Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:45, 2 January 2007

User talk:Wizardry Dragon/Header

RFCU clerk

Since you're already pretty much a de facto clerk at RFCU, I've discussed the matter with Daniel and decided to go ahead and make you official. If you'd be so kind as to get with him and fill out whatever "paperwork" he has for new clerks, I'd appreciate it. Welcomeaboard. Essjay (Talk) 06:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd happily accept my commission, or whatever it is you call it - clerkship I suppose? :) Thank you both for your votes of confidence, I appreciate it greatly, and will endeavor to do my best over there. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 14:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

about WP:EA and why I'm inclined to leave

Hi Peter, I hope you are feeling at least a little better. Part of the following message is what I told Fredil about Esperanza:

I'm inclined to leave Esperanza, because it looks as if it has become just what its detractors have alleged: a bureaucracy-obsessed group that talks more about helping others rather than providing any actual assistance. I know this statement sounds incivil, but I really do feel hurt by how Esperanza has changed, and it's only making me feel worse.

Don't get me wrong, there are many great, kind, and helpful people who are members of Esperanza. It's just that their caring nature seems to be unrelated to the Esperanza of today. As I said, if Esperanza wants to reform itself, it will have to do it without me. --Kyoko 21:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• I've been bouncing the idea around of restarting a group with the core goals of Esperanza but none of the endless bureaucratic dickery. The newer users that have taken it over really have been nothing but bad for it, in my opinion. As Kelly would say, it's people making a group for the point of being, or feeling, important. My opinion is better elaborated in an essay I never quite finished (and is quite old too, 1000 edits ago): User:Wizardry Dragon/Esperanza. It's funny - when I first met E@L it was over the MfD, and we were on different sides. But as things progress people really seem to be understanding what my complaints where then. As I keep quoting Dmcdevit on If this is the civility parade, I'd rather stay home. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi Peter, I read your essay and I agree with much of what it says. I hope I wasn't being unkind in my remarks above, but that is the impression of EA that I'm getting right now. I can well see why people would want to delete the group entirely. I had told Fredil how disappointed I was that more people didn't show support for Elaragirl, especially Esperanzans, and I wonder sometimes if her position re: EA might have had something to do with that. I've dropped my EA membership and updated my userpage to reflect that fact. As you can see, I've updated my signature as well. I'm still keeping the EA subpage in the hope that the group will be able to remake itself, but as I've said elsewhere, Esperanza just made me lose hope. I hope you and especially E@L understand. I really don't want to hurt her feelings. --Kyoko 22:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Hmf, I'm sure she will understand. I think she feels the same herself a little bit, though only she would know for sure, as a matter of course. What I'm thinking of doing is starting from the ground up all over again with something else. I don't know if it's worth it or if people would be interesting, but a group with the ideals that EA had when first made is helpful and in my opinion needed in the Misplaced Pages environment. Lemme know if you're interested. I'll draw something up today when I have time. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Postscript: It really breaks my heart to see people glossing over Elara, though.  :( ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm interested. Personally, the one thing that Esperanza has going for it is its stress alerts page. I could be mistaken, but the various programs that were started around the time of its MfD don't seem to have led to the interaction with the encyclopedia at large that they promised. It's all very disappointing. --Kyoko 22:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • (Oops, merged! :) ) I'll see if I can't draw something up. I agree that the stress alerts program has merits. Esperanza in my view was always an extension of the "wikilove" that Jimbo always has pushed. Misplaced Pages has been falling lately. Admins have been abusive, users disheartened, some users abusive, and overall the environment has become negative. So lets take some steps together, and make the environment positive again. That is the beauty of Misplaced Pages - all of us, here, working together. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm glad that you can be so optimistic at a time like this. Maybe I should tell E@L myself why I chose to leave Esperanza. Let me also add how sorry I am for all the people you have lost. --Kyoko 23:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I try hun, it's all any of us can do. We do little good by remembering the faults and failings in life, and the sorrow, we must remember the good things that bring us joy. That is the whole point, of course, of such a group - to foster kindness, hope, and love. We are all respected and valued contributors, and we should love each other for it. Needlessly dividing ourselves over conflicts is disruptive and hurtful. We should strive to avoid such pains and help each other better ourselves and the encyclopedia. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I left a detailed (much longer than what I've said previously) explanation about why I chose to leave EA on E@L's talk page, because I don't mind if other people read it. I just think that for my own sanity's sake, it's best that I recuse myself from the overhaul discussion. --Kyoko 23:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• You just stay strong, and never forget that people carre for you, love you, and that hope springs eternal. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

