User:Peter M Dodge/Archives/archive jan172006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Re : A note

I saw your comments on Bishonen's talkpage. Could you please voluntarily withdraw your comments on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Workshop as a gesture of goodwill? Thanks. - Mailer Diablo 19:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

  • It's probably a good idea. I'll strike them through, since it would make that part of the discussion somewhat incoherent if I just removed them wholesale. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks again. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 19:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Not a problem. This whole thing could use some diffusion and I'm not going to be responsible for escalating the situation if I can help it. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:25, 1Ar January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Would you take a look at Stephen Barrett

We need a neutral opinion on a single sentence, as to its NPOV. I think it would be a good idea to get consensus from editors who are not either "pro-Barrett" or "anti-Barrett". I did not pay a lot of attention to this until it was raised as an issue (twice). I don't want to see this become contentious. I am not wedded to either version. (with or without the sentence), although I can see why it might be conside red POV here. If you know any non-involved editors who would be willing to weigh in here, it would be helpful. Thank you.Jance 05:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need help

Barrett v. Rosenthal talk page. I removed a link that Fyslee posted , for our 'enlightenment and enjoyment" that was an extremely POV blog, that slams Ilena and criticizes the court holding. I would never remove a talk page comment, but this seemed over the top. I wouldn't have thought Fyslee would do this. I guess I was wrong.Jance 17:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  • With all due respect, he can post what he wants on the talk pages as long as they follow Wikipedia policy. External sites are not required to follow neutral point of view guidelines. I have reverted back to his version. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, then I misunderstood. My apology. Since this attacks Ilena, then she should be allowed to post her website on the talkpage, as well, for "entlightenment and enjoyment." I thought the talk pages were not forums for this.Jance 18:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
He can still be disciplined for posting an attack site, if it is one. I didn't look at the content of the site. Irregardless removing the link does no good, because if a sysop looks into the matter they won't have the site to look at themselves. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Since no one has been kind enough to speak directly to my face on my talk page, I'll comment here (behind my own back....;-). I have now read the blog entry by some unknown person. It looks like a commentary on the court ruling. I am still trying to find an attack on Ilena. I did find some links to mild comments about her nonappearances at some events. I have no idea what they were about (I have for years deliberately steered clear of her), but they were certainly rather mild pokes of fun at her. The really bad stuff is when the link to a page of links to her own sites is included. Reading her own sites should be forbidden for children and even adults. It's pure attack and villification of all her "enemies". It's her that is doing the attacking, and the blog owner only has a list of links to her attack sites. Is exposing her attack sites an attack on her? That would be an interesting twist of logic! Suddenly the attacker becomes the victim.
Whatever the issues of the trial decision, free speech allows commentaries on such decisions, without them being considered attacks on anyone. Before posting the link I glanced at it and saw that it commented on the trial, and thought it might be of interest, since only Ilena's version is getting told. I still don't see any direct attacks on Ilena, but maybe Jance can provide the quotes here for me to see for myself. I'm willing to be corrected. -- Fyslee 20:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of "posting an attack site, if it is one", all of Ilena's sites I've ever seen are extreme attack sites, and she has repeatedly posted them to Wikipedia, and even after repeated warnings. (Her ending up in the courts has been for good reason, and is her own fault for her consistently aggressive behavior.) She has only been warned for posting links to her attack sites, and extreme patience beyond all reason has been exercised towards her. Many other editors (newbies, unlike herself) have been indefinitely blocked for her type of behavior. So my singular and unusual posting of a commentary of a court case is hardly anywhere near the same ballpark as her normal behavior. Let's see some kind of reasonableness and fairness here. -- Fyslee 20:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] little guide

hey ho. regarding today's conversation, after dinner i made this little rough guide on linkspam. love any additions (esp. policy citing and wording) or comments on its talkpage. i'm also going to pass it to Danny and Anthere for use/info soon. cheers! JoeSmack Talk 09:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ilena, anger, and npov

Well, I have to say I was amazed at how much better she was after the AN. However that seems to have changed - the anger is back, the attacks are steadily increasing, and she still has absolutely no concept of NPOV. --Ronz 21:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As I expressed on my AN/I report, I'm frustrated that some camps have been (in my opinion) baiting her, as it's only led to her "reverting" back to the way she was and undoing whatever progress I had made. It's a shame, really, but it looks like it's steadily going on the road to ArbCom and well, I'd rather not get involved in ArbCom if I can help it. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't blame you. Thanks for your help and inspiration. I'm very impressed with what you've done in this situation. One thing that I refrained from mentioning earlier: I think both sides bait her. --Ronz 21:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
As I told Ilena in an email correspondence, it's become a vicious circle of personal attacks, and if she doesn't break it, I doubt the other parties will. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I would like to add that I am not a "side" in this. I have made edits that both sides liked & disliked. So... Please leave me out of it. I have no past usenet baggage, and no particular interest one way or the other in Barrett, other than curiosity. I tried to help with description of the legal cases because I am an attorney. It has been clear to me that "both sides" misunderstood or misinterpreted statements made in the opinion.Jance 21:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attack?

