User:Peter M Dodge/Archives/archive jan162006

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. How I even knew to come to Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia.  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 Wikipedia.  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  &bull;  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  &bull;  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  &bull;  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 Wikipedia 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.  &mdash; 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 Wikipedia 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  &bull;  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  &bull;  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 Wikipedia 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.) &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay lets stop and take a breath here. First of all, following an editor around Wikipedia 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 "Wikipedia 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  &bull;  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 Wikipedia.  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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia right to privacy.  As he has publically denied it, the claim may no longer be a violation.
 * &mdash; 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&#39;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.  &mdash; 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  &bull;  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/wiki/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. Wikipedia 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:   [Perspective:  How Web providers dodged a big legal bullet] 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  &bull;  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  &bull;  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)

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, Wikipedia 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  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 01:01, 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  &bull;  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.
 * It is neither factually nor legally accurate, and illustrates the ignorance of its author;
 * 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  &bull;  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  &bull;  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  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 16:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Enforcement
I wonder whether you might make your views known about this  Buck  ets  ofg  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  &bull;  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  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 19:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)