in a guideline, not in a content-exclusion policy."[20]
• DGG said "More generally, NOT PLOT as it is written does not belong in NOT--policy should be general principles, not the details found there."[21]
• 23skidoo said "I agree with those who feel this is better suited for MoS rather than trying to pigeonhole it into a policy that, technically, is intended to supress content."[22]
• Eubulide said "I object to treating plot details in a different way than other types of sourced information in WP." and "This is done only for plot summaries and nobody gave an explanation for this exception. If an article is missing real-world context, the reasonable approach is to add such context, not delete the rest."[23]
• SmokeyJoe said "I think WP:NOT#PLOT, as written, belongs in WP:WAF."[24]
• Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles said "We should remove the plot section of what Wikipedia is not."[25]
• Hobit said "I'll chime in by saying I don't think issues of plot summary should be here."[26] and Hobit later said "I think at the least WP:PLOT lacks consensus and shouldn't be here" [27]

And there's tons of opposition easily found in the WT:NOT archives. You appear to be embarassed by my message, so I've left this on my talk page if you'd like to respond. --Pixelface (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Return

Welcome back! - Bilby (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Bilby. --Pixelface (talk) 01:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah welcome.... but please stop deleting Scrubs episodes... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makecba (talk • contribs) 21:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't even begin to say what's wrong with that statement. --Pixelface (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, do would you enable email? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I do have an email address I could specify in my profile, in general I am against all off-wiki communication — including IRC, mailing lists, and email. I think private communication is antithetical to the open and transparent wiki process. I hope you understand. --Pixelface (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

An admirable policy. Welcome back, glad you've returned--Jac16888 (talk) 03:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm glad to be back. When I said I was leaving, not only was I frustrated for being blocked for supposed vandalism, but that was also one of the worst days of the worst flu I can ever remember having. I'm doing much better now, although I am still sick. --Pixelface (talk) 04:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree if private conversation were used for any nefarious means, but my intentions were friendly in nature, as you made my list of nice Wikipedians and my list of wise Wikipedians. Regards and feel better soon! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt your intentions one bit Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. I think you're a great editor and one of the genuinely nicest editors I've met. I'm glad there are editors like you on this site and it's a pleasure to work with you. But my main interest here is to write and improve articles (and I have to admit I don't check my email much anyways). If you would like to tell me something, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your message by the way, after I said I was leaving. I was very upset, and it feels good to know someone thinks I'm an asset to the project. I truly appreciate it. And thanks. --Pixelface (talk) 06:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, basically when you left I had hoped to be able to send you an email repeating what I said on your talk page just in case if you had stopped looking at your talk page. Anyway, thank you for the kind words. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a technical note, you can add an e-mail address in your prefs, but disable the "e-mail this user" feature, which would be very useful incase you had to reset a password, etc. -- Ned Scott 04:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. --Pixelface (talk) 06:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Just stumble upon your talk, not sure why you wanted to go previously, but I am very glad you've decided to come back. You are a valuable contributor and your work has been admired by many (even if they don't necessarily tell you that everyday ;)) I hope you're feeling well. Have a beautiful weekend, --PeaceNT (talk) 04:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. And I am feeling better than I was, thanks. --Pixelface (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll add my unoriginal welcome. You may find it empowering (whatever that means) to know that I have been blocked on what was later considered an unconvincing basis. While the event was inconceivable beforehand, I've taken it as a sort of Purple Heart for sticking to my convictions. My RfA passed half a year later.
I am, of course, very much not saying "Go get more", but wave your flag and hold your head up high. Heh. --Kizor 13:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Kizor. --Pixelface (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Disengage