Do you really thing that the message you removed was a personal attack? It was a follow up warning nothing more and the same message has led to a civil conversation here. David D. (Talk) 22:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Negatively singling out an editor, especially in an already inflamed situation, may not be a personal attack strictly speaking, but it's not constructive. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
How about offering some constructive alternatives instead? --Ronz 22:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
In my defense it was not out of the blue since we had spoken of this in mid December and it was certainly not meant to be an attack. With regard to singling out, with regard to the Barrett page, she is the only user who refuses to discuss in a civil manner and has been revert warring for some time. This is bad enough from any user, but from one so personally involved in the topic it just makes sense that she should avoid the area. I think my advice is sound, not an attack.
On my return here, I now see you have had an ongoing interaction with her. Sorry I missed that, I had thought her editing was going unchecked. I hope it has not hurt your ability to mentor her. David D. (Talk) 22:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • she is the only user who refuses to discuss in a civil manner Obviously not true. The edit history of that page, well, it speaks for itself. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Well it's all relative and I have watched it for a while. In general, while sharp things have been said in the past, compromises and collaborations have also occurred. But not in the present environment. Clearly this is escalating out of control judging from other comments I have seen on the page today. David D. (Talk) 23:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
But only one to do the Bus Stop Shot info 04:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you both. I can assure you, I have no desire to be devisive. I do have alot of verifiable information and knowledge on articles discussed here. When I see things blatantly false (such as Barrett has never been sued when I know of two suits served against him in the last month), I hope you understand my desire to have the encyclopedia not make false statements. I'm leaving the jungles for a while ... will probably be very quiet in the next weeks, you'll be happy to know. Ilena 23:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gonagala massacre

Hi Peter, you added a POV tag to this article based on the report to WNP by a user on December 30. Since then User:NinaOdell made a number of edits on behalf of WNP and other users including me changed the article significantly and made in NPOV (as far as I can see). Please go over the article and see if there are further issues and correct them or list them on the talk page. If there are no further problems, can you please remove the POV tag. Thanks. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 03:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Just discuss it on the talk page, if you can come to a consensus that the article is no longer a POV problem, then remove the POV tag and post a note on the WNP report that it has been dealt with :) Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 16:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civilx, AFGx, & NPAx

I'd appreciate it if you could comment on this [1] or suggest a better location for such a discussion. Thanks --Ronz 02:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like there are numerous discussions related to this. I'll contribute to what's out there already. --Ronz 21:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VP approval

Hello, On the VP approval page, it states "If your name is removed from the list and you do not receive confirmation..."

This seems to imply that normally people awaiting approval will receive a confirmation on whether or not they have been approved.

You blanked out the list and I was not informed. I just thought you might want to know that when you do that it can create hard feelings, as people may be expecting to receive a confirmation, based on the statement quoted above. I am sure your intentions were good, and I appreciate the efforts you put in to Wikipedia. Perhaps the page itself should be changed to explain that users may not be contacted if they are not approved.

Thanks, Jerry lavoie 06:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Those who are not approved for whatever reason are not informed, generally. You were a borderline case, and after a bit more of good edits, I think you would be fine, as long as you stay out of trouble :) Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 16:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • They should be notified, you can automatically notify those you add in VP, and you should give {{DeclineVP}} to those you reject. Prodego talk 20:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No edit summary

Why? This has been covered many times (before you came on the scene in this article), and it has never been questioned before. Bolen has never denied his financial involvement with some of his customers. He is not an unpaid activist acting from purely ideological grounds, but does it for money. -- Fyslee 07:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Threat to block me

Hello, I am here for advice. I saw your comments on the AN/I JzG thread. I'm the editor that presented the evidence that started that whole ruckus. I also made a few comments in the thread (though nothing specifically against JzG). I do have a very long history of conflict with JzG, and that conflict flares up frequently.

