User talk:Nathan/Archive 6

Re: block of Andyvphil
Hi - I saw your note on User Talk:Andyvphil, regarding his block length. I appreciate your feedback on it; a month is certainly a signficant escalation from his previous blocks, which is one reason I submitted it for review. Anyhow, I respect your opinion as a sensible editor without an axe to grind here.

I'm not philosophically opposed to shortening the block, since it's not punitive - so long as there's some reason to believe that the behaviors that were problematic are going to change in some way. My concern with Andyvphil is that he combines an extremely uncollaborative and argumentative approach with complete self-justification. Every one of his previous run-ins or blocks has been wikilawyered to death, and I've never seen any awareness on his part that his own behavior contributed in any way to the outcome. It's always that he's dealing with a bunch of Obama volunteers, hagiographers, ignorant and innumerate admins, the "mullah class", and so forth. Given that context, I would assume that an unblock or reduction in block length at this point would be interpreted by him as a vindication that once again he was "right" and everyone else was "wrong", and the problems will continue.

Again, the block isn't punitive - it's an attempt to address ongoing, refractory, and significant conduct issues where lesser means have been ineffective. If you think there's reason to believe that his behavior is actually going to change, then I'd be much more willing to unblock him. If he's just going to continue to fulminate, as he did during his previous 1-week block, then I don't see anything good coming out of an unblock. Anyhow, just wanted to give you my perspective on the matter. Incidentally, if you have insight on further steps that could be taken, either general or specific, on improving the atmosphere at the Obama pages, I'm all ears. MastCell Talk 19:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Starting from the end - I had a look at the Barack Obama page the other day when it made the noticeboard. So many editors are involved in that page that the talkpage is gigantic and difficult to really catch up on. Personally I usually avoid high profile articles - too many people, too few willing to really work towards consensus, etc. It may be strange, considering how it contradicts the ethos of Wikipedia, but I've found (as an editor) protection and use of the editprotected template is the simplest way to enforce consensus editing on an article. Perhaps periods of full protection (a few days, a week at a time) and topic bans could be used to limit the conflict and remove some of the article's more difficult editors - a strategy unlikely to get a lot of support. Something needs to be done, though, clearly - the conflict there is only going to increase over the next 5 months or so. I have a proposal to develop article-specific blocks listed at WP:VPP, perhaps this article is an instance where that would be pretty useful.


 * As for Andyvphil and the block. First, I have a great deal of respect for your judgment and find that I nearly always agree with your statements in various places, whether noticeboards or talkpages or Arbitration etc. So I hope my comments on Andyvphil's talkpage didn't come across as criticism of you personally, that's not how they were intended. On to Andy - I've worked with him pretty extensively on Norman Finkelstein, and found him to be the sort of editor who has strong beliefs and opinions but who can, with time and effort, be convinced that consensus does not support his views. In my experience he gets sparked to incivility and inappropriate comments when he believes he's been wronged, which is definitely a problem, but it sounds like your experiences with him at Barack Obama have been much more difficult than mine have been on the Finkelstein article. Given that in some settings he appears to be a fairly reasonable editor it might make more sense to simply bar him from articles related to Obama. I don't remember if that was considered at AN/I, but it could be useful to prevent a recurrence once the block expires.