Can you honestly not see that it is time to disengage from this issue? Why are you bringing this issue up again, two days later after it has already been removed without being answered? At this point, it appears like you are trying to provoke a reaction, rather than a genuine attempt to resolve a dispute. Hopefully you can see that this should not be pursued further. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 14:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If Sceptre is going to remove messages I leave on his talk page and personally attack me, I feel I should perhaps reply on my talk page instead. I welcome you to try to resolve this with Sceptre. All I have asked for is an apology. I do not wish to notify the arbitration committee of his abuse of the AIV page, although that may be necessary. --Pixelface (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You have been trying to provoke him. These are examples of poking a, bear, with a stick. There's no need for the hyperbole, ("I do not wish to notify the arbitration committee of his abuse of the AIV page, although that may be necessary") as again, it seems as if you are just trying to escalate the situation. What happened, happened; it's time to move on now. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 14:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not trying to provoke anyone. Those are examples of asking honest questions and being denied any kind of rational response. I have been trying to find out why Sceptre reported me as a "vandal" when I committed no vandalism, why Sceptre thought it was "good news" when I left, why Sceptre was spreading false claims about me at the Administrator's noticeboard, and why Sceptre labeled me a "troll." Saying that Sceptre has abused AIV is not hyperbole. I don't know why you're here, but it doesn't look like an attempt to resolve any dispute. Thanks for your message. Now perhaps it's time for you to move on as well. --Pixelface (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Saying that you're going to take it to ARBCOM is clear use of hyperbole. As for your explanation that those are honest questions, I'm very doubtful, given your history of POINTYness (i.e. Being absolutely vehement in your opposition to merging or to deletion of fiction related content, but then proposing to merge content in another area, that a member of the "opposition" is interested in). It should be clear to you by now that the two of you don't get along. I stepped in, basically, to tell you to leave it alone; it risks looking like the onset of harassment. Now that you are aware of that, no further conversation is needed. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 15:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, Sceptre and I have both already been to ArbCom and the parties were "warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute." I believe filing false vandalism reports on fellow involved parties and telling other involved parties it's "good news" when they leave just perhaps might qualify as further inflaming the dispute, but maybe that's just me. You've stepped in and resolved nothing. I already "disengaged" for 12 hours, and another week on top of that. I really don't know what else you want me to do. I'll be leaving my reply to Sceptre on this page, but you're free to complain about it if you'd like. --Pixelface (talk) 15:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop it with the messages - I'll instantly revert you on sight on my talk page, and I won't reply to you on yours. Trying to get me to do so will be construed as harassment. Just disengage completely. Otherwise, you're just proving you're disruptive. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You didn't disengage, you reposted content from two days ago, today at 14:57, about 2 hours ago, not 12! That's not disengaging! But obviously I'm just complaining. I have nothing more to say, so let's leave it there. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 15:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

When I said I disengaged for 12 hours, I was referring to the block that Sceptre initiated by reporting me as a "vandal" to AIV. But please do go on. I'm quite interested in your attempts to de-escalate situations. --Pixelface (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This was not about me resolving this dispute; as I've said several times above, "this should not be pursued further", "What happened, happened; it's time to move on now" and most specifically, "I stepped in, basically, to tell you to leave it alone". Also, as I said above, my warning telling you to disengage was clearly referring to your 14:57 provocation. However it's seems I'm just repeating myself now without any purpose. It's unfortunate but I truly can't clarify what I've been trying to say any further. I'm sorry to have been of no assistance. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 16:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Why are you here exactly? Just happened to have my talk page on your watchlist? You seem to be quite an expert on who should disengage but seem unable to do it yourself. --Pixelface (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

See above. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 16:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You know I think it's great that I can get advice from uninvolved administrators such as yourself. So how exactly did this edit come to your attention? Is it your personal opinion that editors should be allowed to freely make false vandalism reports at AIV? That editors should be allowed to freely spread false accusations at the Administrator's noticeboard? Do you consider statements like "Some good news. Pixelface left" to be civil? Do you think it's strange for me to want to defend myself against false allegations? Do you think it's odd that I would feel upset for being blocked based on a false accusation of vandalism or want an apology? You said "it's time to move on" but you have no right to say that to me. That block remains in my logs, despite multiple people saying it never should have happened. It's just more false crap I have to explain whenever someone brings it up in the future. --Pixelface (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have Sceptre's talk page on my watchlist. If you get blocked or someone says things about you that you don't agree with, it's better just be graceful and forget about it. What is there to gained by badgering Sceptre? If multiple people disagreed with the block, then why does one editor's opinion matter so much to you? You seem to have forgotten what the spirit of the block was for; don't edit war. As seen by some of the comments by editors above, people are glad to see you back, so don't disappoint them or yourself, by not learning that lesson. Lastly, one of the things I do, is continually put things in perspective; this is just a website and there are worst things happening all the time. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 19:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If someone was saying false things about you, would you just be "graceful" and forget about it? Would you appreciate it if you were upset and people were telling you it was time to move on? The "spirit of the block"? The block was for vandalism. I've never vandalized Wikipedia in my life, unlike some people[28]. AIV isn't for reporting edit wars. It's for reporting vandals who have vandalized after their final warning. Go explain that your friend. And yes, this is just a website. It's a volunteer website. When volunteers are blocked from editing they can't really volunteer now can they? Why should I keep on volunteering when there are teenagers running around blocking people for vandalism who have never vandalized Wikipedia? If you want to put things in perspective, this talk page was much shorter before you showed up to offer your "assistance." Has it crossed your mind to tell Will that perhaps an apology is in order? --Pixelface (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