Anyway, that's the back story. Hipocrite has now warned me twice for getting involved in this debate. The first time (before the AN/I debate even started, when it was still on PAIN), I thought the warning was completely unwarranted and I removed it (as I've seen many admins do when they think the warning is frivolous). Now I've received another warning for "stalking" and "needling" JzG. Now I realize I have a long history of conflict with JzG (and I believe I have a case, but that's another story) but how does the simple presentation of evidence of past incivility equate to "stalking" and "needling"? I'd appreciate your comments on this, as I am about to go the RfC route with Hipocrite and they say you should get others' input first. I've also asked Durova for her input. Thank you. ATren 20:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article ban

Could you please articulate why you think I should be included in any article ban on B v. R? I am curious, since I have not edit warred, and have not taken any 'side' there (as is clear from my edits). I have not been involved in any usenet or external dispute, and I have not even edit warred here. I am an attorney and have tried to help clarify a plain reading of the case. Jance 21:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I think we all just need to take a break from the article, the situation has continued to excalate because people cannot disengage from it, so I think it would be helpful to force the issue. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
In that case, you need to include every person who edited there, including yourself, Mastcell, Arthur, Ronz etc. I have no more a dispute than any of you. I resent being singled out along with those who do, and with Curtis, who has edited in bad faith.Jance 01:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • But you did not include every other editor, including Ronz, Arthur, Mastcell. They have also edited. And I have no more conflict or dispute than they have. That is why I am so disgusted with your comments. I am not advocating on any side's behalf. My deletion of an attack link was proper, as you yourself later acknowledged when you deleted it yourself. I had also notified Fyslee (I emailed him, which he had evidently not received.) I was irritated when you first 'singled me out' without explanation and I am more irritated now. Why don't you ask the neutral parties (in your opinion) what they think of my edits? I doubt they would agree with you. In fact, David (I don't even know if he edited th article) pointed this out to you, but you ignored or missed it. Why?Jance 02:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Peter, is it possible that skimming Jance's heavy editing, the tangles with Curtis' stalking & POV (groan), some other history or a few specific edits that she *looked* contentious or that you are "pairing" Jance for Curtis ? Jance is the most neutral editor on QW/SB/BvR/NCAHF (sorry if that sounds like faint praise since editing at SB/BvR/NCAHF is so highly charged!). She's had a *lot* of hassle from Curtis, & a certain COI doctor elsewhere.--I'clast 02:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
One other comment, the historical record might look Jance is tangling with Ilena's edits mid-December when she is trying hard to straighten all of us out on correct legal interpretation, wording and explain. (Reviewing, I just discovered a problem with my wording yesterday that she previously addressed.)--I'clast 03:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • She as much as any of us is a party to the dispute. So I didn't remember everyone!! Add them in - it is a wiki, after all! Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
And banning all editors strikes me as ridiculous. I think it is inappropriate to ban anyone now, including Ilena, since nobody is being disruptive.Jance 23:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit in main space

Peter, I think you're doing a great job here trying to mediate but how about getting out into the main space a bit more? I am assuming you will be running for admin in the future and at the moment you have very few "original" main space edits. Getting your feet wet will help you understand many more of the interactions that occur on this site. Not to mention that so little experience in the main space will be a detriment to adminship in the future, if that is your goal. David D. (Talk) 21:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not require sysop privileges for what I do, and do not intend to pursue sysop status at this juncture. If the community feels that I am deserving of sysop status, then they will promote me. I do feel compelled to note that when I first came here, I edited in article space almost exclusively (probably about my first 800 edits give or take), and came in conflict with many editors, and it was then that the shift towards mediation took place. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
My mistake, it just seemed that the you take such an interest in process that the sysop bit would have been your eventual goal. With respect to the 800 main space edits, though, you have less than 450 main space edits and most of those are adding stubs or reverting vandalism. Did you start out with a different user name or use an IP? For example, I can't see your LOTR edits in there. David D. (Talk) 21:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Interiot's "wannabe kate" tool will provide a good overview of the various articles I have contributed to. There is a fair variety, including Science Fiction, History of Physics, Ultima (and the various articles for games in that series), Exult, and a handful of others. In my original stint I did some stub sorting, but if anything "bloated" the contributions, it was using Vandalproof to revert vandalism. Not all of my original contributions were under a username, I edited as an anon IP for quite a while until I decided to get a username. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Thats what i thought (IP contributions). Sorry for the inquisition. I was surprised to find you were not an admin and then thought you might want a pointer, if you were thinking of RfA. There was one that failed a while back since the editor was very much into process but had little editing in main space. Sorry i can't recall which one. David D. (Talk) 21:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CheckUser

Yeah, I'm a former arbitrator - I was elected in December 2004, and resigned in July 2005. I haven't really been doing that much CheckUsering thusfar (except by personal request), because I'm not the most technically apt of people, but I'm perfectly capable of doing the simple ones, and I'm stuck in a small town visiting family for the next month, so I've got nothing else better to do.