A challenge

Peter, we've never been introduced, but you've certainly made a name for yourself around the wiki as a defender of neutrality. I have a case that would be particularly challenging: Breast implant which three admins: myself, User:Davidruben and User:Sarah Ewart have been trying to mediate over the past month. There are a number of editing parties with very strong views on the issue, which is why I wanted to see if you personally were interested in assisting with neutrality in the article. Talk:Breast implant is a jumble, but gives you a sense of how difficult satisfying all parties is. Let me know if you are interested in having a go at sorting through it. (P.S. I'm from Ottawa but live in Toronto where I am cursed at on a daily basis by people like User:Deathphoenix for wearing my Sens colours in public) -- Samir धर्म 20:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• I am not adverse to it, but I need to know some basics first. What are the basic issues? What parties are involved in the affair? Hmm. Read the guidelines for posting a mediation at WP:MEDCOM and come back to me with answers for those questions. We needn't that formal a venue, but the answers to that kind of question would be most helpful in going forward. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out to me

I appreciated your note and offer of neutrality. You can learn alot about me by going to our non profit foundation webpage http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/ In the last 3 days, I've had every link of mine removed from Wiki ... even all the links to articles I had been quoted in (including the Scientist, Chemical & Engineering News, Wired Magazine, Glamour etc.) All gone. Posts I made were removed, and a edited archive made. On November 20, 2006, the Supreme Court of California ruled in my favour ... unanimously ... in a case officially known now as Barrett Vs Rosenthal. Others call it Quackbusters 0 / Rosenthal 3. Barrett's viewpoint POV is all over Misplaced Pages and I am not allowed to post contrary evidence. From the moment I arrived, every edit of mine was undone. I can honestly tell you, that the article on Barrett Vs Rosenthal was basically unrecognizable as to the facts. It's better, however, even now, there are many flaws and bias toward Barrett. For" several weeks my link http://www.breastImplantAwareness.org/BarrettVsRosenthal.htm gave a balance ... then this weekend it was disappeared. I can assure you, I only want facts on Misplaced Pages. Please remember, Barrett has been waging a legal battle against several of us and on the internet. They just took a huge beating in the Supreme Court of California. In Time Magazine, he was quoted as saying, "Now I am The Media." That's quite an ego to be defending myself against. Many kind folks have written and shared Wiki stories similar to mine of being bullied off. It's quite interesting that I beat them in the Supreme Court in a unanimous opinion of 7 justices ... but I lost in Misplaced Pages. How I even knew to come to Misplaced Pages about the case (six long years of my life ... )was people wrote me telling me it looked like I lost the case and better get the facts out there. I haven't read your whole page yet to understand your missions ... I'll go do it now. Healing and Blessings to you from the Jungles Ilena 23:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide third party sources of this evidence? The more websites you have that support your view, naturally, the more seriously we can look at this view. I do see why they could have removed the link in particular, as the case itself could be considered a political sticking point, but a flat out link to http://www.breastimplantawreness.org would probably work - I see no reason why it would not be considered a reliable source, as it does not constitute original research. My suggestion, however, is to try a little more talking than flat out editing, especially when it comes to adding links - people tend to assume bad faith on the count of people that are just adding links, they think that they are just trying to advertise on Misplaced Pages. I am not saying I agree with them, but you must realise that you come off as advertising one point of view, which leads to abrasion (at best) with those of an opposing point of view.

I would also humbly suggest that you apologize to some users. KillerChihuahua did not word his comments in the most positive way, but he was saying what he said out of concern for you and trying to help, so I feel it wasn't the best thing to do to comment on him as you did. I understand you felt attacked, and he reacted to your response in a similar fashion, but I think you both need to realize in the heat of the moment we sometimes say rash things, and apologize for it. It would help diffuse this situation somewhat, and I, for one, would appreciate it deeply.

