User:Peter M Dodge/Archives/archivefeb012006

[edit] Your RfA

Just to let you know, User:The Rambling Man (formerly known as Budgiekiller) gained oppose !votes in his recent RfA just for responding to oppose !votes!!! Sad, but true. The advice gleaned there was to do so on the RfA talk page or on the talk pages of individuals. It also seems that his supporters doing the same was labelled "belligerent", so beware that too. Ridiculous, IMHO... anyone supporting or opposing should be prepared to reconsider their opinion if it's based on flawed understanding, but some people think it unpleasant. --Dweller 09:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you have closed your RfA early - it was a close-run discussion. I appreciate your sentiments for closing, the spirit of the Wiki is why were are all here to offer our services, after all. I'm glad that you can see the oppose reasons in such a positive light. I don't think that you will have major problems the next time you decide to run when you have dealt with those issues. I have also closed out the discussion in the correct manner, as requested. Regards and happy editing, (aeropagitica) 17:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, as an opposer your willingness to withdraw to prevent 'harassment' (I don't think yours was rising to that level, but I've got a pretty thick skin) speaks well in favor of your chances in the future. Please feel free to drop me a line if you do run again, and good luck with everything. -- nae'blis 17:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess you changed you mind. Sorry it worked out that way for you. If you want any other advice feel free to ask. David D. (Talk) 19:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] summaries

I thought that I always had a summary. If it's a short article and the db tag comes up in the summary box, I normally leave it at that. For longer articles, where the summary box is blank, I usually add text clarifying why I am deleting using autocomplete. This tends to be on the lines of "advertisement" or "article about a person, group.... that does not assert notability." For copyright violation, I copy the URL from the tag . jimfbleak 10:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• The automatically generated summaries shouldnt really be used, in my opinion, they're just a saftey valve if you do forget to add one. You should try to summate why the article is being deleted. If the article comes up in DRV, with no summary, it tends not to look good. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 10:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your RFA

It's become obvious that your comments in closing your RFA were directed at me. I'm stunned and hurt that you would think I had any intention or desire to "harrass" oppose votes. I wrote what I wrote because I feel strongly that if this is something that could benefit you (as you stated), it's the least the community can do. I'm very sorry you closed your RFA in what I feel was an unreasonable length of time to give people an opportunity to weigh in thoroughly.

Personally, I don't understand why you would want it, and I said so. I feel betrayed and grossly misunderstood. You could have at least given me the chance to explain myself (there are several ways to contact me, all of them you know about). For the record, the power went out for three hours in my town and I was unavailable for the rest of the day, but still.

Furthermore I got the message loud and clear that you think I'm some sort of uncontrollable "loose cannon" that can't be trusted. That hurts me more than anything. I maybe be passionate about what I believe, but in my opinion I uphold my responsibility to the community and to the people I associate with. I wish you had simply responded to me if you felt my comments were inappropriate. I may be a bit of a drama queen, but this is more drama than even I can stomach. NinaOdell | Talk 13:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No. Actually, it was Heligoland's long tirade about spam and how no one understood the problem, and how everyone was opposing me on flimsy ground. Such deriding remarks go against my values, and I would not be a party to it. There was other stuff going on too, but that was the straw that broke the camel's back. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Well I suck, don't I

One of my biggest pet peeves is when people don't read or even click on carefully placed links. Another one of my pet peeves is when people don't read banners. Please don't do anything you might regret in the future, as I have. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NinaOdell (talk • contribs) 17:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Link on Trans-Siberian railway entry

I disagree with your removal of my link to an account of my experience on the Trans-Siberian railway, especially as two other similar accounts were not removed. If you read the list of links that should not be added you will see that it says they should not be added unless they were "the subject of the article", which my link clearly was. My link was relevent and has been enjoyed by readers. Can you remove it from whatever "blacklist" you have placed it on please. My sole aim is to provide an enjoyable & informative read to people researching a trip. There was no element of self promotion intended, to describe it as a "spam link" is somewhat unfair. Keithmall 19:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• The link did not add to the encyclopedia article, and was not from a reliable, verifiable source, and as such was removed. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it didn't add to the article is why it was placed as an external link and not part of an article. The heading of Travel Tales was already there and is a perfect description of the link that was added, that was why I added it. A link to a similar article was left untouched, just because I am not a professional travel writer does not make my experiences any less relevent or valid than those of someone who is. Your interpretation of what is a valid link has denied many people who might be thinking of making the trip access to a first hand account which would be of value to them. As a compromise can it be included on the discussion page rather than the main article? Keithmall 19:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if the link doesn't add anything to the article, it should not be there. blog.myspace.com is blacklisted with good reason, however, you may include excepts from the site on the talk page for public consumption, if you like, as a compromise. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. However it would be interesting to know why two other links to similar accounts are considered valid when mine is not. Just because Myspace is my only outlet for publishing an account shouldn't be held against me. Keithmall 19:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Don't worry. The only reason they haven't gotten removed is I'm only one person and can only get so many links at a time. At least not without my talk page turning into a train wreck :) Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to the AMA!

Hello Wizardry Dragon, I see that you have decided to join the AMA. I'll be the first to say welcome! We're always in need of more advocates, especially since were backlogged most of the time. Before heading into your first case, please take some time to familiarize yourself with the AMA FAQ's, the Guide to Advocacy, and the AMA Handbook.

Just a few pointers for what we do. We communicate by putting a template on our talk page. The template is {{AMA alerts}}. The AMA also has it's own IRC channel, which reports new cases and alerts to us. It can also be used as a place to ask for advice on an issue. If you'd like to jump right into a case, you are free to check out AMA Requests for Assistance, which is our new request for advocacy system. The instructions for how the technical part works is on it's talk page. You can also use the AMA userboxes that appear under here. If you have anymore questions about the organization, just ping any advocate's talk page, including our coordinator Steve Caruso or deputy coordinators Wikiwoohoo and Aeon. Again, welcome to the AMA! -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 21:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Seconded :) Ask if you need any help - you'll be an asset to the association :). Feel free to pick a case from WP:AMAREQ and get started. I reckon that the IP one there just needs someone to explain WP:EL to him (not very glamorous), but we've got some older, bigger disputes sitting in the list. You can also sit in #AMA-Wikipedia if you want :) Martinp23 22:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barrett v. Rosenthal

What's going on there? What is the mediation about? I haven't been editing there in awhile.Jance 23:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• The same issues that were going on when you left are still ongoing, and I thought you may want to weigh in with your opinions on the matter. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If I am not to be allowed to provide the requested evidence of my attempts to deal with her attacks, then what's going on? Have I misunderstood your RfM? It was made in the specific context of her personal attacks on myself, so why is it described as an RfM regarding Barrett v. Rosenthal? That is not currently an issue under discussion. If I'm not to be allowed to discuss the current problem, then maybe you shouldn't have added my name and obligated me to a lot more wasted time. Please explain and maybe I'll withdraw. -- Fyslee 23:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• The mediation is a stopgap measure to allow all parties to understand the -content- disputes that have erupted. It is not a place for hearing personal attacks. I'm of the opinion that if Ilena is sincere, then the mediation will work, but if she is insincere, then it will become obvious if she can't stay away from personal attacks. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I misunderstood. In the context it seemed like it would deal with the current, rather than (relatively) ancient B v. R discussion, but you're probably right. Unfortunately this RfM will divert attention from the basic issue underlying all of her presence here, which is to carry her Usenet personal attacks to wikipedia. They got her sued before, and because she was reposting what someone else wrote, she got away with it. Now she thinks she can continue here. Oh well, I'll just withdraw. -- Fyslee 23:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

To me its, simple, if she can discuss the matter on mediation, and play nice, and some resolution comes of it, then it will be done and ended and we can all live happily ever after. If she cannot, then her rope will have run to it's end and I'd be the first to see her blocked. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the problems you list (neutrality, Ilena's links, and inflammatory content) are minor and pretty well resolved from my perspective at least on Barrett v. Rosenthal. Stephen Barrett is much more problematic, and The National Council Against Health Fraud is so incredibly bad that we've compromised WP:OR (and other policies) just to get some disputes behind us. As for Ilena's part in this, as long as she's unwilling to understand and/or follow basic wiki policy (WP:N, WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:AGF, WP:CIV, WP:NPA), what's the point? --Ronz 00:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Before I agree or disagree, I'd like to know why this RfM was created as is, specifically the choice of issues, editors, and article. I can't make sense of any of them. Your comments above, "I'm of the opinion that if Ilena is sincere, then..." and "To me its, simple, if she can..." suggests the real, unlisted reason for the RfM is to give Ilena yet another (final?) chance to demonstrate that she can control her behavior. --Ronz 15:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not see what the content dispute is on Barrett v. Rosenthal. It seems pretty stabilized. Am I wrong?Jance 22:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm sorry...