To put it bluntly, I'm bored of discussing this. I've said as much as I can. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 20:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well thanks for dropping by! --Pixelface (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree with Seraphim on this. While what Sceptre did was wrong, and AGK erred in issuing the block, what you're doing now is not defensible. You're making it personal. That's a recipe for wiki self-destruction. Sceptre's poor behavior can speak for itself, and a long enough history of it will end up at ArbCom. Let him be his own undoing, not yours.--Father Goose (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Seraphim Whipp apparently doesn't acknowledge that Sceptre or AGK made any kind of mistake whatsoever. If wanting an apology from either of them is indefensible, so be it. --Pixelface (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wanting an apology is defensible, hounding Sceptre for an apology isn't. He isn't going to offer one, so again, let that sully his record, not yours. All you have to do to explain away the block record is point to the ANB discussion where it was determined to be inappropriate. Don't cede the high ground here by "demanding satisfaction".--Father Goose (talk) 23:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No Father Goose, I can't just point to the ANB discussion, because Sceptre was making false claims about me there and they're now archived. I posted a rebuttal on Sceptre's talk page and he removed it, calling me a "troll." So I put it on my talk page and his apparent BFF and fellow Death Cab for Cutie fan Seraphim Whipp offered her completely neutral third opinion on the matter. Now whenever someone looks in my block log, they'll see I was blocked 12 hours for "vandalism", and there's no asterisk to say, no I actually didn't commit any vandalism. Apparently Sceptre has "several contacts who can do some blocking" if he wants, and that just warms my heart. --Pixelface (talk) 01:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

In the archived thread, those false claims are rejected by truly non-involved admins. (They're also parroted by involved partisans, which just helps to further show how one-sided they were.) Most Wikipedians have no trouble identifying bullshit; the "wrongful block" in your record is meaningless as a result. And if Sceptre thinks his admin buddies will abuse their powers in service of his views, they'll either have the good sense to tell him no, or they'll be going down the same path that led to his loss of admin powers.--Father Goose (talk) 06:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I replied on my talk page to a post you made there a few days ago, and I'm curious to hear what if any reply you would have to it.--Father Goose (talk) 07:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page. --Pixelface (talk) 11:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I welcome anyone to review my neutrality in this discussion. I'd say it's pretty clear that throughout, you were trying to provoke me. Now you are still continuing to do that with your sarcasm, carrying on about me after I've left the conversation.

I saw someone getting badgered by you, and if I had seen you doing this to anyone else, I would have stepped in and done exactly as I have done. Because it looks like the onset of harassment. You got blocked, and now all you're doing is saying, "It's unfair, I shouldn't have been blocked for vandalism". And you're right there, the block reason should have read "edit warring". So just treat that as a lesson learned. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 09:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be the one doing the badgering. And no, I shouldn't have been blocked for edit warring either. Sceptre seems to acknowledge that your comment on my page was a conflict of interest. Now maybe you should too. --Pixelface (talk) 10:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT talk issues

One question first, when Spectre posted to AIV it included the comment that you had specifically asked him to not post warnings to your talk page. Is that correct?

Beyond that, I did look at what he was complaining about, and to be honest there is a problem with your conduct up to that point. You had been engaging in what amounts to disruptive editing. You boldly removed a section of WP:NOT, and instead of proceeding to a discussion when editors restored it and pointed out what you were doing was contentious or waiting for that discussion to generate a consensus, you continued to blank the section. That is by definition disruptive, and, if continued long enough, acting in bad faith and vandalism.

Had it gotten to that point? Possibly. Should your talk page have been peppered with warning about disruptive editing? Definitely. That last bit is why I raised the question above.

As for Spectre's comment in the new RFC location, half of it is a valid point: relocating the RFC header does come off as trying to disassociate it from the discussions it generated. And that aside, he's providing a recent example. Is it unsettling? Yes. Does it rise to a personal attack? No. And your removing it is a problem. You and he have a history of bad blood over the entire issue of WP:PLOT, you trimming out his comment, short of them being flagrant personal attacks, comes off as you either goading him or trying to shut him up. The entire "Disengage" section has others explicitly pointing out the damage you're doing to your good will as an editor by pressing him, this doesn't help that.

- J Greb (talk) 02:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I was not editing disruptively. I boldly removed a section from WP:NOT on March 10, 2008, which started a thread at WT:NOT here. My removal was reverted by Moreschi. After several people said that the Plot summaries section did not belong in policy, I removed it again on March 28, 2008 and Sgeureka, who was also an involved party in the Episodes and characters 2 ArbCom case, reverted me, saying "it seems you're reading consensus wrong. Please don't remove this section without discussing the removal first and gaining consensus." I believe there was a rough consensus to remove that section, and that the section certainly didn't have the consensus required to be on a policy page.

