User talk:Avruch/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 your sig 2 Userspace edit 3 Good article nominee? 4 Clarification 5 Alison Wheeler at AfD 6 I'm REALLY trying 7 Goldhagen 8 anti-semitic rants on talk pages 9 RfA 10 Please see... 11 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon McInerney 12 Gasoline/Petrol 13 was this a mistake? 14 Alon Ziv 15 Tiptoety's oppose 16 You and RFA 17 Thank you 18 Your RfB 19 Wrong page! 20 John Celona 21 Clarification 22 Hulk. 23 Recreation 24 ANI thread 25 Leo J Meyer 26 50 questions 27 My RfB 28 Ronz ANI 29 My request for bureaucratship 30 RfA Questions 31 My RfB 32 Hacker and Talk:Hacker 33 MUDs 34 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2 35 That AN/I thread 36 Majorly 37 RfA Thanks 38 g'day avruch.... 39 Comments from Wikipedia editor sent to my email 40 Comments 41 GA 42 WP:SSP 43 My RFA has closed 44 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2 45 An apology 46 help with an arbitration request 47 Failed GAN of Vladmir Putin 48 Di Stefano 49 Multiple forums 50 Kumioko's RfA 51 Zilla-speak

your sig

I dont need three of you to tell me. Its a Wikipedia Image though. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Userspace edit

Thanks for keeping an eye on my userpage. Also, did you have any perspective to offer on this ANI thread? --SSBohio 05:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The thread suffers from a lack of evidence. It may be that the evidence exists elsewhere, or has been hashed and rehashed in the past... But in order for action to be taken based on a report at AN/I, generally a pretty good presentation of diffs is required. Either recent intolerable activity or a long history of unconstructive editing is required for a block/ban. Inevitably, any attempt at the second will run into a concurrent long history of constructive editing (in this case) and thats why it keeps getting muddied up. Wikipedia isn't well equipped at dealing with seemingly borderline cases. Avruch ^T 14:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Collecting diffs of Squeak's problematic history is troublesome, because part of the history is in deleted edits, which is why I was opposed to the blanket wiping of his userpage at his request (without a neutral review). He's made unhelpful edits to articles like Justin Berry (where I first crossed paths with him) and adult-child sex. Both times, diffs of his edits have been lost in larger deletions. When VigilancePrime collected references to Squeak's edits, that page, as well, was deleted. Since I don't have access to deleted histories, I'm at a loss as to how to proceed.

As for his being a boprderline case, that troubles me too. We have to figure out how to throw out the bathwater while retaining the baby. Wikipedia has never been good at making Solomonic decisions like that. I'd like to find a solution that keeps Squeak but improves his "rough edges." What are your thoughts? --SSBohio 15:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Diff pages are one of those things... If they are just used for storage, for future use, they are often deleted. Basically, if you assemble a page of evidence that is not sufficient for moving forward to ANI or RfC, then you should db-usereq it yourself. Anyway - if you would like to use it for the purpose of assembling evidence to present at AN/I, ask an uninvolved admin to move it temporarily to a subpage in your userspace. As far as the userpage, it seems unlikely that it has enough value as evidence to mitigate the death threat concerns. Avruch ^T 15:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Good article nominee?

Oooh. I've never been involved in one of those before. I'll keep my fingers crossed for us. :) And observe with interest how the process goes. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll wait, then. Hard to type with crossed fingers. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

Thanks for that. Hopefully this is addressed properly. Everyking (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Alison Wheeler at AfD

Another editor has listed an article that you have been involved in editing, Alison Wheeler , at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison Wheeler (2nd nomination). Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. --Eastmain (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm REALLY trying

To leave this alone, but CC is really pushing it. These comments belong on the talk page, not the main section. His constant reversions are coming back to his usual pattern of behavior (assume I'm wrong and it's a conspiracy against him). What am I supposed to do? — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What you should have done was found a way to withdraw from this dispute before it became disruptive across multiple project pages. Because the two of you have been unable to come to a resolution, and no ArbCom case has been filed, I have proposed on WP:AN/I that you be barred from further interaction with eachother. Avruch ^T 05:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

A discussion is not disruptive. That is what talk pages are for and they are inherently full of conflict. As for "disruptive across multiple pages", perhaps you should read what is going on. CC and I have only filed two pages (one each) for a disagreement with the other. One is still pending, but no additional pages have been disrupted other than BQ. This is the only problem at this time. How can I "withdraw" from a dispute when he was invited to cause problems with me? — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