As a tangential thought, some jurisdictions have the transcripts of court proceedings available online. I know the Supreme Court here in Canada does. Do you know if such a transcript would exist for the case you talk about? If it does, this would be a very valuable resource to reference in applicable parts of Misplaced Pages. Could you see if this is the case and get back to me? I would much appreciate it if you would.

I hope I have been of some help in this matter and look forward to your reply. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you very very much. My website about this case contains link to all the decisions, Superior, Appeals and the Supreme Court of California. Here is the link to the entire opinion in pdf. One relevant quote from page 39 has been repeatedly edited out from the article, although it is extremely relevant Judge Moreno reiterated: "As the lower courts correctly concluded, however, none of the hostile comments against Dr. Barrett alleged in the complaint are defamatory." I will apologize to KillerChihuahua and take the belief that he only wanted to help. Sorry Killer. Could you help me with some editing concerns on the NCAHF article? Here is an excellent article that could be sourced on Barrett Vs Rosenthal. How Web providers dodged a big legal bullet. Here is another: California Supreme Court Shields Web Republishers. Health and healing from the Jungles Ilena 01:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'll take a look at the links. A quick suggestion - people may be better assuaged if you can find a government site that hosts the same document, as they tend to put a lot more faith in such sites. If you could compile a listing of the references you have we go ahead from there. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Just read that you are Swiss ... I used to pick apples in Aigle and had some great adventures throughout Switzerland! Ilena 01:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• The Swiss flag is not a nationalistic symbol on my part but rather a symbol of my dedication to neutrality (click it, it leads to a good read on my views, though it's written by someone I look up to on the wiki rather than me, myself). I am actually Canadian, raised in Ottawa, Ontario, although Ive lived in several places due to the fact that my father is in the Canadian Armed Forces (the military) (among other reasons), including Germany (for the briefest of times). Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Two points, and I hope you take this in the spirt of neutrality, although (for reasons to be made clear) I cannot be neutral on this issue.

• Links to http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/ are now being removed because of an ArbComm ruling that links to a site containing attacks on Misplaced Pages editors may be removed immediately. Both User:Fyslee and I have been attacked on the site, including some statements which are demonstrably false.
• I have only be removing links to her site which are contained in her signature, and multiple references to subpages of her site. I will probably continue to remove only those. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

"May" be removed ... not removed with no consensus is how I was explained the rule. I only added my Misplaced Pages page after Mr. Rubin and Mr. Lee removed all of my edits, especially the links to the State of California website showing that NCAHF was suspended. I would be very interested in seeing what I wrote that is 'demonstrably false' as I have no awareness of such. I am happy to remove anything that is not accurate. In fact, I was illustrating the fact that there was no evidence that NCAHF was a legal corporate entity with links to the government agencies. Even at this moment, the NCAHF article has several unfactual points in it and I request help in getting this properly edited. Thank you. Ilena 02:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. Ilena, it would definitely do yourself some good to find the ruling on a government site if you can, as that would not be subject to any such ArbCom rulings. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 16:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Arthur, please read the Conflict of Interest policy, and ask yourself if you are following it. It would seem to me that you're not. Cheers ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 16:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it. I don't have any financial interest in Barrett or any of his organizations. I think they're doing something that needs to be done, even if a majority of their lawsuits are legally faulty, but I haven't contributed to them (except ACSH, a number of years ago, which probably is an industry shill organization. But I was in that industry, then.) I have argued with Ilena on Usenet, in that I believe that the scientific evidence shows that silicone brest implants are safer than saline in many senses, and that the legal findings against implant manufacturers were decided contrary to the scientific evidence. But none of that is relevant to the Barrett articles, at least as I've been editing them. I don't see a WP:COI violation in pointing out that I (and Misplaced Pages editors in general) am now being defamed on Ilena's web site, and that I'm asking for removal of material which is demonstrably false. (Ilena states politely that I need to tell her what material that is, but I did post it on her talk page earlier. WP:AGF includes assumptions that she reads material which she deletes from her talk page.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay lets stop and take a breath here. First of all, following an editor around Misplaced Pages and reverting their edits can constitute wikistalking - please avoid doing so. Secondly, what happens on usenet, stays on usenet - avoid bringing baggage on to wikipedia. It may not violate the word of our code of conduct, but irregardless it violates the word and spirit if "Misplaced Pages is not a battlefield". You are not helping the issue, so please, either let it go or find something more substantial than a usenet quarrel to back your arguments. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The comments I made here were to show what little history there is between Ilena and myself, and that I don't think it's affecting my editing. I really don't think it's affecting her editing, either but I don't really understand her that well. I think this may be becoming personal on your part; I suggest you step back and compare your comments to the facts of the matter, both on and off Misplaced Pages. However, I will no longer comment here unless asked.

