User:Peter M Dodge/Archives/archive dec252006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Mediation Request

Peter, if you are still interested in mediating the dispute listed here, please let me know. I am willing to participate in mediation. Sincerely, SSS108 talk-email 00:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I would not offer if I were unwilling. If the other parties are willing we can go forward here, or whereever you wish,. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality) 00:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Peter, I informed Andries on his talk page [1]. In past mediation attempts, Andries refused to respond unless directly prompted. I do not think it is wise to remove the ArbCom notice until Andries has agreed to mediation. Thanks. SSS108 talk-email 22:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

What I meant by my comment is that I do not think the Clerks would really want the mediation to take place on the AE page. ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality) 23:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Just for clarification, my comment was meant for other ArbCom members who routinely archive threads, etc. Thanks. SSS108 talk-email 05:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Wizardry Dragon/LinkMediation Accept or Decline mediation offer. SSS108 talk-email 00:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Peter (in case you have not noticed) both Andries and I have accepted your proposal for mediation. Whenever you are ready, please let me know. Can you kindly clarify what kind of mediation this is? Is it informal? Or are you a formal mediator? SSS108 talk-email 05:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Arbitration Clerk Thatcher overturned the mediation. I'm sorry guys, but thems the breaks.  :( Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] WP:PAIN and user: 14thArmored

Okay guys, please take a step back from this situation. Here we are needlessly creating a negative atmosphere by escalating this situation with warnings and such that are not needed. My recommendation as a PAIN reviewer is to have the Mediation Cabal review this case and consider going forth with mediation. Personally, I think that we are needlessly dividing ourselves here, over a trivial misunderstanding. If you made a mistake, it happens, just apologize, and work to correct it. You may find there are many people here that can help correct any mistake you have made. That is the self-healing nature of Wikipedia, and there is no need to sour the environment by holding this process up. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)}}

Hi, I made the entry on user:14thArmored. You wrote that there may be "something deeper" going on here. I agree; it took me a long time to make the complaint at all because I wasn't quite sure what to do. His actions seem to fall into several categories at once. I think if you look at the timing of a lot of this user's entries, he is stalking quite a few pages I edit. I know it's a judgment call but many of the edits seem aimed more to annoy or provoke than to actually improve the article in any meaningful way. He follows me, often making small edits that add little content, then ignores vandalism on the same article. That's not the pattern of an editor interested in the quality of the articles. IMO (and this is just my personal opinion) the stalking is much more disruptive than the attacks. I don't see any *real* (as opposed to seemingly insincere) effort to work as a team with other editors.

Anyway, just my two cents. Thank you for looking into this. DMorpheus 22:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

He's one big borderline case of just about everything, if you ask me, which is why I'm digging. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow! Given your prejudicial statement I now think it unlikely that you will render a fair judgement. Still, if you actually undertake the "digging" you promise, I hope you will note the fact that DMorpheus lied about my having any problems with the editors Bukvoed and Ggbroad. (I did seriously question Ggbroad's claim of being a professor of history, but what's wrong with that?) You may also wish to examine the talk pages of DMorpheus and Wikist in which they clearly attempt to form a cabal in order to get rid of me. Why is this? You might well ask. The answer is simple. These two fellows have proven themselves to be quite adept in their efforts to silence someone who disagrees with them on on certain subjects, and has the battlefield experience, historical knowledge and sources to support his positions. You might also want to examine Wikist's willful and intentional misrepresentation of the author Zaloga's statements regarding the 75mm tank gun on the Sherman tank talk page. It was Bukvoed who stepped in and provided an honest and correct representation of the author's words on the subject. (I also hope you will notice that Wikist asked me many, many questions which I answered, but he could not be bothered to acknowledge my time and effort in answering them. Very Rude!) In the end, I am not so skillful as DMorpheus and Wikist in "working" the Wikipedia system to eliminate those who disagree with them. As is often the case, an honest, forthright man is always at a disadvantage when dealing with those who are stealthy and dishonest in their actions. 14thArmored 1000 Hours 22 December 2006
Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you.

User:14thArmored, your ad hominem accusation of bias and no integrity against User:Wizardry_Dragon is a personal attack on the person investigating your personal attacks. When you feel that the Wikipedia administrators/volunteers are conspiring against you, please try even harder to be civil. Thank you.Wikist 06:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


I did not want to say it for fear of it blowing up, but "looking into deeper problems" translates into "I think you both may have done something wrong, and am looking into it further" Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 16:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Well now you have my side of the story, and I can only hope you will be fair.