On top of that, you asked him not to post such stuff on this page. I thought you would want that on the talk page. You are being quite confusing. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring and contentious disputes over minor problems is disruptive, particularly when it isn't confined. I'm not sure why its confusing - I didn't say that I thought you should argue on the talk page of the RFCU, I said I thought you should not argue at the RFCU at all. When I say "withdraw from the dispute": There have been a number of points at which you could have chosen to end this by simply ignoring him and moving to a different set of articles, but you've chosen not to do so. I'm not advocating that you be punished, because neither of you are disruptive in other ways. It seems simply logical to separate you when you seem unable to separate yourselves. Avruch ^T 15:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Goldhagen

Do you have any particular objection to that sentence? I do think the lead should mention that his book kicked up a bit of a storm, though I don't want to give Finkelstein any particular preferment there.

I'm locating a couple of sources that summarize the reaction. Relata refero (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If it is sourced and summarized in a little more detailed fashion than "generally negative" then I don't have a problem with that. It wasn't, though, just sort of a blanket "No one liked it" with no qualification or source. Avruch ^T 16:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

True, true. It's a remarkably uncontroversial statement, though. I've never seen so many stiff historians hopping mad. (I wouldn't be at all surprised if the royalty checks had something to do with that.) Relata refero (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure its quick general popularity and success has a lot to do with the harshly critical reaction, 'tho you won't find a reliable source for that. The academic reaction should probably be balanced with the popular reaction, with a note as to what the intended audience was. Avruch ^T 16:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It was a PhD dissertation, so was the intended audience popular? I'd have to check. Relata refero (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

anti-semitic rants on talk pages

I understand the bit about calling people nazis; even though that editor is a member of a Nazi forum (Stormfront) I'll refrain from calling a spade a spade and call him a Nazi. Fine. Now--is there no policy about filling talk pages with anti-Semitic rants? seems like a no-no per WP:talk, which right at top in bold tells us "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." How come no one will address that, and that editor's Jew baiting of me, and only respond with the rather bizarre notion that I shouldn't call an actual nazi a nazi? Boodlesthecat (talk) 02:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talkpage, and I'll continue to reply there. If you don't mind, I'd rather have the entire discussion take place in a single thread. Avruch ^T 02:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Boodlesthecat ought to be blocked for calling me Nazi. Last time I accused User:White Cat of being a Nazi, I got blocked, and the same should apply here. I registered spontaneously on Stormfront for the sake of addressing this thread about Assyrians, but never bothered. A few months later, I found some interesting threads about Jews worth commenting on. And that's. Blodlesscat here is taking cheap shots against me by calling me something I'm not, just because I posted at Stormfront. I am just as much a neo-Nazi as I am a Zionist (I see no real difference between them, really). User:Avruch, you shouldn't take his side on this because you are pro-Israel yourself. That would be partisan. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 14:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

RfA

I appreciate your words on my RfA, and I can completely understand why you are still bothered about the whole police issues, we are talking about how trustworthy a user is here. But i would like to let you know that I took that issue very seriously last time, and sense have removed all userboxs/statements that have anything to do with my Law Enforcement affiliations. I have also refrained from representing myself as such within this project. I am in no way asking you to change your !vote, but just trying to put your worries to rest. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 04:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes I am aware of it being a support, I just think that user should trust other users they are supporting for adminship, and as such was just trying to ease any worries you may have. Cheers, ;) Tiptoety ^talk 04:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI :) Jay*Jay (talk) 01:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see...

User:Avruch/Admin coaching ... John has to update his bio and such like but dive in. You can start with the intro and reading list. Keep nudging us as needed ... we're busy slackers. We may pretend to mind but we don't. ++Lar: t/c 02:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon McInerney

I'm bringing this up to you because your talk page helpfully indicates that you're online. The Brandon McInerney AfD may be ripe to close because consensus seems strong, but, more importantly, because the article is the BLP of a minor accused of a fairly heinous homicide. --SSBohio 05:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Gasoline/Petrol

G'day Avruch!

Just a quick question:

Since it's us Australians who are most likely to want the information on petrol-sniffing in Australia, do you mind terribly if we don't keep reverting to the American name?

As I said on the talk page, I nearly missed the information I was looking for because it was phrased in regionally inappropriate terms.