 * Another option might be engaging him directly on his talkpage. AN/I is often called a magnet for drama - in fact, the wikilink WP:DRAMA points there - and part of that is because its often treated as a stage with an audience, which promotes performances and dramatic statements from parties rather than actual discussion. It may be that a conversation with Andyvphil on his talkpage, one to one more or less and regarding the issues his behavior presents and their effect on the articles he edits and his future as an editor, would bear fruit. Not infrequently I think we fall into the trap of making declarative statements and ultimatums about behavior rather than trying to engage in an effort to educate and reform. Understandably, of course - we're all volunteers with limited time and better ways to spend it, particularly when it is so much easier to issue the earned block. But it might be worth it in this case - Andy generally makes constructive contributions, and perhaps if his behavior can be improved over time he'll be able to stay on Wikipedia and continue contributing for a long time (though he's been editing since December of 2006, which is quite a bit longer than I have been). Worth thinking about, anyway. AvruchT * ER 00:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Short break
Taking a short break to consider what I've been told and to take some time to think about my role and purpose here on Wikipedia. Back soon. Avruch 23:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My email is open; I know exactly how you feel. ;-) giggy (O) 00:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Adminship nomination
While I respect your decision, I wish to say that it's a shame that your RfA reached a point where you felt it was necessary to withdraw. I think you would have made a good admin. Good luck. Acalamari 23:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Commiserations on how it has gone. Article writing is a good tonic though and one of the most positive aspects of the place. if you pick a couple of things you'd like to buff up for GA I can help and it'll look good on yer resumée for next time. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * :( Hopefully next time, eh? You would've made a great admin. Malinaccier (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Many commiserations Avruch - I have no doubts that if you take on board the concerns of the opposing parties, you'll be an admin in the future. Best of luck,  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  00:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I too am sorry. I thought you would make an excellent administrator, and you still will.  Shapiros10  contact me My work  00:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * While I'm content with being neutral, I apologize if my comments came out as needlessly hostile. I didn't mean to be inflammatory. — xDanielx  T/C\R 01:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you go for Round 2, let me know -- I'll be there for you. A luta continua. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Naturally I am greatly disappointed for you Avruch, especially given the caliber of some of the oppose comments. However I am sure you will realize that there is some good advice in among the dreck. There is more I could say but I know you're taking time to reflect and I respect that. Look after yourself and it goes without saying that I hope I will be around for your next RfA. --John (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Avruch, we have disagreed on a fundamental level about the mission of this project and how to implement it. But, even when the disagreement has been deep & abiding, you raised points that really made me think. I'm confident you have the best interests of the project (by your lights) at heart. I wish you well as you continue to improve our project, in whatever role you may take. --SSBohio 03:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There are a handful of RfA's where I've been really disappointed with the result, and this is one. Regardless of whether we agree or disagree on specific issues, I've always found you to have a thoughful, considered, mature approach and I think you'd be a great admin. It's just unfortunate that the process, and the atmosphere, are what they are right now. I just wanted to say that you do excellent work and I hope you stick with it. MastCell Talk 05:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was on break. I am going to try to avoid even looking at it. People whine about the ineptitude of the current admin corps and that there are too few people willing to take calls that are both tough and carefully considered, and then those who show every ability to do so have trouble at RfA. I think I will go back on break now, as this is depressingly close to the reasons why I was considering not returning. -- Relata refero (disp.) 21:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I failed. I looked at, and am furious. You shouldn't have been put through that. The innuendo about self-loathing was the outside of enough. (On the other issue, Irpen and Giano, if you're looking at this, your concerns are valid only to a point: a look at the Moral Reckoning talkpage shows that mainspace edit counts don't often reflect the thought and effort that goes into them, as you both well know.) -- Relata refero (disp.) 21:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought you might like to know that the arbitration committee has just published a private case regarding OrangeMarlin - it has a bit about your RFA and says "In fact a review of the comments shows the kind of level thinking we most want to encourage in administrators, from Avruch, and clear insightful comments. Avruch was enacting appropriate policy and wiki-based thinking."Requests_for_arbitration/Orangemarlin/Evidence. If you feel this isn't relevant or whatever feel free to delete, I just felt like pointing it out. --Tombomp (talk/contribs) 15:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd seen it, but thank you for the note. Avruch 15:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Noble gas