I think the record will show that I was looking at the Barrett cluster before Ilena started editing. Even if I've got the chronology wrong, I wasn't aware of User:Ilena at that time. As almost all of her edits were there, it might appear I was WP:STALKing her, but the facts should show otherwise. The reason I'm posting here is that I traced the AN/I note, rather than her contributions. I apologize for assuming that you weren't aware of the history in regard my interaction with her, but I feel it's usually better to bring all the relevant facts to the mediator's (not neccessarily Misplaced Pages's definition) attention.

After that, I've only been following her (outside of that cluster) in removing her links and fixing her signature. I will no longer revert the links, as I am now an interested party, as she's clearly defamed me on her website; except as they appear in her signature, where it's clear from Misplaced Pages policy that it's inappropriate.

However, I don't think I've allowed my feelings on Usenet to affect my editing here. I think I've been fairly polite, considering that she has violated WP:3RR, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF a number of times. (It should also be noted that I commented on one of the NPA claims, that I didn't feel that specific claim was a violation.) If she were correct about the identity of User:Fyslee, her stating it outside of AN/I or RfC's is a clear violation of the Misplaced Pages right to privacy. As he has publically denied it, the claim may no longer be a violation.

— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Arthur, just so I'm clear here, when you say "defame", are you talking about the part including the semantic difference between "block" and "ban" or an entirely different matter? Either way or both, I support low key correction.--I'clast 23:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The errors of fact in regard me are gone now, thanks. The block vs. ban is not worth arguing about, and that's all that's left. I'll post that on Ilena's page, as well. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a very clear case of "two wrongs don't make a right." Ilene may have not been a saint, and I would agree that she has made mistakes. The thing is, I am making inroads here to helping her correct those mistakes - so really I don't see your actions as helpful at this point. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much Wizard. I can assure you I do apologize for any mistakes I made in the past and I definitely intend to be a better Wikicitizen in the future and move forward from here. There are some issues with the article Barrett Vs Rosenthal {http://en.wikipedia.org/Barrett_v._Rosenthal] that I would really like help on. I would like people to really understand how this ruling in my favor, protected ISP's, blog owners, and users who post things written by other people. Misplaced Pages can be mightily protected from nuisance lawsuits as they host the words of others. I have not been able to keep the final words in the article. I'm going to re-open that topic on that page. I hope I have some support. The plaintiffs in this case have been spreading information about this case that is clearly unfactual. This paragraph found on page 39, are the final words of the 41 pages. From the Supreme Court decision, I quote: "As the lower courts correctly concluded, however, none of the hostile comments against Dr. Barrett alleged in the complaint are defamatory." Unlike those who wish this removed, I feel there was definitely a purpose for Judge Moreno to have added this. All I want as an editor, is the verifiable quote from the Supreme Court of California quote . I would also very much appreciate being able to edit my own user page and have my links restored where they have been systematically removed. There are some excellent articles on this case: and Califiornia Supreme Court Shields Web Republishers. I'll gladly rewrite my page about my Wiki experiences. I send healing energies and thanks tonite from the jungles. Ilena 01:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• I suggest a compromise. If you will agree to refrain from adding your site until we as a community can come to agreement on it, I ask someone to unprotect your page. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

That would be a great start. Thanks so much. Ilena 03:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be unprotected now. Please remember the terms under which it was unprotected, as in this kind of situation the wrong step would undo all that we have worked for up to this point. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I've updated my user page and learning to be a proper Wiki citizen. I wish health & healing choices to all. Ilena 21:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Gasp!