... having just taken a look at your user page, it sounds like you're going through a tough time right now. I'm sorry for bugging you with petty Wikipedia disputes at a time like this - I didn't realize. You have my best wishes. Take care. MastCell 00:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• No harm done, though Durova's involvement and handling of the issue disappointed me greatly. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your sig

Hi Peter. I don't know if anyone has ever brought this up, but I find your signature confusing here [1]. It appears two times, but in two different forms, giving the impression that two different people are writing. You are free to design your signature as you wish (although it is more difficult to read when editing, than an ordinary and simple sig), but it would help if you used the same sig all the time. -- Fyslee 06:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact you may even want to consider a move to User:Peter Dodge as a permanent user name. You can move all your contributions and history to that new user name. It took me a while to figure out that you, Peter, on the talk pages, was the same as wizardry dragon in the history. David D. (Talk) 06:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ilena

I've got to discuss your participation in the Ilena/Fyslee dispute. It doesn't help a user who's being blocked to watch her mentor and the acting administrator disagree on procedures and policies. You're welcome to e-mail me if you want to discuss things directly or to post at WP:AN if you prefer to sound out other sysops, but please don't do Ilena the disservice of fostering confusion at her own user talk page. In my honest opinion her chances of adjusting to Wikipedia's user standards aren't good - I've expressed that before - and at this point I believe your participation in the dispute is harming her. I honestly anticipated that when I posted the diff that prompted her 24 hour block you would change your mind about WP:AGF regarding her. I also referred to her ability to produce a diff. Here's the post where she actually created one.[2] So she understands how to satisfy this site's standards of evidence and chooses not to do so. If you've watchlisted my userpage you know I've suggested to Fyslee that he open a user conduct RFC on you if this appeal fails (I had started composing this when his post arrived). Quite frankly things have gotten to where the alternatives are that I warn or block you. I'd rather not go through any of that so please cooperate on this - and if it's a hot button to you for some reason then consider recusing yourself. Ilena can get another mentor. Durova^Charge! 22:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You probably have Ilena's talk watchlisted, but shortly after posting this I extended her block to 1 week and opened a thread on WP:AN. Durova^Charge! 23:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I should read user pages more closely. I've asked Fyslee to hold off on RFC. Please accept my condolences. Most sincerely, Durova^Charge! 01:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• If you would condemn me for reaching out to a harried and attacked user, you have fallen a little out of touch with Wikipedia's values. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I applaud the gesture of reaching out to a user who needs help. The problem is that your understanding of site standards is at variance with what the community consensus has determined. So when, for example, you attempt to caution me at Ilena's own talk page as if dispute resolution generated some shield against user blocking, that's counterproductive. The proper way to discuss that would be through e-mail and I could cite many precedents where it even happened during arbitration. You've done that sort of thing quite a few times - such as stepping in with the referee whistle (one of my trademark gestures) and attempting to interpret policy. The fact is, both of us asked the community to trust us as referees. The community selected me on an 81-0-1 decision and the only neutral voice came from someone who thought I was too soft on underdogs. You've told me before that you think I'm out of touch with site policies. Repeating that opinion directly to me is unproductive: if you're right then I obviously haven't understood you and if you're mistaken then it only draws attention to your misunderstanding. There's an active thread at WP:AN where you could air that opinon. So far nobody is saying I'm out of line and quite a few people, including arbitrators, have weighed in. I understand how devastating a loss in the family can be and how that can affect one's outlook so I heartily recommend if you sense that dynamic here then you endorse my suggestion that Ilena enter WP:ADOPT. KillerChihuahua has already supported that proposal. I'd like to be able to endorse you for adminship if you try again and one of the things which would earn my trust is if you demonstrated good discretion about when to recuse yourself. Everyone needs to sometimes; see User:Durova/Recusal. From your message at your user page it looks like you have enough on your plate. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 23:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response (and also a convenient section break)

Durova, I am seriously disappointed in your lack of perspective on the matter. The posts on AN, especially the one by Taxman are things I have been saying all along, if anyone chose to read what I said.

So, since we seem to all be talking past each other in this matter, I will put my response into a few, clear, points.

1. Wikipedia is not a battleground • It takes two (or more) to fight on Wikipedia, and your disproportionate response to Ilena leads me, and some others, looking at your above post, to believe some bias in this matter exists on your part.

2. Personal attacks go both ways • Fyslee went so far as to post a blog attacking Ilena on the Barrett vs. Rosenthal article and the talk for "our enjoyment." Attacks by either party should not have been condoned, and so far, Fyslee has had a free ticket, thanks to your disproportionate response.

3. Everyone who has a legitimate complaint should be dealt with respectfully • Ilena may not have but her comments in the best of way, but she had legitimate concerns about the bias of these articles, and of fyslee's attacks on her, as did fyslee of her attacks on him.

4. Assume good faith • No, really - you should. Everyone here has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, so charged accusations and blocks do little but agitate and divide. Assumptions of motives, such as yours assumptions of my motives, only harm.

5. Administrative actions are a last resort • Blocks are used to protect the site in the case that other attempts at dispute resolution failed. If a good faith attempt at dispute is ongoing, a block should only be placed in the direst of situations. I do not feel we have reached such an irremediable point at this juncture.

6. Wikipedia has a Code of Conduct • This extends to ALL of us, and one users indiscretions do not give someone an excuse to act out themselves. Especially in your case Durova - as I said previously: administrators on Wikipedia are chosen for their cool heads, clear judgement, and serve as an example of expected behaviour. Taking sides in a dispute sets a dangerous precedent. Some good reading on this matter is Essjay's neutrality policy.

Finally, and most importantly:

7. The beauty of Wikipedia is us all working together towards a common goal - building an encyclopedia.

To quote Essjay:

Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Durova, I think that Wizardry Dragon is doing his best, and right now I see at least one issue here. How come only one side of the dispute is blocked... they both did personal attacks on each other. —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 03:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Eagle. And I'm very concerned and gobsmacked by the sheer arrogance displayed above. Administrators are just editors with a couple of extra buttons, we aren't Gods. The fact that Peter now feels that his head is on the chopping block. [3] is very troubling to me. Peter, I'm officially on a break now but if you email, I'll come back. Unless you do something outside policy, a block would not stick, so I wouldn't be too worried about it. Sarah 09:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC) Oh, and since we're now delving into the pits and displaying wrinklies, my RFA had 160 in support and, at the time, was fifth most supported RfA ever. I'm surprised that anyone ascribes meaning to RfA numbers beyond pass/fail, but there you have it. Sarah 09:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Eagle, I blocked Ilena for altering another editor's statement header into something inflammatory and extended the block because she posted a link to a site that disclosed that editor's real world name. If the other editor had done the same things while I looked into this case I would have blocked him too, but he appeared to be making a genuine effort to accept feedback and cooperate: he struck through objectionable statements, added diffs to support allegations, and apologized for things that were out of line. Yes, there were problems on both sides, yet I think I handled this fairly in light of the behavior that actually happened during my participation.

Sarah, although I think some of your reaction lacks appropriate context I'll strikethrough the whole thing. Peter and I have agreed to put this behind us. Please allow me to clarify two things: I did not give him a block warning (that was a misunderstanding I made every effort to clarify swiftly) and I welcome feedback and opinions from him or any other editor. Of course sysops aren't gods; I apologize for any share I might have had in creating an impression that I thought such a thing. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 03:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ?