(FYI: "Gasoline" is never used in Australia. As far as I am aware, it is rarely used outside the USA, though you may know differently. :) My impression is that everywhere except the USA the English term is "Petrol", or the substance is referred to by some local term [e.g. French "Essence"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by SwordBrother777 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

was this a mistake?

It looks like you inserted a subhead "BoodlesTheCat blocked by WebHamster" here when the block was actually done by Nandesuka. Boodlesthecat (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup, it was, thanks for pointing it out. I saw the "I blocked" and WebHamsters sig and thought they went together, turns out they don't. Avruch ^T 21:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Alon Ziv

I was wondering about the notability of that article, but I'm pretty much an inclusionist, as long as an article is accurate and not egregious spam. My main concern was to fix the archaic, KKK-ish phraseology that EliasAlucard used in his start of the article. Boodlesthecat (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Tiptoety's oppose

I may have lost track, but i think he re-instated his oppose. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 00:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hard to tell. Thanks, Cheers Dlohcierekim 00:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You and RFA

I saw your comment on ZMan's RFB about not being an admin yet, and I immediately ran to your userspace and found this. I have great respect for you and will support your RFA when it is submitted. Good luck and hope to see you at an RFA soon, Malinaccier (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Appreciate it ;-) Avruch ^T 01:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

For the kind words on my talk page, but I think it was for the best to withdraw. Some people had an issue with my actions in the MONGO RfA, which is understandable, and as for the comments about being "not ready" and "too soon", well, all I could with them is simply wait to run again. Acalamari 22:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Your RfB

It's nice that you've counted up the number in which you've commented, but my concerns regarding "experience" go beyond numbers. Prior to last month, anyway, I was a very regular participant in that area of the project. While I had noticed your work, I didn't see the depth of analysis that I'd expect from a bureaucrat. This is nothing personal -- my standards for the position are quite high.

Incidentally, while I haven't counted, I suspect I've participated in at least 500 RFAs by now, and I am far from meeting my own standard for b'cratship. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 21:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not actually the candidate in this RfB - its User:Avraham. Thanks for clarifying your standards. Avruch ^T 21:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrong page!

What outcome? *Scratches head* Tiptoety ^talk 02:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh I followed the wrong link and didn't pay nearly enough attention to what I was doing. I'm an idiot, I may or may not recover, apologies ;) Avruch ^T 02:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL, no problem. Cheers, :P Tiptoety ^talk 02:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

John Celona

The allegations about the "sex offender" are the least of my concerns with these editors, and my (lost) comments did not address that issue, although in a wider investigation I would have examined that point. My principal concern is that JC has a long history of tendentious editing for which I find his explanations unconvincing at first sight. For now, I will leave it, but I wanted all involved to be aware that this cannot continue; and if they will not sort it out themselves, admins will not do it for them. Regards, --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I can see your point. My concern mainly was addressing the report as it was made, rather than inferring a problem that wasn't clearly alleged. To me it looked like they were involved in a content dispute and started saying "Holocaust denier, holocaust denier!" to get him banned. Perhaps they've read some of the EliasAlucard threads and thought it would be a neat strategy. Avruch ^T 02:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that. My take on it as a purely non-involved observer is that if anyone says that "the final solution was a hoax" is being provocative for the sake of it, whatever they claim in defence. I have no Jewish background myself but feel it's grossly insulting to say that kind of thing, even as a rather poor joke, and that is what hit my radar. Anything else that falls out of the woodwork is grist to the mill, and I for one am not prepared to tolerate intolerance, if you see what I mean. I'll be keeping an eye on the participants, because although JC appears to me at present to be the worst offender, I doubt that others are without some blame. I will take provocation into account, but only insofar as is reasonable to do so. watch this space, as they say. Regards, --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

