User:Peter M Dodge/Archives/archive jan052007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

about Wikipedia:Esperanza and why I'm inclined to leave[edit]

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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia - 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[edit]

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)

Gasp![edit]

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 ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 17:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I also have left Esperanza, thanks to you on IRC. Check out the statement I left on Wikipedia talk:Esperanza#Leaving--Ed ¿Cómo estás?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[edit]

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

Your comments[edit]

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)

Relative ages[edit]

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 talkcontribs 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[edit]

I noticed you responded to Wikipedia: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 [1], 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)

no problem[edit]

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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Peter_M_Dodge/Archives/archive_jan052007&oldid=1140235148"