I saw your userpage on the way over here, too - I hope things start to pick up for you in the real world. Rebecca 22:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Well I appreaciate you helping out - Essjay does the majority of requests on RFCU, hence the self-proclaimed title "Queen of Checkuser", and while they are on a wikibreak RFCU has steadily been getting backlogged, so the help is needed and much appreicated. Thanks for the concern about personal events - it's getting better steadily, but, without saying too much, it's still not a very tenable situation. Yet, I'm still here on Wikipedia :) Sad person, I. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Certainly

I'll try. --PaxEquilibrium 23:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

You helped me with aligning an archive box (which it seems we can't do, oh well) and I popped by, had a quick peek and wanted to say WOW at your user page, and thanks for the help. I've been unwell for a good part of last year and understand the 'uncivil' warning. Looking back on some of my emails there were times when.. I was difficult. I know it was when I was really poorly but even if you issue a warning, sometimes the person on the other end of these little boxes can't really appreciate what that means. Having had a taste of that, double thanks, and hope all well for you soon. Miamomimi 23:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Troll vote

[2] Did you really mean to do that? Did you look at that user's other contributions? It's a returning, long-term vandal. Antandrus (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Some WP:AGF and cool-headedness is in order here. Especially on a contentious RFA. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
As you wish: it's a banned user named User:EddieSegoura, who has been harassing Metros232 and others for the last few days. Typically we revert all edits by banned users, but I won't remove it again if you want it to stay. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Antandrus, it might be helpful if you explained how you know it's EddieSegoura, and to ensure transparency, it's customary to strike through improper votes rather than just revert them. Peter, I agree that if it is in fact Eddie Segoura, the !vote should be stricken. Newyorkbrad 22:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VandalProof application

I certainly understand your declining my application, but I think if you investigate the bot reversions, you'll find that the bots were reverting my reversions of vandalism. I remain open to your judgment in the matter. Thanks very much. --Gpohara 01:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

  • In either event, you did not meet the 250 mainspace edit threshold for vandalproof application. Once you get there we are better able to judge whether things like that are isolated incidents or an ongoing problem. I have no problem whatsoever with re-reviewing your request once you meet that threshold. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VandalProof Banning

Good evening (GMT time); I would like to ask if my "banning" from VandalProof by you is justified. If this is so, I am considering departing Wikipedia; I've had too many users such as you steam roll over my good contributions with a banning like this.

Yours in disappointment,
Anthonycfc [T • C]

[edit] Hi

Peter, how do you do the Wikistress thing? I've basically set up about 2-3 years worth of projects and everyone seems to need/want my help. I'm freaking out and overwhelmed. I also just plain don't seem to want to write articles. All I do is chat, and it sucks. Plus I went to a page I probably shouldn't go to and sort of had a freak-out. I know you check your messages - please help me get on the Wikistress board. Thanks, NinaOdell | Talk 15:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Web-of-Trust at StartCom CA

You removed at StartCom Certification Authority the section about the Web-of-Trust: Removing - →Web-of-Trust - This should be explained in the applicable article, or perhaps as a passing reference in the history section

However I'm not sure, if there should be really a separate article about this and if so, can you start it (as a stub even)? I certainly don't think, this should be part of history really...Don't know...It really is a different approach for validating identities in a decentralized community network of notaries and members. It certainly should be mentioned and explained at the StartCom CA page in my opinion. Any suggestions?

Diff: [3]

Startcom 13:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Toolserveraccount

Hello Wizardry Dragon,
please send your real-name, your prefered login-name and the public part of your ssh-key to image:zedler-admins.png. We plan to create your account soon then. --DaB.

[edit] Daran Little

Hello. Although I appreciate that mySpace, etc., is not always a reliable source (it's usually cited by teen bands as evidence of notability), there is the clause "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject..." This exception would apply to Daran Little, since it is his mySpace site! Some random person's blog, etc. is not exactly reliable, but when it is x's blog writing about x, then I think that's fair game...? The JPStalk to me 23:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

  • A person cannot be expected to be considered a reliable or neutral source on themselves. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that's true, but isn't there some flexibility depending upon the type of statement being cited. Subjective statements like "x is the most talented drummer ever" (You can tell I've deleted my fair share of A7 bands) is not neutral, but, in this case, "I can confirm that there will be no new series of Hollyoaks" is an objective fact presented in a neutral way. (BTW, I'm not particularly bothered about Little or Hollyoaks: I just want to quiz you because it obviously has wider implications.) The JPStalk to me 00:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Linkspam is a widening problem on Wikipedia, and since I'm tired of waiting for the hammer to fall on it, I'm making my own small dent. A self-published source is not reliable except in very specific circumstances. See WP:RS. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
      • In this set of circumstances, I'd argue an external link to the blog would be OK, but as anything written by a celebrity (as with anybody) often cannot easily be verified and isn't available from multiple independent sources so it's not ideal as a reliable source. It wouldn't be the first time a star being fired has been told one thing whilst the production company indicates something different. --Kind Regards - Heligoland (Talk) (Contribs) 00:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)