Dear Avruch: Just so you know, I am not a vandal or a "problem" Wikipedian. I was blocked for vandalism in May 2006 because the admin made a mistake, which he corrected by unblocking me 1 minute later, as my block log shows. I did make a mistake in editing: I added to a hidden comment and accidentally deleted a hyphen (or something) from the end comment characters. Although I was only editing one section of the article, the effect was to blank out the rest of the article. I saw what happened and immediately went to the History page to revert my edit, but I was already blocked. The discussion of the incident is still on my Talk page here. (By the way, the admin's comment on my Talk page that I also put a code at the end of the article to blank out the page is incorrect: I could not have done that because I only opened the one section that I was editing.) I take my ethics and honesty very seriously. The only reason I ever crossed Pumpmeup's path was because I was doing vandalism patrol on Joseph Priestley and he made 3 edits that were pure vandalism (which he tried to disguise with his edit comment). While I cannot claim a saintly disposition, I have not had a problem remaining civil. The one complaint on my Talk page accusing me of incivility and vandalising another editor's talk page was by User:SanchiTachi, who was permanently banned a few days later for the conduct of his that I was discussing with him. I do not shrink from confronting incivility or other disruptive conduct by others, but I confine myself to commenting on the conduct, not the person or the person's character. Please look randomly at some of my contributions to get an idea of my behavior on Wikipedia. I do accept what you say about a Wikipedian's rights with respect to his or her Talk page. Thank you. Finell (Talk) 03:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I have no reason to believe you're not a perfectly conscientious contributor. I'm sorry if I implied otherwise with the reference to the block, I did notice it seemed to be in error. I don't excuse the other editors conduct - a failing RfA can be stressful I'm sure, but for someone who wants to be an editor in good standing (let alone an admin) its hard to understand vandalism to the main page FA. I just didn't want to see the conduct problem exacerbated by unfounded criticism of removing the warnings/block etc. Hopefully he takes the criticism on board and straightens out a bit so that the occasional lapses in judgment don't overshadow his contributions. Avruch ^T 03:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that you are right. As my own reply to him said, he has done a lot of good work here and received well deserved accolades for it. Based on his history, it is unlikely that he should be an admin anytime soon, although that could change if he adjusted his attitude and behavior (adjusting the behavior would be enough, but that is almost impossible without an attitude adjustment). However, he should be encouraged to continue his useful contributions. Do you know anyone who he respects and who could mentor him? He appears to be in a self-destructive mode now, which is unfortunate both for him and for Wikipedia. Thanks for responding. Finell (Talk) 04:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hulk.

I have responded at AN/I. ThuranX (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Recreation

I admire your move to recreate the Leo J Meyer‎; however, recreation of an article after the article has been deleted constitutes a valid ground for speedy deletion on Wikipedia. Thus, the newly recreated article for Leo Meyer is now in trouble. I have added a hangon tag to the article explaining that it is currently undergoing a deletion review, but there is no garentee that my rational will permit the article to stay in the mainspace. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

ANI thread

Can you come back to here if you have the time or interest please. I need to get some more views on what I think continues to be a complex case of conflict of interest by this editor - and whether this should just got to the Wikipedia Foundation now rather than us trying to deliberate it further. Thank you.--VS ^talk 10:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Leo J Meyer

Thanks for your input, however the quote on the 95th division web page is the ONLY item from that list which can be atributed to this Col Leo J Meyer. Meyerj (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That is - none of the other references pertain to the article subject at all? Bummer. Should probably put that on the DRV, since the fact that it is there unchallenged is swaying the debate. Avruch ^T 14:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

50 questions

No one expects the Wikipedia Inquisition!! <sneer /> Cheers, Dlohcierekim 04:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfB

I wanted to personally thank you, Avruch, for your support in my recent RfB. I am thankful and appreciative that you feel that I am worthy of the trust the community requires of its bureaucrats, and I hope to continue to behave in a way that maintains your trust in me and my actions. I especially appreciate your initiative on the nominations page and your engaging others in dialogue about the requirements of a bureaucrat whether or not I had already demonstrated a knowledge of consensus. However, I have heard the community's voice that they require more of a presence at RfA's of prospective bureaucrats, and I will do my best over the near future to demonstrate such a presence and allow the community to see my philosophy and practices in action. I hope I can continue to count on your support when I decide to once again undergo an RfB. If you have any suggestions, comments, or constructive criticisms, please let me know via talkpage or e-mail. Thank you again. -- Avi (talk) 15:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ronz ANI

Avruch, thanks for posting at my talk. I answered, trying to be clearer than I had been, at the ANI here.