These two boys are little more than Wikibullies in my opinion. For example you will see that DMorpheus and I agreed some time ago to stay off of each others talk pages, yet he put an unsupported and insulting wiki-warning on my talk page yesterday. Wikibullies 14thArmored 1000 Hours 22 December 2006

I understand that you feel intimidated by them, but you also must understand that calling them wikibullies (even if thats what they are), does indeed constitute a personal attack. When faced with incivility - try to endeavour to be better in civility then they - then they just look all the worse. :) Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 16:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Final Comment: "Intimidated" is the wrong word. Affronted is the correct word. (Dishonesty is always an affront to me.) Here is a sample. DMorpheus intentionally mis-labled the page Image:M36.jpg (I can't get the link to work, but the page is easy to locate.) labeling the photo as an M36 Tank Destroyer engine. When I pointed out to him that it was not an M36 Tank Destroyer engine, he admitted it was a T-55 Soviet tank engine, and then refused to correct the page title. Instead, he elected to accuse me of a personal attack. How does that work? This sort of willful, and intentional misrepresentation by DMorpheus, and his adamant refusal to correct it is, I think, against the rules (or it should be). I ask that you have the page deleted or correctly labeled, and more importantly, permanently block DMorpheus for his deceitful actions. I await your decision on this as well as the other issue at hand. 14thArmored 1000 Hours 22 December 2006
You can always be bold and rename the page yourself. Just use the "move" button when viewing the article. That said, I do think there has been misconduct on both sides, and perhaps you should try the Mediation Cabal as a step towards sorting out the issues at hand. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The page in question is locked somehow which is why DMorpheus has been so smug about the title. 14thArmored 21:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
It it probably protected then. One moment, I will look into this. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Guys, this is a bit silly. The "page" in question is a photo. That's all. I gave it a file name ("M36 engine") intending to come back later and add the photo to an article. I hadn't even written a caption yet. So all it is is a file name. I haven't 'locked' anything and I wouldn't know how. Whether I am 'smug' or not, and whether I "intentionally mislabeled" the photo those are comments about me, not about the content. Let's comment on edits not editors, right?
I couldn't care less what the file name is, as long as we can find the file when someone wants to use it. I took the picture myself, which is why I was a bit surprised when 14thArmored told me that the object I had seen and climbed over was not what I knew it was. This isn't the place to argue whether I knew what it was. Nor is it the place or time to argue how it should be labeled, since the photo is not currently in use in any article and therefore does not have a caption yet.
So if the issue is the name, call the file anything you want. If the issue is what the photo represents, I was there; I know what it is. I don't even understand why this disagreement is taking place at all. Its a tempest in a teapot. DMorpheus 03:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] WP:PAIN and Ghirla

I will not say who is right or wrong in this case (especially as I have already commented there), I just want to tell you that from my experience any disputes involving Ghirla are cursed to degenerate into something messy. Whatever the outcome, don't let it discourage you from doing the much needed maintenance of PAIN pages.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ghirlandajo

Hello Peter, can you tell me what is the next step in the WP:PAIN procedure? Appleseed (Talk) 19:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

PS I noticed you're having health issues, I hope you feel better!
Comment • Personally, my best advice in the matter would be to stay as far away from the whole matter as you can. You and I both saw the response to a simple message left on their talk page. If you really wish administrative action to be taken, you should consider filing a Request for Arbitration - but be warned you must present strong evidence and that process in and of itself can be quite harrowing. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
My evidence consists of the diff I presented in the original post. I think it's pretty straightforward, and Martinp23, among others, agrees: Ghirlandajo leveled obscenities and condescending comments at me when I made a good faith effort to discuss the article title. I'm a little surprised that anyone can defend that, to the point of deleting the template from Ghirlandajo's talk page. There is no "content dispute", as Bishonen characterized it, because no content was discussed. I didn't even suggest a new title. I was attacked simply for taking part in the discussion. Appleseed (Talk) 20:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit conflict] Apple - in case Wizardry Dragon doesn't reply quickly, due to his health, I think that the next step is to move to the steps of WP:DR procedure. Unfortunatly, Ghirla tends to refuse mediations, as well as withdraws from RfCs when they tend not to go where he wants them. That doesn't leave that many options, I am afraid. PS. Wizardy, I copied the Barn'o'meter from your page and I am now spreding this around as an XMAS gift - nice template :) PS2. After edit conflict: yes, Wizard, I agree with you. But after two years of near constant insults like Appleseed received, do you think an ArbCom can be any more harrowing that what we are experiencing? :/ PS3. Wow, is it a hijacking of the PAIN?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I just prefer for users to go in with their eyes open. A lot of people seem to think ArbCom is quick and painless, and well, it's neither. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sacrasm overload