I then reverted Sgeureka, saying "rv Sgeureka, there is no consensus for this section being in WP:NOT on the talk page." This was reverted by Masem. As far as I know, neither of those had expressed opposition to removing the Plot summaries section from WP:IINFO on the talk page. Hobit then removed the Plot summaries section from policy, saying "Reverting the revert as I think it is correct. I think this is the right thing to do here...." This was reverted by Masem, saying "removing this has opposition, need to show this should not be here by consensus." I do not believe that one must obtain consensus to remove a section from policy that does not have consensus. And this section in question doesn't appear to have had consensus to begin with. Hiding added it to policy after this thread, and I do not see consensus in that thread.

On April 7, 2008, I removed the Plot summaries section again, saying "removed Plot summaries, it came from WP:WAF and that's where it will remain" After reading through the archives, I learned that the idea for WP:NOT#PLOT came from WP:WAF and I feel that sort of guidance should stay in WP:WAF and not a content exclusion policy. Masem reverted me again, but I saw no consensus for that section to be policy on the talk page.

On April 16, 2008, I removed the Plot summaries section again, saying "removed Plot summaries again, no consensus for this on the talk page." This was reverted by Sceptre, who said "you've been told not to." I really don't know what Sceptre was referring to. It's my understanding that text has to have consensus to be in policy, and I saw no consensus for it on the talk page. Sceptre then gave me a {{uw-vandalism3}} template on my talk page. You can read that further up this page at 18:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC). That's the first vandalism warning I've ever received in my life. Seeing such a ridiculous template, I said "And don't template the regulars, Will.", which you can read further up this page at 18:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC). I suppose Sceptre took that to mean he didn't have to give me four warnings or that he didn't have to wait until I vandalized after a final warning to report me to AIV, nevermind that my edits were not vandalism. I removed the section again. That is when Sceptre reverted me with Twinkle, labeling my edit as vandalism, which, as many people have said, it was not.

As I have been trying to explain, a discussion had been going on at WT:NOT for quite some time. You can read the thread here and my summary of the thread here.

My edits were not vandalism. And Father Goose[29], Sjakkalle[30], The wub[31], Wizardman[32], and R. Baley[33] say there were not vandalism either.

I relocated the RFC header to the bottom of the page because it looks like nobody had noticed an RFC had been filed. Someone else had moved the Suggested change to PLOT section down "to allow for wider attention."

Sceptre said I have "refused to get the point", but it's Sceptre that has refused to get the point by refusing to accept the views of Father Goose[34], Sjakkalle[35], The wub[36], Wizardman[37], and R. Baley[38] who all said my edit was not vandalism. Sceptre calling me a vandal is a personal attack. Sceptre calling me a troll is a personal attack. Sceptre saying I "caused" the Episodes and Characters 2 arbitration case is a personal attack. Sceptre saying I was "edit warring on Scrubs episode articles" is flat out wrong, as you can see here. Sceptre saying "Him saying there's no consensus for PLOT is just wrong - only he agrees that it should be removed." is also false. Sceptre telling a user (who's currently blocked for violating an arbitration remedy) that it's "good news" that I left is a personal attack. I'm not trying to goad him. All I wanted from Sceptre was an apology. I don't want an apology from him anymore. I want him to leave me the hell alone, stop spreading false information about me, and stop harassing me. I want something to be done about him harassing involved parties of the Episodes and Characters 2 arbitration case and filing false vandalism reports to AIV. Thank you for your time. --Pixelface (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

"I boldly removed a section from WP:NOT" – with all due respect, blanking a section of Wikipedia:What wikipedia is not is not being bold, it's being disruptive. Even if your action was correct, it was completely unwarranted, had no consensus, and went beyond the boundaries of being bold and ignoring all rules. This has been clarified to you countless times since you were blocked for that incident, and it appears you still don't get it; that concerns me. Anthøny 06:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Anthony, if you're not going to read the threads on WT:NOT (oldid) (this thread or this thread would be a good start), I don't have anything else to say to you. --Pixelface (talk) 07:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008

You have been blocked for a period of 1 day from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. —Travis^talk 02:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You know the no personal attacks policy says "Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack." Is there some diff you're referring to? --Pixelface (talk) 02:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Several diffs here. —Travis^talk 02:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I see now this is in response to an ANI thread by Sceptre. Anyone is free to move this comment to the ANI thread if they'd like. I believe that I am the one that has been harassed by Sceptre. He filed a false vandalism report on me to AIV. And yes, he was an involved party with me in the Episodes and characters 2 arbitration case. When I said I was leaving, he told TTN, another involved party in the Episodes and characters 2 arbitration case, that it was "good news." He also called me a "troll". I did ask Sceptre three questions on his talk page[39][40][41], and he removed each of them without an answer. And yes, I asked him about false claims he made about me at the Administrator's noticeboard and he refused to reply, so I left my rebuttal on my talk page.