You also had mentioned notification of Ronz. He did comment at his talk; fwiw, I think he will not respond to the ANI unless a specific question is addressed to him. I interpret his position to be that I am wasting his time. Pete St.John (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Was the ANI archived? I wasn't able to find it, and there wasn't any notification? thanks, Pete St.John (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

were you able to find the diff? It existed whan a bot archived into 381, but it's not in either 381 or 382, and I couldn't find the diff that deleted it. Maybe there's a tool? thanks Pete St.John (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll just note that Ronz never answered your question about posting to my talk. I had thought there was a glimmer of progress, along the lines of people asking rhetorically, "so why does he post to the talk page?"; the result however is essectially the same as the RfC. I'll have to think of something better. Pete St.John (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

My request for bureaucratship

Thank you for boldly initiating the call for a reform in RfB process. I am largely recusing myself from the discussion, but I hope some interesting things come out of it. ~ Riana ⁂ 05:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA Questions

All answered. Don't worry about asking too much, I was glad you asked some of those. Thanks! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfB

Hi Avruch, a little belated, but thanks so much for your support at my recent RfB which passed successfully with (133/4/3). I hope that I'll do a good job to repay the faith the community has shown in me! Don't hesitate to give me a shout if you need anything. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hacker and Talk:Hacker

Re this diff:

All I can say is "Welcome to my world." Nandesuka (talk) 12:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

MUDs

"I played MUDs". What are MUDs? Excuse my ignorance. --John (talk) 04:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, how fascinating! I used to love Doom in my day; was it a bit like that? John (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

That AN/I thread

I ask you to please remove the thread again. The participants involved in this small dispute are already discussing it amongst themselves (and Majorly was already unblocked) - bringing more people into it is really only going to make the dispute worse and bring more unneeded drama into the situation. krimpet✽ 02:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point, but disagree. Whether the block is undone or not (it has not actually been undone, and it is looking like it may not be at any point in the immediate future) the fact remains that it was placed in the first place - with no comment before or after from East718, despite the fact that you and Alison and Daniel were all involved and aware of the situation. East may not have been categorically wrong, but it deserves some examination. Avruch ^T 02:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Majorly

Why did you rv my edit? Apparently he is blocked indef, that's what I see on his talk. --Alisyn^talk 02:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Because there is no need to make his page temporary and banner the fact that he is currently blocked only minutes after it happened and while review and discussion are ongoing. I don't know why you'd rush to do such a thing, and I've undone it. Avruch ^T 02:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

	Thanks!
So, yeah, you know how these work... »»»» Thank you very much for your support in my recent RfA, which closed with a final tally of (75/1/0). Your trust in me is greatly appreciated, and I can assure you it has not been misplaced. I shall use these tools to the best of my ability, and will do my best not to let you down. Thank you once again, and happy editing as always! Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

g'day avruch....

I wonder if you're ever available on any instant message or chat program (gmail, IRC, Skype etc.) - and if you are, I also wonder if you'd be available for a quick chat at some time? thanks! - Privatemusings (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure... I'm on IRC occasionally, and more or less daily on AIM and gmail. Shoot me an e-mail and I'll give you details. Did you have a particular topic in mind? I'm not exactly one of the luminary Wikipedians you've been pinging so far :-P Avruch ^T 22:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Good! Then you can discuss why you make edits like this [1]. Giano (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Because it doesn't take a luminary to spot a non-Arb making an edit in an Arb section about something totally unrelated, to start trouble - particularly when the editor in question has a habit of doing so. Avruch ^T 22:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

AGF and appologise please. Giano (talk) 07:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Afraid not. Avruch ^T 12:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Wikipedia editor sent to my email

Hi Avruch. Just wondering if you can do anything about this:

I just received this email (from a yahoo account):

"You really are an idiot. You don't even understand how Wikipedia works but remove information you claim to own. You can't own dates and you can't copyright information. If you would actually look at history you would see that the information couldn't be "stolen" from you. You need a life and a hobby although you're probably a Hogan fat unwanted f*** that has no life."

I assume this is from someone involved in the recent chat about the tenure dates on the Days head writer page. Earlier this week, on March 27, KellyAna used the same wording on her talk page about me, calling me "an idiot" and telling me "to get a life." If that is not proof the email is from her (along with the incorrect post about her checking the history log), I can provide you with the email address that sent it to me. I assume she had to resort to email since she has been blocked on here for 24 hours. I hope these personal attacks will stop both on Wikipedia and through email. At least I'm of the belief that "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me." Jason47a (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Elonka has addressed the problem. I'll echo her and say you shouldn't have to put up with that sort of thing, and, of course, you don't. KellyAna is on thin ice - if she continues to edit disruptively, it is not unlikely that she will be blocked indefinitely. Avruch ^T 01:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Why spend your time making snarky comments when this discussion clearly disagrees with your position?