Can you be specific about what you mean by "less than stellar" with regards to me?-Cindery 05:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Your posts to the Noticeboard really speak to themself. You have been assuming a remarkable amount of bad faith regarding MastCell, and it's disturbing. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 05:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A drive-by

I'd have emailed you but you don't have email set. Death, depression. I feel your pain. Last year I lost my sister, and this was cynically exploited as a way of attacking me. They say time heals all wounds - it doesn't of course but it makes it possible to bear them; the pain never goes away but we become accustomed to it. You take care of yourself and remember that you are valued. Guy (Help!) 20:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Not a problem. The reason I have email disabled is just the kind of harassment that you note, as when my ex committed suicide the past christmas I got a bunch of harassing emails about it. Serves me right though - I had originally not disclosed it, and just set it as public, and look what happened. Anyways, I find it deplorable that someone would exploit a death against a person, and if anyone ever takes those kind of shots at you again, let me know. People need not suffer in silence over that, and I more than many know that salt in those kinds of wounds hurts a great deal indeed. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 07:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, it was pretty gross at the time, but rapidly stamped on with great force (User:ParalelUni). Anyway, I wanted to stand metaphorically shoulder to shoulder with you, as a fellow depressive with recent bereavement. Brothers in adversity and all. Guy (Help!) 13:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• I appreciate the sentiment greatly. I was a little upset at Durova's commenting on the matter with Sophie really, for a couple reasons. [1] She doesn't know the relationship, any of the circumstances of the death, and therefore can't really speak for it or it's impact, and [2] Her tone seemed rather condescending (not a good tone to take talking about deaths.) I hope she will apologize at some juncture, because until that long post of hers, she hadn't done anything terribly out of hand, and the comments rubbed salt into a very open wound. (Yes I realise I went on a tangeant there, sorry for that - it happens) Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 06:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking at this thread, I realize I should let you know that I referenced the above situation tangentially and (I hope) respectfully in my statement at the Ilena/Fyslee RfArb. I realize now that I should have checked with you first. Anyhow, if you find anything objectionable in my statement, or would just rather I not even bring it up, just leave me a message or email me and I'll fix it. Take care. MastCell 20:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if you took offense, Peter. It was a really tough call for me: your user page stated you didn't feel up to participation here at the site, yet you took it upon yourself to mentor a very tough case and took the initiative to open arbitration. If it makes any difference to say this, I gave up two years of my life and a career when my father got an incurable brain tumor. The first diaper I ever changed was Dad's. Then my <sarcasm>warm, loving, supportive cousin stood me up for the funeral he had promised to videotape and his warm, loving, supportive sister screamed into the telephone at me over something utterly trivial an hour after I selected Dad's urn.</sarcasm> I've walked more than a few miles in the same moccasins you're wearing and I'd much rather give you some Dr. Scholl's insoles than strew nails in your path. Sincerely, Durova^Charge! 03:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I started my involvement in this and as a RFCU clerk prior to this, and I intend to see through my obligations here, but I haven't been taking on additional responsibilities. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 03:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rejected RfM Barrett v. Rosenthal, now RfA

I'm asking you to withdraw the RfA, and instead work with the other editors involved to come up with a new RfM that we actually understand. The RfM was not rejected because anyone refuses to accept mediation, but because the RfM as written made no sense. Your statement in the RfA clarifies things somewhat, but not enough. --Ronz 04:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• I did not make the Request for Arbitration lightly, and a RfM cannot address the issue people want to address - behavioural problems are outside of the Mediation Committee's remit. That is in the remit of the Arbitration Committee, and since it is, sadly, behavioural problems people want to address, that is the proper venue. I find it quite sad that people have chosen ad hominen issues to concentrate on, instead of content, but that is nonetheless the issue that has been raised, and therefore that is what should be looked at. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 04:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • So you're saying you didn't make the RfA because the RfM was rejected, but because you want behavioral issues to be addressed? --Ronz 04:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

(I hate it when I have long responses typed up and then I lose the session data. I apologize for the length it has taken to get back to you, and I will edit in the full message below in steps to ensure I don't lose the message. Give me an hour or so to type up the whole thing again, as I have other demands on my time. Thanks for your indulgence and patience. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 05:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

• I am more than happy to explain my reasons for the listing in full length. I do not take the descision to petition the Arbitration Committee lightly, as their descisions are completely binding and unlikely to be overturned, as well it represents a fundamental admission that this issue is not within our own control right now. However I think everyone can agree that the situation has become somewhat untenable, with blocks, further harsh words, and knee jerk reactions prevailing. I think the Arbitration process' length and the cool and impartial heads of the Arbitrators would be of net benefit to the issue and to Wikipedia as a whole and as such I listed the case.
• The remit of the Mediation Committee is to serve as an outlet and venue for the resolution of content disputes. I posted the Mediation Case in hopes of creating a neutral ground where we could discuss the content issues that underly the surface issues. Ilena's talk page, or any of the other involved talk pages are hardly neutral ground, and as such, if for no other reason than that, the Mediation Case would have been a useful tool. It also would have benefited from a presiding Mediator that would be an uninvolved third party to serve as referee.
• The Mediation Case, however, was rejected by demon^. The reason for this is that mediation is a voluntary process, and Fyslee refused to participate. In his refusal, he stated that he wanted the behavioural issues of Ilena were one of his reasons for declining the Mediation attempt. This is a legitimate complaint, however, it is outside of the remit of the Mediation Committee to judge or otherwise address behavioural issues. That is the purpose of the Arbitration Committee and RFC, and since consensus was reached on AN that RFC would be of little use at this juncture (if it had been implemented earlier, it could have worked, but not this far down the road), I felt that the only way to resolve this issue outside of a direct appeal to Jimbo would be to approach the Arbitration Committee, so I did so. I hope this explanation makes things clearer. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 05:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Peter, I think arbitration is a good call. Ilena has a history by now of sucking people into the dispute, alienating them and then claiming they are not neutral. Arbitration is probably the only way of fixing this one and I hope they accept the case before we run out of "uninvolved" admins. Guy (Help!) 13:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Peter, I'm pleased that you acknowledge that the behavioral issues are the most basic and pressing ones at present. That is indeed the domain for RfA or RfC. I was under the understanding that RfC was to be tried before RfA, but now that ship has sailed and we're going to have to experience even more stress. (You are not the only one who is getting pushed to the brink of extinction - quite literally. This is very hard on me at the present time. So I am in a position to feel quite a bit of empathy for you, but it is now just that much harder for me as well.) That's life (as long as it's worth it).

Now all this places me in a dilemma. I am not sure if I should prepare any defense or not. I have started, but wonder if it will be a total waste of time, or even counterproductive. So far I have been prevented by you from defending myself, because you have categorized my feeble attempts as "personal attacks" and even deleted them. What is the wise thing for me to do? Would I be better off just staying silent and letting Ilena and yourself, and all the supporters of quackery (I'm not including yourself) at Wikipedia (who would love to can me) use this opportunity to kick me when I am down -- and being held down? I find myself in a weird blending of despair, angst, and sadness. Being unjustly accused without evidence is hard to take. Being attacked by others outside of Wikipedia is normal for me, but having her Usenet battles allowed and defended here is intolerable. I have always avoided her, and have rarely commentedd on her, and have never participated in Usenet at all. It is weird to find that she can use Wikipedia to force her battles on me. I have never been part of them before. -- Fyslee 16:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• There are ways to go about defending yourself without charged personal attacks. Remain calm, back up your accusations with diffs when you make them, and not after, and avoid making claims you cannot back up. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 16:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That certainly makes plenty of sense, so it would be best for me to wait for her to present her case, since she is the one who has attacked me (and Barrett) first, before we ever had dealings with her. That way I will be able to get her charges one at a time in clear language with her diffs and other evidence. If she doesn't present it in that manner, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, for me to sort it out. She currently throws everything out there in a jumble pile composed of tidbits of fact, filtered through her own conspiracy theories, and with a generous dose of ad hominem, straw man, and hyperbole. Please hold her to a high standard for presentation of her charges and evidence:

1. Very precise and specific accusations
2. One accusation at a time
3. Worded briefly
4. Precise quotes
5. With precise diffs and links
6. Civil in tone

-- Fyslee 17:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Fyslee, as a matter of course and good sense I will hold myself to the highest standard of behaviour regarding the case - I try to in all circumstances, though I'm only human and make mistakes. However, it's not my place in Arbitration to tell someone else if they're out of line, it's the Arbitrators'. Do not worry though, if it gets into that same mud-slinging again, they will intercede, or at the very least it will reflect very poorly in the remedies they propose for her. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 06:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking for some help concerning the RfA. I've really no idea what should I put in a statement, and I'm still confused by many of the unanswered questions from the RfM discussion page. Copying from a previous comment to Fyslee:

I've barely even looked at an RfA, so I'm turning to you as someone that appears to have a great deal of familiarity with them. (Please point me to someone more knowledgeable of and/or appropriate for such questions, as well as some documentation if it exists.)

• First, there doesn't appear to be a discussion page for it, which is why I'm writing here. Am I missing one?
• Assuming there is none, do you know if and how the scope can be clarified? As I interpret his statement, Peter has defined his perspective to be on what has happened since the Dec 26 AN, and some events immediately prior to it. The problems, I think, go back much further and include other articles and parties not yet mentioned. The RfA already has this at the bottom "I'd accept the Fyslee/Ilena, but not the et al. --jpgordon" which I'm unclear on.