You made some excellent suggestions for the article; if you've got any more, then feel free to either post them on the article's talk page or on my own user talk page. It's hard for me to be as critical about the article when a lot of it was written by myself. Thanks for your time! Gary  K ing ( talk ) 01:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: ANI
I agree that the editor should probably be community-banned, but there seems to be some opposition to even the current block; my suggestion there was more to ensure that he stays the hell away from FT2 and edits in other areas, while giving administrators a basis for removing him should he continue the harassment campaign. If the block is undone, it's best to have some ground rules for the editor to work under. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni di Stefano
The previous edit summary said, "is that relevant?" I'm sorry, but I responded to that. The answer is, "oh course it's relevant&mdash;if true." In fact, I thought it might be a BLP issue to not mention such a dismissal if true. I see that it's not, so we're fine. Cool Hand Luke 04:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Jokes and AE threads
I know Giano's reaction wasn't really warranted, but do you think that in future if you make jokes like "It was written by members of the ArbCom Conspiracy Cabal. Membership requires approval by the Grand Master and Council of Elders", that you consider de-escalating things if people respond badly, rather than opening an AE thread? Also, some of the links you provided at the AE thread were clearly not incivil. When someone provides a list of links like that, it seems like they are trying to prove a point. Linking to just one example makes it much easier to come to a conclusion, as opposed to having lots of links to look through. To be specific, what were the problems with, (that was a joke, though not everyone would have seen that), and ? The others I don't dispute (or can't be bothered to dispute). Anyway, the de-escalation thing was what I mainly wanted to raise. It is quite difficult to do (and I wish certain other people could do it as well), but de-escalation is quite rewarding when it works. Carcharoth (talk) 23:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding de-escalation... Depends on the situation. I took the action I thought most warranted in this particular situation, having seen Giano make similar comments towards others just in the last day or two. As for the diffs - I think I included one by mistake, and the Thatcher one was debatable. From past experience I've seen that the bar for enforcement in the IRC case is quite high, so I didn't want it to seem as though this was a singular instance. That is why I included the other diffs (although, you'll note that one post to Alison's page wasn't incivil so much as it pointed to why there is an incivility problem to begin with). So, in a way, I was trying to prove a point - that he was on a roll of posting insulting and disparaging remarks. Avruch 23:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Carcharoth beat me to it. I was musing on this today and going to pop in an unsolicited word of advice - given the feedback you received at your RfA, these sort of comments would be best avoided. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Norman G. Finkelstein
Talk:Norman_Finkelstein —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeaNder (talk • contribs) 00:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"mistakes have been corrected"
Is the ruling ad-Jimbo that trials where the accused lacks to right to reply the sole corrected, or is there something else? I am concerned that there is a lack of trust in FT2's future prouncements - in the case that he makes a pronoucement from arbcom, I would seek confirmation. If a clerk posts an announcement, I'd seek confirmation. This is problematic. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * While he hasn't made a pronouncement about it (and none of the AC members have, so I assume they are trying not to make too many public comments) I imagine that FT2 has learned the danger of assuming assent in various ways other than a clear vote. The committee in general has learned that full cases, decided off-wiki, do not have the approval of Jimbo or a significant segment of the community (almost unanimous, among those who have commented). I think the scope of the case statement in this case is what separates it from the many actions the committee takes based on discussion on arb-l (banning pedophiles, considering appeals, taking action based on information covered by the privacy policy, etc.), and the extent that the community will allow private action is far more clear today than it was this time last week. That all falls into "lessons learned."