Nope, I spend my time rebutting obvious nonsense, as I hate having my intelligence insulted by such. If this bothers you, try to not insult my intelligence, mmkay? --Calton | Talk 02:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No interest in arguing with you about it, but that is a pretty strange interpretation of what you were doing on that MfD (which didn't go your way, despite the fact that the keep votes insulted your intelligence). Avruch ^T 14:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

GA

Avruch: thanks for reminding me. The truth is that I was having a bit of trouble with it, and was wondering whether to go for a second opinion. I'll make the decision in the next 12 hrs or so. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to read my comments? --Relata refero (disp.) 20:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesnt feel weighted to me either but I'm forced to the conclusion that it still is. Look forward to hearing your detailed remarks, I can hold off on it for a few days. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Avruch, I look forward to doing it in just a bit. Not immediately, though because I'm recovering from this. An object lesson, actually, in the difficulty of reconciling BLP, that relatively recent, artificially grafted creation, with some of our other core principles. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh absolutely, there were many good points of that sort to be made. There was also the possibility that even if it wasn't modified in any way other than interpolation of other usenet posts (as seems to have happened in this case), the act of selection for this particular archive might itself be considered an act of editorial control. That entire episode was a poster child for why collegiality is so completely necessary to get anything done.

I've had a first look at the article, am digesting it, and will get back to it soon. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:SSP

Hiya - just a quick note. Could you please take care not to use second-level headers ==like this== on SSP reports? The reports are each on a subpage, and then transcluded onto the main page - whilst the headers look fine on the sub-page, when they're transcluded they mess up the table of contents on the main page. Thanks! _GB^T/C 19:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah ok, I was just about to ask you about that. Sorry. Avruch ^T 19:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

My RFA has closed

My RFA that you weighed in on earlier has closed as no consensus to promote, at a final tally of 120/47/13. I thank you for your feedback and comments there, and I'm going to be considering all the various advice and comments presented. I might end up at RFA again some day, or not. If you see me there again in the future, perhaps you might consider a Support !vote. If not, not, and no hard feelings. The pen is still mightier than the mop! See you around, and thanks again. Lawrence § t/e 18:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The remedies decided by the Arbitration Committee, viewable here, instruct Betacommand with regards to the operation of BetacommandBot, including placement of notifications and civility in replying to concerns raised about its operation. Betacommand is urged to be significantly more responsive to good-faith questions from users whose images he tags and either to respond directly to such questions, and also to develop an "opt-out" list for BetacommandBot without imposing conditions on its use.

All editors are advised that periodic review of images and other media to ensure their compliance with the non-free content criteria may be necessary for policy, ethical, and sometimes legal reasons, and are invited to participate in policy discussions concerning this and related areas. Editors are cautioned not to be abusive toward or make personal attacks against participants, including bot operators, engaged in this work. The community is also urged to re-examine our policies and practices for reviewing, tagging, and where necessary deleting images in light of experience gained since the policies and practices were previously developed, including the disputes underlying this case. The Committee listed five specific points in the specific remedy that they believe any review should attempt to cover.

The Committee expects that the disputes and disruption underlying this case will cease as a result of this decision. In the event of non-compliance or a continued pattern of disputes, further review by the Committee may be sought after a reasonable time. In such a review, the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions including but not limited to the revocation of any user's privilege to use automated tools such as bots and scripts, revocation of other privileges, topic bans, civility restrictions, or any other remedies needed to end the disruption. However, please note that nothing in this paragraph restricts the authority of administrators to take appropriate action to deal with any disruptive incidents that may occur.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 12:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