Seraphim Whipp apparently took issue with a talkback template I left on Sceptre's talk page. That was my fifth message to Sceptre. (Although I did leave a message on Sceptre's talk page in January, asking him to please stop archiving an ANI thread against me where several people made false claims about me. Sceptre then removed my message asking him to please stop without an answer. I don't believe Sceptre has ever replied to me on his talk page and I don't know why that is exactly.) I was "asked to disengage" by his apparent friend Seraphim Whipp. Calling Seraphim Whipp Sceptre's "BFF" was uncivil of me. But from looking at Seraphim Whipp's talk page it appears to me they're both here for social networking, and Wikipedia is not MySpace. Sceptre appears to acknowledge that some people would see Seraphim Whipp contacting me as a conflict of interest. I haven't contacted Sceptre since Seraphim Whipp asked me to disengage. However, Seraphim Whipp has continued to post again and again and again on my talk page, and didn't seem to appear to want to disengage herself. I have disengaged from Sceptre. He posted a message on my talk page saying if I mentioned his false vandalism report to WP:AE that I would be "laughed at." I did not reply. And yes, I did remove a comment by Sceptre at WT:NOT, where he said "Yeah, this is really getting to be WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT now... but Pixel has a history for this... recent too." which I felt had nothing whatsoever to do with the WP:NOT policy. J Greb restored the comment saying I should ask an admin to look into it, so I asked J Greb for his opinion on his talk page. J Greb replied on my talk page, and I replied to J Greb, saying I feel I have been harassed by Sceptre. If Sceptre thinks posting 4 messages and 1 talkback on his talk page is "harassment" I apologize. I don't want to harass him and I'd appreciate it if he didn't harass me. TTN is currently blocked for a week and to me it looks like Sceptre wants to do anything to get me blocked as well. On April 9, 2008, Sceptre reported a user to AIV after they made one edit to User talk:TTN and without giving that user a warning first. I feel Sceptre has been abusing AIV. Sceptre has said he has "several contacts who can do some blocking" if he wants, and I find such a statement by a former admin alarming. I don't know if AGK and Sceptre are good friends. But I don't believe either of them understand the vandalism policy. --Pixelface (talk) 02:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

As suggested, copied to the relevant AN/I thread and requested a block review. —Travis^talk 03:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems major overkill to block Pixel for just removing that one comment. The other interactions are days old. Pixel was highly offended by the vandalism accusation, so we should be a little bit understanding about this. Certainly the issue should just be dropped, but what Pixelface is doing is a far cry from harassment. Possibly a bad judgment call on what to do, maybe, but certainly not intentional harassment. -- Ned Scott 05:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

"Pixel was highly offended by the vandalism accusation" – to be frank, Pixel was blanking sections of Wikipedia policy. I'd call that both vandalism and block-worthy. Otherwise, with regards to this newest block, I will say it doesn't surprise me, that he's gotten himself into bother yet again, but I will make no comment as to the block's merits. Anthøny 06:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Anthony, I don't think you've read the vandalism policy — specifically the section on what vandalism is not. I would expect a MedCom member like you to know the difference between a content dispute and vandalism. And you may want to read these comments by users saying my edit was not vandalism and your block for vandalism was inappropriate.[42][43][44][45][46] Feel free to read the numerous threads[47][48][49][50] on WT:NOT which were the reason behind my changes to policy. And do please read my multiple explanations on this talk page. Why didn't you block Hobit for removing that same section? You may want to discuss on the next episode of Not the Wikipedia Weekly what vandalism is and is not. Even if I had written IDIOT on WP:NOT, AIV is for reporting serious vandals who have vandalized after sufficient warnings and also after a final warning, which doesn't apply to my situation at all. Thank you for your message. --Pixelface (talk) 06:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, just drop it. Stop bringing up the Bush edit, stop bringing up the block, just shut up and do something productive. Otherwise, you'll be stuck in this ANI->Block->ANI cycle for weeks to come. Sceptre ^(talk) 09:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)