Seeing how busy you are, I'm more expecting you'll just refer me to someone who can help, but it's your call. --Ronz 19:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• I would be happy to address your comments, as much as I'm able. I'm no expert on Arbitration, though I do lend a hand as a helper to the clerks there sometimes, as well as trying to keep hotbed cases civil.

1. To list your statement simply append a section with the heading ===Statement by party [[User:<yourusernamehere>]]=== with your statement following. There is no set guideline on what a statement should contain, but try to be clear and to the point.
2. Originally the case name was "Fyslee, Ilena, et al.". This was later changed by Thatcher, against fyslee's objections. The comment by jpgordon was referring to the title at the time. He felt the dispute was bilateral and the actions of other parties should not be examined at this juncture.
3. If the case is opened, it will have several pages, each with attached discussion pages. Until then the case does not have a dedicated talk page, and discussing it on my talk page is fine, as long as it remains civil.

I hope that helps. Let me know if you have further questions. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 06:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That helps a great deal. Thank you. Now I suppose I should just find some other RfAs to determine what these "statements" are about. I'm looking at this from a very large picture and am not sure how much is actually relevant to the RfA. I suppose it's easier to start with a broad view, and focus it later if some things are irrelevant, inappropriate, etc. --Ronz 16:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Two things that might be important if I'm assuming wrongly. The scope of what articles are involved doesn't seem to be a problem, correct? What about parties? From what I understand, bringing up other articles won't be a problem (there's already quite a bit of discussion on this). Introducing other parties seems more problematic. If they need to be introduced as listed parties in the RfA, who do I discuss this with? --Ronz 17:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Consensus among the Arbitrators, from what I can tell, seems to be that it will be the actions of fyslee and Ilena that are examined, and that the behaviour of others won't be, except as they pertain to Ilena or Fyslee (or both). CHeers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. That helps. --Ronz 17:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I do hope things are focused on our interactions and the related interactions of others who were involved, and don't get sidetracked into content issues in the articles, which will likely be a diversionary tactic she might use. That would be an impossible task, and is a matter best left to the normal editorial process. That functions fine when editors of all POV work collaboratively and follow the rules. That process produces the best quality articles, because all significant POV get presented in an NPOV manner. -- Fyslee 21:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have a great deal of faith that the Arbitrators won't let it go into a content dispute. They have been very vigilant against this in the past, and I see no reason to think they would act differently now. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm assuming there will be no content dispute, and none of the statements so far suggest otherwise. --Ronz 21:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please respond

I have asked you at least a couple of times why you added the parties and articles you did to mediation. Now I ask you why you included Breast Implants in this request for arbitration. Do you realize that only Ilena has even edited that article, and I believe she has edited one time??? Neither Ronz nor Fyslee has edited it at all. So please tell me why you included it in mediation? Do you realize that this may well open up an entirely different fight, that has nothing to do with Ilena? And I don't care what Ilena's outside interests in breast implants are. That is not at issue. At issue is a RFa on an article that these parties did not even edit!! Jance 04:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• I did not add the issue to my request. If it is on there, I did not add it myself, and should be removed. I would appreciate it if you would be more specific as to where you are seeing this. As to the mediation, as I said on the AN, the reason I added it to the Mediation is because that was one of the places Ilena wished to add her links. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 04:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, in the future, please try to be more patient. I'm on at very erratic and inconsistent times since my personal life is in pieces, and while I do try to be prompt I cannot always be, and attempting to reply to the volume of responses often leaves me missing some. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 04:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Peter. I should have remembered your situation. It's amazing that you are here at all, doing what you are. Jance 16:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, I am aware that patience is sometimes not my strong suit. I do work on that, when I am made aware of it.Jance 18:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Sometimes "doing what I do" on Wikipedia is all I have. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 06:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A side question

A side question to the RFI disscussion that I always wanted to ask is what exactly was the communication between you and Betacommand over IRC or otherwise, as well as with Cowman, Martin and everyone else who rushed to PAIN at the time, for the first time in their editing history. I mean over IRC or otherwise off-wiki. There is no way for me to check this, so I will have to rely on your truthfullness. --Irpen 07:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the block, you mean? I had no communication with Beta about the isse, although I have been told by him, himself that he discussed it on the (dreaded) admin channel. Personally, I found that Betacommand's block was probably far too heavy handed, although I felt that he is a new sysop and was not fully aware of the situation, so a certain degree of forgiveness can be extended there. I do commend him for asking other users their opinion before blocking a contributor, however I feel that any sort of even remotely controversial block should not be discussed on IRC, but should be taken to AN or ANI instead, where the process is clear and transparent. Hidden "cabal" IRC channels threaten the integrity of Wikipedia, if they are not used responsibly, and using them to discuss adminsitrative actions is not a responsible use. We're here to write articles, and that's what we should be discussing in Wikipedia channels, in my opinion anyways. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 08:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the administrators that "supported" me on PAIN, I am still unsure what to think of it, and I'm not at all blaming you for your suspicions of IRC "caballing". I personally found it hurt more than it helped, and really wanted everyone to take a deep breath and disengage. I did not know of Cowman et al before that encounted and I cannot say I looked favourably on their intevention. They may well of had good intentions, I tend to believe they do, but the "pile on" did not help things in the slightest. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 08:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't get it. You had no communication but "he told you". There is a self-contradiction in this. --Irpen 08:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, I do need to clarify there. I neither solicited him nor did I discuss it at the time. When the issue was raised on ANI, I asked him to be honest with me what his role was in the matter, and he repsonded that his only role was to ask if a block should be placed. I tend to believe that this was the case, but you can judge as you will. As to the others (Cowman, et al), I don't even know if they user IRC, nor any other off-wiki means of communication. Except for Piotrus, I had never even heard of them until that incident, and I wasn't exactly left with the most positive first impression after their "pile on." You had a legitimate complaint, and as such you should have been treated with more respect than you were. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 08:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't get it. When Betacommand blocked me, he did not leave either a warning or even a notification. This was a pure hit and run. So, there was no on-wiki evidence of the block and there was no way for you to know about it unless you persistently reloaded the service page with my block log. Nevertheless, you were first to announce the block within seconds and without any onwiki communication about it. So, there was some IRC communication involving you. Could you please give me a full and non-evasive answer of what you know about what happened? Thank you. --Irpen 08:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• The block was brought to my attention by pgkbot, an IRC bot on the Vandalism Control Network that reports vandalism. All blocks of any users by any admin show up on the bot. I noticed your name come up in the feed, and I thought that such unilateral action being taken without even a warning was inherently unfair. The best I could do was to post a note to the PAIN board and hope that the administrators there would notice - and given the sequence of events that followed, I think it helped, in the end. I'm unsure. But I tried what I could, in either event. A lot of that went on without my being consulted (or even informed) so I felt somewhat overwhelmed by it, but I tried to react in the matter I thought was best. If you feel I should have reacted differently, I'm open to thoughts. It was a very sticky situation, and not at all pleasant for anyone involved. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 08:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VandalProof moderation

In good faith I've honored your request to stop moderating VP for awhile, but it's time for some answers. --froth^T 21:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Then it's best to ask Betacommand. He is the one that has been "in charge" of looking into this, I have only assisted per requests. I can of course offer personal opinions and advice, but I cannot speak for Betacommand or Ami. Is there something in particular you want answered? Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I see. One question: has he been put in charge in response to complaints or at AmiDaniel's request, or did he take charge because he personally was concerned? If the latter, I'm becoming increasingly disinclined to continue in good faith.. --froth^T 23:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I am not really privvy to that. I think it'd be best if you kept it up yourself - at this juncture there's not much of a backlog, and it's not worth the potential upset. To put forth my own personal opinion, I think you didn't do that bad of a job, given you were working largely without the benefit of mentoring, and as I said to Beta, your mistakes were honest mistakes, but I'm not aware of the whole situation. In any event, that's just my $0.02 as a fairly new VP Mod myself. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Mm thanks, I'll do that --froth^T 23:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Peter - and Sorry!

Hi there,

How rude of me earlier to go straight to the noticeboard, and not come here first - i really just wasn't thinking about how aggressive that might have seemed, it's no excuse, but it came across as so much a bigger deal on the screen than in my head - this is totally my fault, and i'm sorry dude.