 * As far as mistakes corrected - the decision has been withdrawn in favor of a standard case, the remedies issued are not in effect, an RfC is in progress to discuss various issues about ArbCom, a number of proposals have been made to distribute decision making in various ways (see WP:Devolution in addition to the June 2008 announcements page). So, things are proceeding apace to make sure the underlying problems (which, to my mind, are mostly down to poor communication in the committee that is partly explained by having only 7 active members) are resolved. My larger point is that the continuing expressions of shock and outrage, and the demands for the resignation or dismissal of FT2 or the whole committee, are overboard, unnecessary and don't contribute to any actual solutions.


 * Folks need to keep in mind that the Arbitration Committee has a difficult task that they generally do very well. The folks on the committee are dedicated and highly intelligent, and they are also volunteers whose role subjects them to unending criticism and (in some cases) harassment from all quarters. We should cut them some slack, not ask for their heads when they make a mistake. Avruch 19:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Not to be rude, you you assume a major portion of my concerns away ("I imagine that FT2 has learned the danger of assuming assent in various ways other than a clear vote.") We don't even know if that's what happened! PouponOnToast (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Its not rude, and to an extent you're right. I assume that FT2 isn't stupid, and with good reason (in my experience). I believe he thought he had their approval in a general sense, and that in actual fact he did have general approval from most of the committee members but not (1) from all of them and (2) not for the particular process he used. Since the normal process wasn't followed, Kirill for one was both confused and upset at the nem con case. His post expressing his personal disavowal was probably a mistake, and the fact that no other arbitrator followed suit is instructive. FT2's actions constituted an error, not evidence of idiocy, and only idiocy would explain the failure to learn the lesson I described above. Avruch 19:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's true, perhaps. On the other hand, it's unusual for someone to learn from a mistake until they admit that they've actually made a mistake. Kirill and Jpgordon have already suggested that they've learned from the situation, but my take on FT2's response (thus far) is that it has been defensive in nature. If he said something like, "I should have clarified the consensus situation which I thought existed, and even more fundamentally, I realize it was totally inappropriate to think that ArbCom could officially judge an editor without any contact of any sort with them," then that would go a long way. I haven't heard anything like that. I don't want to push him, because as you say he's smart and he'll figure it out, plus he is apparently dealing with a significant off-wiki issue, but I'd need to hear something along those lines to be convinced that a learning process has taken place. MastCell Talk 20:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Judaism Newsletter
This newsletter was automatically delivered by ShepBot because you are a member of the WikiProject. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list. Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  on 04:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you care?
I'm trying to trim the talk:Intelligent Design page into a manageable size. Do you mind if I archive the thread Talk:Intelligent_design? You were the last person to comment. SDY (talk) 06:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I commented in the section below it, I think, so archive away. You know how to set up an archive bot? Could be useful. Avruch 14:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's useless in this case, unless you wanted to set it up to archive conversations after 3 days of inactivity. SDY (talk) 16:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmph
Seeing as it doesn't appear anyone else bothered to let you know, or that as a non-party to the case you'd even have it watchlist, but a member of the arbcom has listed a possible remedy on you for consideration by other arbitrators at Requests_for_arbitration/Geogre-William_M._Connolley/Proposed_decision. I don't know the rules of RFAR well enough, but I think you can comment on it at the propose decision talk page. Better to ask a clerk what it actually means.  MBisanz  talk 18:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * One hopes the ArbCom has enough collective intellegence to laugh such a proposal to an early grave. Trout Ice Cream (talk) 00:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Please help with Shituf
I am writing this to you because you have edited articles on Jewish subjects in the past. There is currently an RfC on the talk page of this article.

You can view the difference between the contending versions of the article here:.

The page is currently protected from editing for 5 days, but the end result of the article depends on what consensus, if any, is reached during those 5 days. Please help with this RfC. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Judge or Prosecutor? Can't be both!
I just cannot see for the life in me how a "chief prosecutor" can also be "judge and jury"! 93.107.140.24 (talk) 14:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The argument is that arbitrators are none of the above. We don't have a court system on Wikipedia - the rights and interests of the parties aren't at issue, because the chief concern of the committee is the encyclopedia. No adversarial system, no conflict of interest in arbitrators compiling and considering evidence not presented by the parties, etc. Damnant quodnon intelligunt. Avruch 14:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ab absurdum! 93.107.140.24 (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A quick note
Hi Avruch, I just wanted to pop in and say that I think I could have done a better job of responding to you yesterday on Mackensen's page, and for that I am sorry. I'd had a very difficult weekend in real life (broken down air conditioning, car break-in, and a computer crash just minutes before that wiped out 4 hours of work), but that is a good reason to not respond, rather than a proper excuse for the personalization of my response.

As to the privacy issues, they really are serious, and I was genuinely surprised to see those particular diffs being used in this case, although that may be because I am perhaps more aware of the context than Kirill may have been at the time he was writing. In honesty, I would be surprised if the information is released by the arbitrators, and I feel ethically bound not to provide further information. Best, Risker (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply
I have replied on my talk page. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I Request That In the Future...
...you use better judgement before you attack someone. You knew nothing about the issue I had on the MacFarlane page, obviously didn't read the full context of what I was saying, and in general made a pretty bad fool of yourself. If you insist on interdicting for your wiki pals in the future, please get the facts straight first.