Wizardry Dragon, I am sorry for your losses. During the time we were talking on IRC, I had no idea about what you were going through. Please accept my sincerest apologies. Although this may be a tough time, I hope that you have a Happy New Year.--Ed Reviews? 17:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I also have left Esperanza, thanks to you on IRC. Check out the statement I left on Misplaced Pages talk:Esperanza#Leaving--Ed Reviews? 20:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Life is what it is. I only try to cherish their memory. It's all that one can do, at this point. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Statistics copyright

I don't believe that's a correct interpretation of the law or recent precendent. The NBA lost out to Motorola in a bid to copyright stats (http://legal.web.aol.com/decisions/dldecen/nbadec.html) and Major League Baseball lost a similar case to a fantasy sports operator (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2543720&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines). No copyright violations exist at that external link.

Preeths10

Hang in there

		The Resilient Barnstar
		Sorry, guy, but there really isn't one for the Neutrality Project yet, and it isn't likely that you, as a person interested in neutrality, would be the kind to give yourself one anyway. That meant that someone else had to, and I nominated myself. Badbilltucker 21:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I regret to say that I don't have any idea what you're going through right now, so I won't lie and say I do. All I can say is that I know that wikipedia would be a much worse place without someone who has displayed the initiative, sense and concern that you have displayed, as would the lives of those who you deal with in the "real world", and that all the rest of us would be much worse off if you were to take any sort of decisive action now, like leaving wikipedia, for "other reasons." But, if you feel the need to take some time away, for what are very good reasons, I would be willing to try to take up some of your work, if I had your word that you would return when you felt better able to continue yourself. What you do here is very important to the rest of us, and I for one know that someone has to do it, and that, out of everyone here, you are probably the person best qualified to do it. I could throw out any number of old chestnut sayings here, but you have no doubt already heard them all already from people you know better than me. But, if there ever is anything that I can do to help you through this time, just say it. Badbilltucker 21:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Your comments

Howdy...just wanted to tell you that your insinuation on AN/I that I have fed the trolls is incivil. I am also deeply concerned when ArbCom clerks such as yourself are starting to take sides in Arbitration cases. This is simply a bad thing to do and you need to cease doing so. Arbitrators are elected by the community to take a stand and the community expects that the clerks will act in as neutral a manner as humanly possible. As I mentioned on the talk RFAr talk page, I don't think the need for arbitration clerk neutrality should need to be further explained or clarified, and hope that you will understand why this is important. Happy New Year!--MONGO 21:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• I am not an arbitration clerk. I am a checkuser clerk. There is a difference. There is no conflict of interest when a CheckUser clerk comments on an arbitration case. It is my right as a wikipedian, and is the right of any Wikipedian. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Just to clarify, the CheckUser clerk camp and the Arbitration clerk camp are two seperate entities. Arbitration clerks are appointed by the Arbitration Committee to assist in the handling of Arbitration cases and the enforcement of their remedies. CheckUser clerks are appointed by Essjay to assist in the maintenance of WP:RFCU and supporting there. There are two users that have a position in both bodies: Thatcher131 and Srikiet. (See WP:RFCU/C for the full list of clerks). If I were one of the individuals that was involved in Arbitration, it would be improper for me to comment (WP:COI), however I am not, and therefore I can say what I want, really. It's not uncivil to point out something you are doing wrong, and simply because we disagree does not mean that either of us is acting inappropriately. I am far from defending Miltopia, as their actions cannot be condoned, but I think your continuing involvement in any problems that come up with them and your comments towards them are just encouraging them to continue their misconduct. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project )
  • Yes, I am mistaken that I assumed you to be an arbitration clerk, however, that doesn't negate the fact that your tone with me has been condescending and unacceptable...I don't have to tolerate it, nor will I. I urge you to follow our guidelines regarding civility from here on and be reminded that you cannot "therefore I can say what I want, really" if what you have to say is going to be done in an incivil or condescending manner. Happy New Year!--MONGO 05:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I did not mean to come off in an uncivil manner, and I apologize if I did. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your comment on the Barrett v. Rosenthal An/I. Your polite response to Ilena is appreciated. While I do not agree with all of Ilena's edits, I do not think the answer is name-calling or rudeness. I wrote a comment there, which you may want to look at. Jance 23:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• You are certainly welcome. Making accusations at this point would only aggravate the matter further, since Ilena has already been in "defense" mode over attacks and is just getting over it. Really, Misplaced Pages is not a battlefield, and some of the involved parties treated it as such, which is why it got so bad. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Relative ages