Feel free to copy all that stuff here then, which seems a better place for it - i'm a massive consumer of wiki, but not really very active an editor, and i just thought that the things i mentioned seemed a little odd, and wondered what anyone else thought... anyways, top of the morning to ya', and cheerio for now!, Purples 11:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Not a problem. I appreciate your concerns, and I encourage you to read my responses. (By the way, of course I strike people as odd, I'm an admittedly rather odd person :) ) Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re. A personal request

Hey Peter. I read the comments on WP:ANI and checked the history of Uncyclopedia. I could not find any blatant misuse of the tools by Pschemp. If my eye missed something, please pinpoint. :-) Regards,--Húsönd 19:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The page was protected to a version sans Miltopia's edit when they were edit warring, if I understand the situation right. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iron Man, MySpace, Bolgs, Whitelists, and Erik.

Hi. I just wanted to say that while I do understnad your warning to Erik, I hope you can understand our frustrations as well. We HAD replaced the links, and lost them again, after having to jump through a number of hoops to do so, finding the right admins and such to assist us in this problem. Erik and I work hard on these upcoming comics-related films, and are quite frustrated that links which have been crucial to our ability to cite an addition to the page in the past are gone. Both Tim Story, director of Fantastic Four 2, and Jon Favreau, director of Iron Man, created MySpace pages to interact directly with the fan community, and release information there. While little of major significance is debuted on those pages, smaller notes about the production's pace, and decisions are sometimes commented upon. Further, there are a few other writers and 'producers' (in the larger sense) of big budget films who are turning to the site and similar ones to publicize or publicly interact with fans. As the trend grows, the need for the ability to properly cite them will grow as well. both Erik and myself are trying to be patient, but the big problem we're having is that we just got that link back in, only to have an admin yank it again, which shows us that the admin wasn't even TRYING to check the link out, but just barreling through pages yanking the link. Unfortunately, he took down a particularly salient link for the article's citations. it's frustrating to go through channels, get things put right, only to have someone else undo that work. And worse, the fact that we can't edit it back in means some OTHER admin took it off the whitelist again, probably not understanding why it was there, because THEY didn't do due diligence on the matter. Anyways, I jsut wanted to explain the situation in more detail here, and why Erik seems so frustrated. It is somewhat justifiable anger, though of course that doesn't excuse his posting. ThuranX 21:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Please assume good faith. There are reasons these things are done often, and in this case it goes straight as high as Jimbo himself. Eagle_101 should hardly be faulted - he is merely trying to implement the decision Jimbo made on request. So "don't shoot the messenger" applies, I think. He and I both are just the workers in this endeavor, we're not the one's making the decisions, just the ones implementing them. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Something for a change

Ive been noticing for a while that the article on the National Gallery of Canada in Ottawa is in a very pity shape and stays almost unedited. In case you want to do something interesting please consider expanding it. --Irpen 02:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• A lot of Ottawa related aticles need some work. Thanks for bringing this one to my attention. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 02:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sig

Hi there. Is the 'Cheers' you put at the end of your comments part of your sig? If so, it may be a little unwise. Some people could take it as you being patronising or dismissive in your comment to them, especially if you're disagreeing with them over something. --Barberio 11:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Nope, I put it in by hand. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC) (see? :) )

[edit] Nysted

Yes, do it. I replied on my talk but this will get you the ol' yellow bar :-) Guy (Help!) 17:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Doing it now :) Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Do I deduce correctly that THIS is why you felt the need to remove all of the links to reviews from the Nysted page? Despite the fact that I assume you knew that the links were there specifically to help assert notability? It MIGHT have been defensible to remove half of them with a note that notability is established and no further review links will be needed, but to delete them and try to call it link-spam! Shame on you! --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 19:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Do please read WP:SPAM an WP:EL. Commercial websites selling products are spam. They have been removed. Readding them is drisruptive. Please do not do so, or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well done. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] a few words

We don't know each other, but I would like to offer my support (for what its worth) in your moment of grief. Although I know nothing of the matter, I was a bit shocked to discover your bereavement and the youth of your loved ones. As you have shared something personal with us, I don't feel uncomfortable in responding. I don't personally think that life is supposed to be fair, but I know something of losing loved ones, and will leave you with a message that no matter what, one must go to the game, go to the mound, pitch the ball and become who one really is (not original and speaking in baseball terms), so don't give up. God bless, Rama's arrow (3:16) 19:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• I've dragged myself too far to give up. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

WD, my heart felt sympathies. The last thing anyone at this place in his or her lives wants to hear is "I know how you feel" or "it'll get better over time"... Fact is no one knows, and it will never get better. I lost my 17-year-old daughter. Nothing is worse than losing a loved one and no words can offer up any solace. My heart breaks for you, your family and your friends. At times like this many people lean on the hope of a life after this one where we can someday be reunited again with our loved ones. A place free of pain and hurt. I believe in this kind of place. So I offer up my prayers for you. MY hope is that you have the love and friendships close to you who will give you strength and comfort. Mystar 02:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you. I hold no such delusions, but I know that the long way home is never too far, until one reaches the end of life, and I haven't gotten there yet. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 13:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for looking out, but not blocked -and best wishes

Hey Peter,

Here you warned JoeSmack that I was banned for being a sockpuppet. I just wanted to give you a heads-up that I'm clean.

Thanks for looking out for everything here on Wiki though.

Seeing your profile though, I must say it's impressive and I at least wanted to give you my best wishes in life.

Best wishes,

JackSparrow Ninja 09:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wheatley High School Discussion site - It was NOT being used as a source, but included as an external link

"cur) (last) 07:15, 24 January 2007 Wizardry Dragon (Talk | contribs | block) m (Proboards is not an appropriate external links. Discussion forums are not verifiable sources) [rollback] "

See, Wizardry, I am NOT using it as a source. I am including it as an external link. The guideline says that forums are NORMALLY not appropriate to include, but that doesn't mean it cannot be included at all. WhisperToMe 19:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: all external links are sources, but not all sources are external links (some are books, newspapers etc.). WP:V still applies. JoeSmack ^Talk 19:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: Joesmack is wrong. Read Wikipedia:External links, which dictates external links WhisperToMe 23:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Not at all. WP:V applies to all content on Wikipedia, including links. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia:V clearly refers to the content within the articles AND the sources used to support the articles, NOT the garnish external links. Wizardry, External links are special. They can get away with "infractions" that article texts and sources cannot. For instance, sources and external links do not have to be POV. WhisperToMe 00:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
      • "Sites that have been used as references in the creation of an article should be linked in a references section, not an external links section. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources for specific formatting and linking guidelines for citations." - Again, the removal of the forum link was unwarranted, as external links are not held to the same standards as sources. WhisperToMe 23:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I will warn you that continuing to readd a link that is against policy will result in a block to prevent further disruption. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• "This page is part of the Manual of Style, and is considered a guideline for Wikipedia. The consensus of many editors formed the conventions described here, and Wikipedia articles should heed these guidelines. Before making any major changes to these guidelines, please use the discussion page to ensure that your changes reflect consensus." - It's a guideline. Not a policy. Those are two different things. That means that it can be "bent" so to speak. WhisperToMe 00:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Verifiability is a policy on wikipedia. We require verifiable pages in our links, otherwise we are threatening the integrity of Wikipedia. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I would like to see the exact text that states that external links (specifically - do not show me anything about sources having to be verifiable) must be verifiable. By the way, I felt (past-tense) justified in re-adding it that one time since I thought you would agree with me and leave it alone. Since you don't agree, I will not re-add anything until this is settled, if you allow me to do it. WhisperToMe 00:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

As requested, the following is a relevant citation from WP:V:

Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Those are sources. WP:EL states that External links should not contain any "external links" used as sources. Those external links go in the reference sections.

"Sites that have been used as references in the creation of an article should be linked in a references section, not an external links section. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources for specific formatting and linking guidelines for citations."

WhisperToMe 00:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• • I think you have misunderstood the purpose of external links. External links are considered sources for information not contained in the article, where references are sources for claims made in the articles. I think that is what you have misunderstood. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Okay, a user on IRC pointed me out to this: What is normally to be avoided: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources." - from Wikipedia:External links WhisperToMe 01:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
      • The problem with the proboards source is it is effectively unmoderated and therefore bad information may be on the website. If we link to a site, people assume we endorse the truthfullness of this information, and we therefore only want to link to sites that we know have a mechanism for removing false claims. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I have one last thing to say - There are at least several other places on Wikipedia where "trivial" sites are linked to. In fact, this is the first time that I have ever seen a forum link taken down for this reason. Maybe it's because I possibly edit more pop culture/TV articles, but, I see places like fansites and other message boards listed in several areas. Some posters allow some fan sites to be listed for some pop culture articles. Example: Yu-Gi-Oh! - check the external links WhisperToMe 06:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
          • By the way, you may wish to remind all Wikipedians that the issue about keeping only good external links while tossing many of them away. I doubt that many Wikipedians know about this. WhisperToMe 06:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• People will always try to add bad links to Wikipedia. That is the nature of open editing. We simply remove them as we find them. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad (Acting as Assistant to the Clerk) 23:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Benihana Christmas (the office us) edit question

Did you get a chance to look at the link I posted as you requested over at User_talk:Eagle_101#A_Benihana_Christmas_.28the_office_us.29_edit_question? Qutezuce 22:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why was this viewed as trollish?