An apology

I owe you an apology. Other things on my mind, forgetfulness, and the fact that the letter I sent to my childhood friend, who holds a chair in classical languages, still hasn't received an answer. I only remembered, indeed, your request when rereading my talkpage tonight, thinking to close it. I specialized in Greek, and hated Latin all through school, perhaps because I always instinctively preferred Hannibal, the Etruscans and Volsci to the glorious men whose imperial march to Roman glory our textbooks lauded (a prejudice that shows in my edits on some areas). I've sent out other queries, but in the meantime, you could mull this possibility: nomen proprium profiteri ad petitionem, prima specie, imperii cupiditatis indicium esse censeo. This underplays 'prima facie'. Perhaps one might use 'opinor' with a verb of semblance and subordinate construction to get the nuancing of the original more closely. I repeat, I am not a Latinist, and will get something more worthy of a classical version by hook or crook, if you have the patience. Perhaps your Latin is sufficiently strong to improve this suggestion. This is just an embarrassed interim idea. Regards as always Nishidani (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Avruch. Thanks, but it's no way adequate, and I'm confident it can be greatly improved. A neighbour, a philosopher, is back from Germany, and though a specialist in Kant, had several decades ago a thorough classical education. He and I played around with it for a half an hour last night. He doesn't like 'indicium' (disclosure) and we both feel that the first suggestion I made, which I had from another philosopher who had it from a classicist, well, shonky. I've kept my own three versions on the back burner, since, until I got the classicist's version (more succinct), I tended to trust a professional. But putting 'puto' in the front of the phrase was obviously poor style, and it looked to both of us rather highschoolish, though coming from a local teacher of classics (it contained an obvious mistake to boot, wich I corrected before sending it to you). 'Nomen profiteri' is 'to put put one's own name down', but both he and I thought 'sese' 'proprium' more probable, but neither of us specialize in Latin. Well, in short, this looks like it's going to be a long gambit. I have just had a message from my old friend, in Athens, whom I originally asked and since he hasn't mentioned it, I'm mulling raising the issue once more with him. It's a touchy matter, I gather, so I'd better prod it back to him on tiptoes. So, don't cite it, don't use it, until I can get absolute confirmation on a version that Cicero's secretary wouldn't shudder at. Fitting that requirement will probably take some more months, but the game's on, and not only a sense of obligation is to be honoured, but the pleasure of a sophisticated, if trivial pursuit, to be enjoyed. It's one of the things I deeply admire in Jewish culture. A question like this (how in ancient Hebrew would you say...) would be answered with considerable precision and erudition by a 20 year old student within minutes. Best regards again, as I festino lente! Nishidani (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

help with an arbitration request

Hi Av - I wonder if you might have any time and energy available for a bit of help in making a request to the arbitration committee? - I'm not really sure how best to go about asking them to lift my restriction on editing BLPs, perhaps it's as easy as that - maybe just saying 'Could I have this restriction lifted to a simple 1RR restriction pending a review of the evidence supporting any restriction at all?' is enough? - I've actually considered the merit of asking a third party to relay my 'appeal' to arbcom, and would like to give it a go - if you're willing at all, of course! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 07:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind posting the request for appeal/clarification. You'd need to make a statement, of course, expressing your view of the previous case and its outcome as well as what restrictions you would find acceptable going forward and your intent towards BLPs in general (speaks to why you want the restrictions mitigated). If that isn't a problem, I could make the initial statement with the case for lessening the remedies on the RfAr page. Avruch ^T 19:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be wonderful! Thanks heaps - and I'll certainly make a short statement.... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Failed GAN of Vladmir Putin

I have failed the article after a brief review. I have left notes on its talk page. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 02:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Di Stefano

That's not an easy task you suggest! I've spent some time digging through the talkpage and the endless sources off-site and at the PM RfArb. If I can weigh in with something useful, I will. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Multiple forums

Per this comment, I will like to know what are the "multiple forums"? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

WT:WEB is a good place to start. WT:N, WT:V, WT:RS, WP:VPP might work as well. Avruch ^T 21:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Kumioko's RfA

I'm not going to argue with you there, but were you suggesting my oppose is not based on anything substantive? I'm not sure that's fair, I don't often vote in RfA's, and I always do my homework for them. I did review his contribs, actually spent a lot of time doing it. I commented that it is hard to know much of how he will act in tough situations. I was not happy (same with some other editor's) with how he handled the beginning of his RfA. The diff might be harmless, but at the same time is not something I like to see from someone who might be the next admin. The diff was one reason I gave for my oppose. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it may be an issue of my interpretation of your remarks - the issues you point out seem to be (i) the lack of project space contribs and (ii) the single diff, from which you appear to draw a lengthy and complex conclusion about his likely response to controversy/drama etc. and the potential for admin abuse. In your response to a comment, you further encapsulate your feeling by again referring to that single diff and your interpretation of it. I agree that behavior in an RfA can be telling, and not infrequently torpedoes a request that might otherwise succeed or fail by a slim margin. That one comment, though, which is not particularly problematic to my mind, doesn't seem like a sufficient reason to vote either way. I'm also curious that your response to the comment on your oppose raises the issue of Q1 and appears to agree with criticism of it - when your response to my comment in the discussion section indicates that you disagree with the criticism but think its nonetheless valid.