Peter, since our discussion is closed, may I just briefly reply to one detail you brought up, and then stop? I don't want to bring the debate here, or argue with you here in any way, but only to provide some data, and then go away again. You'd mentioned as a factor the age of the account – "to warrant a change of an account this old" – but in fact the username "Heligoland" is only three months old, adopted on 24 October 2006, over a month after the article on the group "Heligoland" had been created on 18 September 2006. (The group itself was founded in 1999.) – SAJordan _contribs 05:38, 31 Dec 2006 (UTC).

If the name were inappropriate, a bureaucrat would not have allowed him to change to it. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I noticed you responded to Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Delete_Request, so I thought you might be able to help. When I received the comment that started this ANI, I posted the following to the end of the ANI for Ilena , overlooking that it was already in an archive:

What do you think? (Also, is there any problem with my adding to an ANI archive?) --Ronz 18:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Well it's not going to get seen in an archive, but it's an honest mistake posting to one. I think it may be a good idea to archive her old PAs, and if you want to do so, please do. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Ronz 18:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Somebody needs to stop this NOW

Curtis is still reverting. Please see NCAHF. He continues to insult, ignores consensus and reverts at will. Nobody can stop him. If I revert again, I will be blocked. Will someone tell me please why he is allowed to be so abusive and revert to WP:OWN despite every single editor disagreeing with him?Jance 20:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

If I revert, I will be blocked. What can be done? Or are some WIkipedians simply allowed to continue abusing others, insulting, reverting despite 100% consensus, etc? I don't know what else to do. This editor is a menace.Jance 20:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

He even reverted me just doing some formatting changes. I'll keep an eye on it. If he continues to be disruptive, he may be blocked. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Peter. I just saw what he did to Barrett v. Rosenthal. Not only does he lack sources on the "Statement" section, but the whole section has 2 problems. I reverted it but have decided to change it back - I don't want to be accused of edit warring. Reverts do not phase him, no matter how many.

1. It is neither factually nor legally accurate, and illustrates the ignorance of its author;
2. The section is a lede that misrepresents the notability of this case. This case is not notable for the statements made (even if they were properly presented). The case is notable as a case of first impression on the issue of Section 230 immunity as it relates to "users" of "interactive computer services" (eg here, internet).

Curtis has been disruptive on several articles now, and continues to be a problem. He has not backed down, on anything. Take a look at his user page. He believes himself to be the 'arbiter' of science, grammar and whatever other topics are at issue in his mind. His user page also clearly states that he has no problem with belligerence, and abusiveness.Jance 22:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I might add that Barrett v. Rosenthal had a consensus after my edits, with the NPOV tag removed. Ilena objected to my deletion of one sentence, but it was not major. Now, Curtis has added a paragraph that is flatly wrong. I deleted it twice. He reverted the first time. I changed it back to 'his' version this last time, because I don't want to be attacked as "Edit warring". He seems to have, so far, immunity -- a new type of WIki Section 230.Jance 22:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. People have reverted his disruptive changes, he has just been persistent in trying to reinsert them. If he continues he will be blocked by a sysop, but until then just try to avoid breaking any rules yourself - seek to be better than him, not worse. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope so. I did change this article, as you see, but did not delete the quotes of the original complaint. Instead, I relocated them, more appropriately. I also wrote an accurate statement of the case as the introductory paragraph. I see that has spawned outrage. Curtis is incorrect. The state supreme court did not call any statement defamatory. It was describing the original complaint. I have noticed that Curtis has managed to bring in both Barrett and Polevoy in two different articles, to support him. I find this interesting, as well. Is there perhaps a sockpuppet? I don't know.