I don't understand why you removed Arthur Rubin apology. You really think that was trollish? Also don't you think that troll-B-gon edit summary is a bit inflammatory? Is there any way to program the reversion tool to leave a more neutral comment. It reads like spam at best and personnal attack at worst. David D. (Talk) 22:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• It was a joke, and wasn't meant to be taken seriously. I didn't want a discussion I removed for a reason to simply move to my talk page. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh I missed the joke, sorry. I assume the last bit was a typo "to simply move to my talk page". David D. (Talk) 22:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Containing forest fires

Peter, I fear your deletion here suffers from a problem that has been chronic of your mentoring of Ilena. You have (possibly properly) deleted inflammatory material, but left the source of the flame -- OhSusanne's post, which is a repetition and even enlargement of Ilena's attacks. Why did you not delete hers on sight right away? I will at least give you credit for also deleting Ilena's reponse, but it was OhSusanne's post that started it, and it hurt. I had to exercise great restraint and heed the advice of several editors and admins, to keep from replying. But it would only have inflamed the situation, so I did what I have done many times during all of this ruccus -- laid low and not replied nearly as often as I have been provoked. I'd like to see some fairness here. --Fyslee 23:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• I thought about removing the whole thing, but I didn't want to get another angry editor involved in this whole affair, and I don't think Susanne would've taken well to it. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project )

Peter, I do sympathize with the dilemma that such situations present. One cannot please all people all the time. In the current situation with Ilena (and now OhSusanne), I have had ample opportunity to see you at work. I have during the whole mess considered your intention to help Ilena to be an honorable endeavor, but at the same time have felt it missed the mark in fundamental ways. This is just another example, and I'll explain what I mean.

The dilemma I mention above demands that one make a decision to deal differently with both sides in such a way that no one can later say one was unfair. Right now (with OhSusanne) you have done the same thing you have done many times with Ilena. You have chosen (certainly with no ill intent -- I do AGF!) to punish those who have been attacked, while doing little or nothing to (and sometimes even defending) the offender who has done the attacking. This places you in a position where it appears you defend offenders and punish their victims. It can appear that way to others, and to the victims it is a very unpleasant situation. We feel helpless, and even held down, while we watch you defend our tormenters. It has certainly caused me to leave her charges unopposed, which the search engines are now showing, no doubt to her glee. Usenet is now reflecting what is happening here, and I have received condolences from people I have never met! While I have rarely defended myself in this situation, I will do so in the RfA.

I certainly admit that I am not a paragon of tactfulness in all my replies and am attempting to become an adoptee, even though I'm an experienced editor her and elsewhere. So far my requests have been met with wonderment! I do need to learn how to deal with attacks in a better manner. (My openness, honesty, directness, and sense of justice, are sometimes a hindring.) In the current situation, even when the main content of my reply to an attack is perfectly good, there are things that sometimes can be read "between the lines," and some people (especially yourself) have judged me harshly for them, and ignored "all the lines themselves" that Ilena has written. Oh well, I'm learning from all of this. I just hope you will begin to side with the victims more often, and enforce the NPA policy more stringently against those who attack, than against those who defend themselves from those attacks.

One must always side with the victim, even while giving the victim constructive criticism about how to respond in a better manner. No one, most of all the attacker, should be in doubt about which side you are on. If the attacker sees you chastising their victim, they take it as a clear signal that you defend their actions, and thus you have (unwittingly) facilitated them in their continued attacks, and in fact become a party to them, even though that was not your intention. This whole mess could have been prevented, instead of actually accelerated, if you had adopted a firm approach towards Ilena right from the beginning. Large numbers of otherwise good editors could have been editing, instead of wasting time on all this mess, and the personal consequences could have been avoided. (They are much greater than you may realize.) We don't need Usenet battles here at Wikipedia.

This whole situation has been made even more ironic, in that you are the leader of the Neutrality Project, and the first point in your "Philosophy" box states "I avoid taking sides in disputes." That is a utopian dream. (You could reword it "I seek to be fair in disputes.") One must take sides in some situations, otherwise one appears to make no difference between the criminal and his victim (to take an everyday example). There is a difference between right and wrong. They are not equal, or things about which one can be "neutral". As far as OhSusanne is concerned, if she doesn't "take well" (your words above) to being dealt with in a manner that enforces Wikipedia policies and common decency, then she too (as with Ilena) has an attitude problem. Wikipedia has enough problems without rewarding such attitudes, or keeping their holders as editors.

Please do not delete this as a personal attack. It's not an attack, but a serious discussion of real issues. We are adults here and should be able to talk openly, as long as we do it in a civil manner. -- Fyslee 08:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The thrust of my action was basically made in the response to the question "how much of this can I remove without the thing blowing up spetacularly?" The thing is definetely getting to the point where I seriously am sick of the thing, but in many ways I feel responsible for it, so I am going to see it through. When it comes to the deletion though, it is Ilena's page, so it would have been improper to delete her response. Susanne is probably an innocent (if wrong and opinionated) bystander, and I didn't want to drag another user into this dispute. I hope you can agree with the intentions, if not the implementation. I have always measured how I thought you would respond to things in my comments - indeed you and Ilena are my two considerations (much to Durova's disdain in a few arguments bit, I think). I hope that clears some of this up. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 08:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] B-cratship

Hello, I've been thinking about running for B-cratship after I start adding admin activities back into the balance, especially in light of the recent controversy. It'll probably be a good month or so before I seriously consider, but what's your opinion? I know you probably only talked to me directly on the RfA talkpage. — Deckiller 05:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Bureuacrats are chosen for their good sense when closing things that require consensus. Consider closing many XfDs and similar things before applying. This would show that you have a good handle on guaging consensus, assuming of course you do so well. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 05:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baiting

According to one heading here, you write that I "baited" Ilena. This would obviously refer to the very beginning (why else start with it?). You are not AGF when you write that. When have you ever discussed this with me to find out if I was "baiting" her, or if there was some other more benign interpretation? Please discuss this here with the diff, since I have no idea what you are referring to. Maybe we can save some unnecessary embarrassment on the RfA, before things explode. You can still withdraw that heading. -- Fyslee 08:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually the crux of that section is that I feel that sie you posted on the talk of the article provked a negative response from Ilena. I am not entirely convince whether it was intended or not; I don't hold a position on that. However, we can both agree the site was inflammatory, and her response to it understandably negative. I will provide evidence in that section, as well as explanation and probably a rewording of the header when I get time, however, I have been busy with real world events and some off-wiki stickiness so I won't be the fastest in posting to the RFAR I think. Thanks in advance for your patience and understanding, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 08:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it's that ill-fated link (diff) I posted. That was stupid of me. It was not meant as a provocation, only to report new coverage of the situation, but I should have thought first about the way I worded it. (It's still not an attack site, and discusses the subject of the article, but it does have a link to all of "her" attack sites.) I did not protest its immediate removal and admitted my error. Not that "two wrongs make a right," but Ilena has reacted in the opposite manner by repeatedly and unrepentantly posting multiple links to several of her attack sites. Why wasn't that taken into account at the time? Now everyone remembers the one and only time I goofed, while she still insists on a claimed "right" (my word) to add her links, when her organization is not the subject of the article, and her sites are clearly attacks sites that do not meet a single inclusion criteria, and in fact are expressly forbidden. A very odd situation, for which I have not received any apology from you or anyone else. -- Fyslee 12:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The thrust of what I am intending to include is "Fyslee did something, it was kinda stupid, but Ilena did a lot of things after that, and they weren't very good either" - to put it in frank terms. I'm a little confused though - by my recollection all I did in that matter was remove that link. I think for a short while, after that even, I took a bit of a "break" from the whole situation to see if would get better but it didnt (that whole nazi thing came up in my absence, for one). Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 12:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Here are the links to jog your memory. I posted the ill-fated link here, and it was immediately removed by Jance (with a rebuke to me for something Ilena had repeatedly and deliberately already done), and later reinstated by yourself (at the same time removing the evidence that Jance had already deleted it!), only to then give me a huge rebuke (for an offense I had just heard about), one which you have never given to Ilena for much greater offences. Things were greatly out of proportion to the offense. It was then that Ilena finally commented, with a renewed attack, another posting of a link to her attack site, and (as she has done several times), a deletion of other's comments, in this case Dematt's defense of free speech, and your own warnings. Ronz tried to fix it. You yourself comment on the whole incident here. I think if this matter comes up in the RfA, I can defend myself, while still maintaining my apology for an unusual and one-time blunder. -- Fyslee 13:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You actually went so far as to report me for my isolated, single, unusual offense, and later wrote "I am concerned about the attack site links against Ilena. They seem retaliatory and baiting in nature, and such is disruptive." [4] You were not AGF. I only posted one link that was not an attack site, but that did contain one link to a page with nothing but links to "her" multiple attack sites. It was her sites that were the attack sites. -- Fyslee 13:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I feel at this juncture it is worth noting that becuase my reactions to Ilena's actions were so strong, I confined them to email where I wouldn't be "piled-on" by the civility parade. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 13:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Well that's nice to know. We couldn't have known that by her actions and reactions. -- Fyslee 19:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I tried to rein them in, but as I think we can all agree, I didn't do a very good job of doing so. For my part in anything she has done that may have been connected to me at all, you have my complete apologies. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Peter, you don't know how much that means to me! Thanks. Even though it doesn't erase what has occurred, it does affect my attitude towards you, and that does count for something....;-) You are definitely forgiven. I know that what you have done was done in good faith, and your intention to help Ilena was definitely an honorable move on your part. No one else would have done it. This is a learning experience for all of us, even this old guy! -- Fyslee 20:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