Dear Wizard, I have a problem and I hope you may be able to help me. I find comments by certain users very sarcastic - nothing that would qualify as a PA, but after a time they really, really 'get to you'. Instead of being offended, one is 'nibbled' to being offended by a thousand small cuts. I am considering mediation (although I am quite busy at the moment with more serious issue, some of which you are aware of) and I am looking for a user with PAIN experience who could spare some time and look into this matter, and tell me if I am ovvereacting - or perhaps ask that user to be less sarcastic in the future. Would you have a time for this, or know somebody who would?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

For such a user the best idea is to open an RFC on the user and see if it's something everybody, or at least a consensus, sees as a problem ... and then go from there. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
RfC... yes, it sounds best. Now I have to weight the benefits of possible moderation via RfC vs a waste of content editing time spend to prepare it. Oh well, once the current DR is finished, I'll see about it. Btw, you may want to look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Piotrus_and_Ghirlandajo - I believe you'll find some statements there of interest (and hopefully they'll improve your mood). Cheers,  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 

[edit] reference to personal attack - Eupator

I have noticed your comment on dispute between Eupator and Grandmaster. You can check my complain about Eupator:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Personal_attack_intervention_noticeboard#Eupator_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29

His manner of dispute should be stopped.It is hard to reach agreement on editing and wording with such users. Check also Talk:Urartu --Dacy69 04:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Luna-Santin, a WP:PAIN administrator has already commented - please read his comments. I do not want to second guess him, especially since I feel they are reasonable. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trust you're well

Hi Peter, How do I make just a regular old box for putting centered text into? Plus, is there a special page that shows me how? I'm crap at HTML, I'm afraid. Thanks!NinaEliza (talk • contribs • logs) 00:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

If you tell me where you want this done, I can do so for you. I'm okayish, as well as I can be with the controversies on Wiki I'm involved in currently and personal life being as it is. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
As for the box, I would like it to surround "This user's contributions are dedicated to the memory of Iris Chang". Something pretty and understated but at the very top. Centered preferably, perhaps mauve or sage green. I think she would like that.
As for you and the controversies, now is a wonderful time to step away from Wikipedia for a minute and find away to get some "fresh air" on things. I love Wikipedia, but staring at a lighted box and tapping on a keyboard can tend to immerse you. It's good to know that as fast as any page can be damaged, it can be fixed even quicker. The same sometimes goes for people as well:).
My eternal gratitude in advance for anything you can do, NinaEliza (talk • contribs • logs) 01:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I fixed up your page a little as you asked. As to me, well, as Elara would put it, I've been getting to know the magical ball of fire lately. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ghirla, Piotrus, and mediation

Was your latest comment at WP:PAIN in reference to my mediation offer? DurovaCharge! 00:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Ehh, never mind that. Well, ... I do suppose you deserve an explanation. It was indeed a comment made in conjunction with it. In all honesty, I felt rather attacked by Irpen in this whole matter that blew into this mess. It was comment made mostly out of stress, but I will be removing it per a lot of cooling down, a hug, and a much clearer and helpful sentiment. In the end I feel very responsible for this, since it was me warning Ghrila that started the death spiral, so, I hope that I can try to make amends. I certainly do not want it to go to WP:RFAR, myself. It will only serve to get one (or more) good editors punished for what seem to me such simple misunderstandings... Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Well lately I've been a waypoint for several disputes on their path to ArbCom so maybe I can deflect this one. It all depends on whether Ghirla is willing; Piotrus accepts me. Ghirla and I have always been cordial (I seem to be one of the rare administrators who can say that) so let's be optimistic. DurovaCharge! 01:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I hope my comment on his/her page helped rather than hindered .... Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hello

why did you revert my edits on the anti-zionism page? it was just elaboration on the topic Yehoishophot Oliver 15:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see the policy on vandalism. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 15:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I saw it. How did my edits qualify? I simply elaborated on the article topic. Yehoishophot Oliver 15:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
If it isn't obvious, I don't know how to make it so. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 15:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't get it. Why is it not allowed to mention that terrorist groups believe that the State of Israel shouldn't exist? That's simply a fact. No non-NPOV that I can see. Please allow me to revert to my edit, or justify your removal. Yehoishophot Oliver 15:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
If you can source your claims with reliable sources, go for it. Otherwise I'm inclined to remove it as hate speech. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 15:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
These are facts known to one and all, and openly declared by these groups, as is evident from the relevant wiki articles. Why do I need to source something that's already sourced on wiki? I am surprised that you would think that there's anything controversial about it. Yehoishophot Oliver 16:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting sources

Here is what you did at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad&diff=96424698&oldid=96424642

--Patchouli 16:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)