Also, I see where you have lost loved ones. I am sorry for your loss. Have you also had health problems? I hope you feel better also, and your health improves this year. I was disabled for a few years, but my health improved this last year. I know how ill health can disrupt one's life. Here's to a New Healthful Year to you.Jance 19:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Barrett v. Rosenthal

I wonder if some of the attacks (including possibly defamatory statements) on the talk page should be removed? Jance 23:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Please archive them to the talk page archive. There is no reason for them to remain on the main page. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure how to archive an article, but I can figure it out. It will be awhile. Thanks. Jance 05:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

quick Happy New Year wishes

Hi Peter, I just wanted to wish you Happy New Year, and probably more importantly, I wish that your health improves and that things get better in your life and in the lives of those you know. P.S. Look at the changes to my userpage. Best wishes, --Kyoko 02:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, hun. You didn't have to go and do that, but I appreciate it. Here's hoping this year goes better than the last. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 16:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

no problem

Hi Peter, no problem, and thanks for all you've done for me and everybody else. I hope your wikibreak gives you the time to heal. Please e-mail me. --Kyoko 17:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I will when I'm coherent enough about the matter. Thanks. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Mail you have. --Kyoko 04:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Enforcement

I wonder whether you might make your views known about this Bucketsofg 18:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• I've stated my opinion on the situation in reply to the Fourth report lantresman posted. If you wish to copy it from there on AN/I to be examined you have my blessing, but I don't really think it would be constructive for me to repeat myself. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Postscript: Probably against my better judgment, I posted my thoughts to the ANI thread. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Re : A note

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

• It's probably a good idea. I'll strike them through, since it would make that part of the discussion somewhat incoherent if I just removed them wholesale. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks again. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 19:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Not a problem. This whole thing could use some diffusion and I'm not going to be responsible for escalating the situation if I can help it. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Would you take a look at Stephen Barrett

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

Need help

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

• With all due respect, he can post what he wants on the talk pages as long as they follow Misplaced Pages policy. External sites are not required to follow neutral point of view guidelines. I have reverted back to his version. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then I misunderstood. My apology. Since this attacks Ilena, then she should be allowed to post her website on the talkpage, as well, for "entlightenment and enjoyment." I thought the talk pages were not forums for this.Jance 18:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

He can still be disciplined for posting an attack site, if it is one. I didn't look at the content of the site. Irregardless removing the link does no good, because if a sysop looks into the matter they won't have the site to look at themselves. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Since no one has been kind enough to speak directly to my face on my talk page, I'll comment here (behind my own back....;-). I have now read the blog entry by some unknown person. It looks like a commentary on the court ruling. I am still trying to find an attack on Ilena. I did find some links to mild comments about her nonappearances at some events. I have no idea what they were about (I have for years deliberately steered clear of her), but they were certainly rather mild pokes of fun at her. The really bad stuff is when the link to a page of links to her own sites is included. Reading her own sites should be forbidden for children and even adults. It's pure attack and villification of all her "enemies". It's her that is doing the attacking, and the blog owner only has a list of links to her attack sites. Is exposing her attack sites an attack on her? That would be an interesting twist of logic! Suddenly the attacker becomes the victim.

Whatever the issues of the trial decision, free speech allows commentaries on such decisions, without them being considered attacks on anyone. Before posting the link I glanced at it and saw that it commented on the trial, and thought it might be of interest, since only Ilena's version is getting told. I still don't see any direct attacks on Ilena, but maybe Jance can provide the quotes here for me to see for myself. I'm willing to be corrected. -- Fyslee 20:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of "posting an attack site, if it is one", all of Ilena's sites I've ever seen are extreme attack sites, and she has repeatedly posted them to Misplaced Pages, and even after repeated warnings. (Her ending up in the courts has been for good reason, and is her own fault for her consistently aggressive behavior.) She has only been warned for posting links to her attack sites, and extreme patience beyond all reason has been exercised towards her. Many other editors (newbies, unlike herself) have been indefinitely blocked for her type of behavior. So my singular and unusual posting of a commentary of a court case is hardly anywhere near the same ballpark as her normal behavior. Let's see some kind of reasonableness and fairness here. -- Fyslee 20:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)