As an outside observer, I would like to add that if it weren't for Peter, there are two editors here that may have been blocked a long time ago. Not to mention that the articles in question are much improved. The description of "adoption" or "mentor" in this case is a misnomer; "surrogate" is a better analogy. Fyslee and Ilena are used to this abuse as this type of controvery is part of their chosen endeavors. Peter, you willingly threw yourself into the brunt of several editors in the middle of a dog fight. It reminds me of a certain hero that recently through himself onto subway tracks to save a stranger. You performed your duties well and deserve all the credit. It is not only a reflection of your dedication to WP and its principles, but I am sure your life and friends as well. It is people like you that make a community work and result in quality articles, quality editors, and quality friends. You deserve to sleep well. --Dematt 02:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Big thanks

Thanks for chiming in for me yet again on ANI, I know it's costing you points with MONGO and his buddies and I appreciate your resolve to add reason to the various threads. I owe you ^_^ Milto LOL pia 10:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• The whole Miltopia is stalking me thing is getting really trying, am Im sure Im not the only one that's geting sick of the continued assumptions of bad faith. Wikipedia ain't about fighting out battles, it's an encyclopedia, and I wish all involved would remember that. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 10:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] a request for assistance...

Peter, since you seem to have been involved comprehensively by this whole Ilena business, could please explain to me what I've done wrong in making the observation that I did? As I stated, I am new to Wikipedia and, while I spent an entire night reading about the controversy, following the links, reviewing the cases, looking at policy, etc., I am open to the possibility that I may have made a mistake in saying anything at all. But I really don't get why. Bel Also, I don't understand why my behavior is being discussed with you and not with me. I've been watching the Ilena talk page and even reviewing its history and, with the exception of Arthur Rubin, nobody took direct issue with what I posted. (BTW, I wasn't upset about what Rubin said. As I mentioned, I'm a disinterested party.) There haven't been any posts to my talk page, either. If I am, at best, "wrong and opinionated", then wouldn't it be more productive to explain to ME what I'm doing wrong? (The opinionated part isn't going to change, probably.) I really don't have any desire to wander through Wikipedia scattering dissent and chaos in my wake.

I realize that you're going through a difficult time right now and I am sorry to be making another demand on your time. If you don't feel like/have time to deal with me, please just let me know. I'll just stick to fixing pronoun antecedent problems. If my questions are best addressed via private email, I'm happy to give you my address. OhSusanne 22:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rename

As requested, I have changed your username. You can now log in using the new name. Best wishes, Warofdreams talk 23:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I have such respect for people like you who post under their own name. I still love your Wizardry Dragon identity too. Blessings and happy editing sent to you again from the Jungles (where I keep getting autoblocked). Ilena 23:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool rename. I think this will help a lot with respect to confusion. I certainly thought you were two different users for a while since I was not concentrating too hard. David D. (Talk) 04:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Good move. -- Fyslee 08:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re:Elaragirl's talk page

I edited her talk page because the link was obviously misleading to a new user. Also, please note that Elaragirl does not own any rights to her talk page in a way that editing is restricted. This is a wiki, and all editors are encouraged to change all pages in a way that improves them.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 01:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Editing other users pages in such a way may be considered disruptive. If you don't like something, ask for it be changed. Also, she actually does own rights to her page, which are protected by the terms of the GFDL - otherwise, it could not be Wikipedia. Regarding the larger issue of userpages, please see the relevant guideline. Thank you, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Nonetheless, changing a link is not disruptive. Please assume good faith that I'm trying to help Wikipedia. I was only trying to make sure that new users wouldn't be confused about the EL:TEACUP interwiki linking restrictions.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 01:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I never made any suggestion of bad faith, I was merely cautioning you that these edits could be disruptive, and suggested a better course of action. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Ok, I apologize for the misunderstanding.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 02:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet tag

Hi, thanks for your reply - the account I'm talking about is WWest (talk · contribs) and Desnm (talk · contribs). WWest has been banned as a sockpuppet, probably due to conditions I don't know about, but Desnm is not rootology and has a tag on his userpage. Since he's not banned and hasn't been confirmed, how long before the tag can come? The case is Requests for checkuser/Case/TruthInMedia - although, honestly, the way he's treated, he's probably long gone. Maybe it would be best to forget about it, but I don't know if those tags are removed anyway for organization's sake. Milto LOL pia 01:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• If checkuser vindicates them, I will as a matter of course remove the tags. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Though of course, we have to remember that a checkuser can never actually vindicate anyone, since the same people can post from different, unrelated, IPs. IP evidence is just one way of checking for sockpuppetry — there are many other methods. Musical Linguist 00:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • The checkuser wasn't done, since CU can only confirm socks, not [opposite of confirm] them. Also, just saw the note at the top of your page, sorry to hear you're having trouble :( Milto LOL pia 01:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Not at all, he just made a note of it. He cannot say that they haven't been used as socks, but he can say that the three accounts listed are not related to each other. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Your comments on my RfA are pertinent and appreciated; I have responded to them and clarified things as best I can - I would be grateful if you would read my response and, if you feel so inclined, respond. Specifically, I cannot know for sure how many edits to since-deleted images I have made, as none of the editcount tools give a detailed breakdown (I have 951 deleted edits in all namespaces) but I am 100% sure it is many more than the (admittedly thin-looking) 18 edits to images that have not been deleted, which are those that are listed in Special:Contributions under my username. Qwghlm 02:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Admin criteria

Thanks for your advice at User_talk:Elaragirl#Adminship_-_interested_in_your_perspective. I find it quite encouraging to hear that diplomacy in an admin is more important than editcount or experience. I always try to be diplomatic in my interactions with other editors; for instance, look at this discussion on my talkpage and my replies at User_talk:Coelacan. In this case, I made a mistake in a comment on an AfD, was (rightly) criticised for it by this user, and backed down and apologised. I consider maintaining a peaceful, academic atmosphere to be more important than getting my own way. Would you say I'm going about things the right way, and do you think I would make a good admin? Walton monarchist89 17:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signature

Just letting you know, your sig still points to your old username. Prodego ^talk 01:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yup, I know. When I clean house to leave entirely, one of my last acts will be to redirect everything that points to me. Thanks for the heads up, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• I am sorry to see you go. Do you want me to remove (or reassign to this account) your VP Mod status? Prodego ^talk 02:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Getting my personal life straight is why I'm leaving now. I don't forsee it getting straightened out within a reasonable time frame hance "retired" and not "wikibreak" - but I may come back. Specifically, out of a house, out of a job, and mostly out of luck. So - need to straighte things up. I may be back, as I said. I hope to be. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 02:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chronology

May I suggest you list your current evidence points (at the BvR RfA) in chronological order? Getting events in the wrong order can create a false impression. You can use my email. -- Fyslee 21:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm going to work on evidence for a bit tonight, but mostly I'm going to go to the workshop, propose some principles and findings and such, and then back them up. This makes sense to me - make a point, and then prove it. Just my approach. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop the insane witch hunts

Huntress829

I am a friend of C.H. and she is not Lee Nysted. Your fancy computer software can make a lot of mistakes, sir. To delete her or block her is just plain wrong. I am also a fan of Lee Nysted. When the second album comes out, are you still going to refuse to recognize him? This is supposed to be a free, not censored, encyclopedia. Why does it a appear that someone, age 19 or 20, without so much as a college degree in journalism, can take over? I watched in AWE as you and JzG attacked and deleted everyone wanting to establish an artcle about Lee. Then, because C.H. and others share an office with Lee's employees, everyone is a puppet? I look at the "musicians" and "ensembles" listed here and find it odd that you are not attacking nearly every one of them for lack of information that Lee's people provided this Wikipedia. As someone said, the stones you people are throwing are shattering this glass house.