• "Some people think the answer doesn't show any real need for the tools. While I'm not sure why this too is a big issue by itself, some continue to interpret that as the candidate not truly understanding what adminship is about, which is certainly a valid interpretation. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)"

• "I provided one specific diff (the one that bothered me the most), and I haven't liked what I've seen in much of the this RfA, specifically in the candidate's responses to oppose votes, and also to question 1. I agree the RfA can be a very good indicator of future behavior. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)"

These two statements seem hard to reconcile. Avruch ^T 17:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I can reconcile them for you. I don't in fact judge much on a candidate's response of where or how much they will use the tools. However, if I personally judge the response to show a lack of understanding of adminship because of the way that it's worded, then I don't like it. A theoretical Q1 response of "I will rarely use admin tools" might be totally acceptable to me for the right user. In this case, I felt that Kumioko didn't even understand that some of the things he was listing had nothing to do with admin duties.

A few more things. First, I quite appreciate your long and detailed response to me here. If anything, it will make me a better editor and certainly has already encouraged me to explain myself better. My two statements you quoted are admittedly confusing when put together.

Second, I think that I am in a certain "school" of beliefs about admins, criteria, etc. It's probably stricter than most. I viewed Kumioko as a great editor etc... I just felt too many question marks were popping up as to what exactly he would do as an admin, how he would handle criticism, etc. Maybe I view no big deal as it not being a big deal to hold off on granting the mop to someone we(I?) are unsure about. I personally think, that if Kumioko wants to, he can without a doubt pass a second RfA in 3-6 months after he meets some of the criteria that myself and other editor's have. Thanks for your discussion here. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Zilla-speak

That question might be a bit of a sore point right now, you might want to look at User_talk:Bishzilla to see just how much that party's been hearing about this lately. And you did note how more than one person has indicated Bishzilla should be reprimanded for her speech patterns already. For what it's worth, I was the one, not her, who's mentioned talking to MONGO lately, and I only talk that way when I am seriously drunk. There may or may not be a point there regarding Bishzilla volunatily speaking correctly as a sign of respect, and I'm not sure I would disagree with that, but to say she should be admonished or reprimanded for doing so, as several people have done, might be going a wee bit too far, freedom of expression and all that. But I am fairly sure that point might be getting to be a bit of sore point right now. It look like ArbCom might take the case, and if that's the case they'll probably be in the best position to influence Bishzilla's speech patterns, if they choose to. But making huge hulking monsters with really bad breath angry never struck me as being a really good idea. ;) John Carter (talk) 21:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure - I'd hope Bish would volunteer to speak normally, at least in some areas (or use Bishonen rather than Bishzilla) as a sign of respect for community processes that are serious rather than light hearted. It may also be that she specifically intends not to demonstrate that respect, given her history, and I don't know enough about that to know whether she would be justified. In any case, I wouldn't advocate for any sort of punishment or formal reprimand. I actually hadn't seen her talkpage or that others had admonished her, it had just occurred to me once or twice over the past few days while reading through the case. Avruch ^T 21:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The one thing I don't think some people may have considered, and I'm not sure how to phrase this without maybe ticking some people off, is that she might be thinking that exercising freedom of expression is a way to demonstrate respect for those who have died to preserve that right. I can't be sure about that in this case, but I have heard the idea mentioned before by others elsewhere. I can't criticize anyone who thinks that way, as it is a form of demonstration of respect, even if it does strike a lot of others as the exact opposite of what the individual him or her-self is intending. John Carter (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that is a possibility, given the relation of the subject matter to September 11th... It seems like a bit of a stretch to me, though, considering she hasn't deviated from the Zilla-speak on that account since it was created (that I've seen). I can't help but point out, too (and this is because I'm a bit crazy, and not because it is totally on point here), that freedom of speech (for Americans, at least) is a right to be free from most limitations imposed by the government. Employers and private forums (such as Wikipedia) are free to limit speech in any way they like. At any rate - I appreciate that you let me know the conversation was ongoing elsewhere. I imagine it will be resolved one way or another sometime before the close of the case, hopefully voluntarily and without ill will on any side. Avruch ^T 21:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)