Sad. Very sad.Somelight 22:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Somelight 22:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Age has nothing to do with it, my good sir. An established checkuser, on the other end of the spectrum than I, if it means anything to you, who is an expert on these matters confirmed that these accounts were used by the same person. I actually had little to do with it, except that I am a clerk serving under this person. I have simply been trying to clean things up - moving the side discussion on the AFD onto the talk page for example, or tagging the socks that were identified. If you wish to appeal the sock finding, I'm not the person that investigated this, I'm just the messenger. The person you want to talk to is User:Jpgordon. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment:What nonsense! I know both parties and all your system does is check IP addresses. Nysted is traveling the world as is Huntress. You think that IP addresses are not dynamic? You are wrong and that is that. You are also wrong in agreeing to block legitimate singers and songwriters that are notable by our own guidelines. Nysted is playing with notable people. The discourse about notability will show you that you are free to delete and block, only to end up looking like fools. Huntress and Nysted are two separate people. Anyone that is part of the new album will vouch for the facts. I will give it about 6 months. In the meantime, I will work on an article, albeit, everyone may turn up being puppets at the rate you are going. Your actions only encourage more fake profiles and more waste of time and effort by people that could be helping to make this a reliable and friendly place.

Rule #4: the more histrionic and outraged someone is, and the less logical their arguments are, the more likely they are lying. And no, not all IP addresses are dynamic. Finally, if you remove wikipedia mirrors of the old article, stupid myspace blogs, and lyric spamming sites, the person only gets 900 some google hits. Take your spam somewhere else. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 10:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong again.

1.) Notability and Google hits are not to be used together, per the talks of late. The notability of a musician is not at question here. The guidelines are quite clear. Nysted met the guidelines. 2.) Lee Nysted gets tens of thousands of Google hits, and as such, it still does not make him notable, by our guidleines. Anyone can buy Google hits. It's called "ad-words." 3.) Lee Nysted has notable musicians in his band and on his albums. His album will be posted here. All of the above is verifiable and reliable. Matt Walker is notable. He plays with Lee. They are band mates. No histrionics, no spam, just the facts. Same for Todd Sucherman. 4.) Whoever came up with your logic, lacks good judgment and simple emotional stability. I am not outraged. Mr. Nysted has more and more fans that will prevail in getting him the recognition he deserves. Time will tell all. This publication only loses credibilty when someone brings up reasons to not publish the facts, or they try to change or cloud the facts because of false testimony or faulty computer software. Everyone can open new accounts and wait for IP addresses to change, or we could work together to build a true source of true and reliable information. "Somelight."

• Yum, sockpuppets. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Leave Peter alone, please, socks. Have some basic consideration, it doesn't take much to discover that this is really not the time. BTW, I don't know if you've got it on your watchlist, so you - that's Peter this time - may or may not know that I asked a question at the Barrett and Rosenthal Workshop that you might like to get round to eventually. Cheers, Moreschi ^Deletion! 19:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• To put the final nail in the coffin, this sock has been confirmed, as well as a sleeper account, and both have been blocked. I am hardly surprised. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Peter, the Nysted spam-'n-sock outfit is, I think, shut down. I'm trying the new way of preventing creation of articles, see Wikipedia:Protected titles/January 2007. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please be careful when using AWB

In this external link cleanup: [5] you have also deleted all the categories and interwiki links! Please pay more attention to your use of automated tools. DWaterson 01:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• That was not an automated edit. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please slow down a bit

The edit external edit purge mentioned above, with collateral damage, and the edit I reverted here suggests you might want to slow down a bit. I know things get frustrating sometimes, like a link farm or some negative comments. With respect to the latter it is often better to walk away. In my experience blanking stuff, when frustrated, will just make matters worse in the long run. David D. (Talk) 04:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• The number of links there was simply unacceptable. Think of it this way. if you have a limb with gangreen, do you try to heal that limb, or do you cut off that limb and replace it with a prostetic? If you have a good doctor, you do the latter. If good links were removed, they may always be reverted or readded. If bad links were removed, well then we shouldn't be having this conversation, should we? :-) ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 05:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • OK I see your confusion. Its not the deletion of the link farm that is being discussed. I agree with that part. Nothing more frustrating than coming across masses links as that page had. But you ALSO deleted the categories at the bottom as well as the links to other foreign language wikipedia's. The point is you were in a hurry and not checking for collateral damage. Hence the slow down request. David D. (Talk) 05:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

(Off topic): I had a good chuckle at myself when I realised the last three topics are "please" do something. Er, I'm my own person and I can make my own judgements :-) ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 05:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand but the please was a way to soften the point. I don't want it to come across as being overly critical. More of a reminder. David D. (Talk) 05:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please check IRC

Just to continue the theme.--Elaragirl^Talk|Count 06:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pierce

When you say "a case study in the indellibility of first impressions" are you trying to imply that I was not following the case? It is possible to observe without comment. And I have seen her handle other situations ineffectively too. My problem is I have too many bad impressions. Some may call that not assuming good faith but one cannot assume good faith forever. David D. (Talk) 10:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• No, really, the following of my edits was flattering at first, now it's getting worrying. So, I will say this once, in no uncertain terms - stay clear, please, or I will take action. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 11:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll take your page off my watch list. But clearly your comments on ANI and Ilena topics are fair game. Wikipedia is a small place and it's your own actions that inspire comments for better or worse. David D. (Talk) 11:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Interesting reading. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 11:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Feel free. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/David_D. David D. (Talk) 11:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Anthony cfc

I'm not going to 3RR here, but I would like to point out that I don't consider the matter resolved, and I believe that there is still more productive results to be gained from discussion on the matter at hand. Will you please continue with the discussion? Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 21:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• [edit conflict] The second step of dispute resolution is to disengage. Please try this. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly what I've being doing - I refused to edit this page for over 3 days. At the end of the day, you are being un-co-operative. <disengaging>, Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 23:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This quarrel is ridiculous - we should be editing, not bickering. Please accept my apologies - I was in a low spell - I was not not responsible for my actions, and I beg you to forgive my actions. Yours with the greatest respect, Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 00:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• That's what I was getting at the whole time, with my comments and with my blanking, Anthony. It's not a Big Deal^TM, it shouldn't be made into a Big Deal^TM, and if you would let things be, all would well in the world. No forgiveness is neccesary for the mistake is an honest one, I just beseech you to learn from it. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smiley Award

Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

[edit] Agreements and disagreements

Hi, Peter. We disagree about this, so it's nice at least that we can agree on this. But the way, when I posted recently on your talk page, I added it to my watchlist, and when you subsequently updated your user page I looked, and saw your recent troubles. I'm very sorry. Musical Linguist 01:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for your concern, and for taking the time to acknowledge that I am not a Bad Person^TM. It's easy to get overwhelmed lately with the the surge of drama and disagreements. People should never have to feel uncomfortable standing up for what's right, but that's what I do - even if it means I stand alone. And - don't get me wrong, I don't think Miltopia is a saint, but it's a molehill, not a mountain. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Neutrality Project

As you may recall, I expressed some concerns about the Wikipedia:Neutrality Project a few weeks ago. I have been pondering this, and think that the project is unnecessary bureaucracy (among the other reasons I expressed in our discussions). Rather than let things progress for a long time to the point where it becomes difficult to discuss the merits of the project, I figured it might be best to resolve this issue now. As a result, I have nominated Wikipedia:Neutrality Project for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. The discussion can be found here. Agent 86 03:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I saw already, but thanks for the notice. Reply, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 03:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You should really use one IRC nick, please.

Otherwise, it's hard to get in contact with you when I get on.--Elaragirl^Talk|Count 23:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)