My remarks about the amateurish nature of the article prior to my involvement was not personal, but professional. I didn't mean to hurt any teenie feelings, but you should know that is not a consideration when the integrity of a project is being undermined by incompetent prose.

The issue with the Miranda user was that she seemed to take personal ownership over the article, evidenced by her feeling it would be appropriate to extend "appreciation" for my work, and the immense offense she took at my impersonal remarks about the lousy writing of the article as I encountered it. It's like some people think that, like, they're just the chosen people of god, or something, and they can just stomp around and attack people who never meant them any harm, and then keep making demands so a perpetual state of unease exists behind which they carry out their takeover of the international banks of knowledge or something. Y'know? Don't you hate people like that?

I'm just suggesting that you demobilise. Your sudden appearance was not coincidental, and was as inappropriate as Jordan rushing to Syria's side during a sudden attack on the Golan Heights or something. Y'know? Don't you hate it when people just join their friends in these sorts of unwarranted attacks in their attempt to takeover the entertainment industry articles on Wikipedia? Y'know?

Thank you for your compliance in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coloneldoctor (talk • contribs) 19:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A couple of things. First, I didn't attack anyone. I simply asked you to calm down, which I hope you might consider as friendly advice for your own benefit. As you've done here, you made your points on the talkpage by personally criticizing Miranda (and now myself) rather than calmly, and politely, arguing your point. Unfortunately, as you may be beginning to notice, that strategy is usually not successful on Wikipedia. We rely on a collegiate atmosphere, and on the understanding that those who have been around longer and have a great deal of experience (such as Miranda) may have a keener understanding of some rules and customs than we do. I'll choose not to respond to your various anti-Semitic implications in the hopes that you take some time, evaluate the best way of interacting with people, and make the choice that contributing to Wikipedia is more important than scoring points against other editors when you believe you are correct. Avruch 20:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Avruch for your cooperation. I would have responded sooner, but I was busy at work.  miranda   22:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In case anyone is wondering, the editor who started this section has been blocked for antisemitic personal attacks, which in my personal opinion include the last paragraph of his note here. -- Relata refero (disp.) 19:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And that block was, appropriately, indefinite. Good riddance. — Satori Son 19:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi there
I see some IP activity - do you want a semi-protect? Risker (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, I wouldn't mind that temporarily. Thanks. Avruch 22:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, should give you a bit of a break. :-) Risker (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Question on proposed remedies
Looking at the proposed remedies section, can you tell me if I have this right:


 * In the remedies you've proposed and support, Geogre and William are barred from further blocks/unblocks of Giano (which any sane administrator in their position would refrain from anyway), I am admonished for making a comment that could be interpreted as an implied personal attack, and no remedy at all (or finding of fact, or principle) is directed at Giano - the remedy formerly directed at him would simply be made more difficult to enforce.

Is that an accurate summary? If so, can you perhaps explain your reasoning in more depth?

Separately - my comment was perhaps ill-advised, I freely admit. While others have described me as having some peculiar animus for Giano (a conclusion drawn, I suppose, from my one previous report to WP:AE regarding Giano and civility), my only object in that comment was to point out the obviously bad faith assumption being made in proposing that Durova wrote FT2's (as yet unreleased) statement. It should have been worded more artfully, of course. But given Giano's history, the previous arbitration case, and the role that many of the same folks involved in this case have played in past eruptions, I'm at a loss to understand how my comment can be seen as precipitating this dispute. Avruch 19:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Giano was properly blocked for his initial remark, and that issue was moot. Giano's behaviour has been considered in many cases, and the civility parole is the remedy that has been settled on, and so my motivation is to increase the workability of that remedy rather than try to replace it with something else.
 * As for your comment, my concern is to call out choices that tend to escalate rather than diminish disputes. I suppose you can say I consider the eggshell skull rule applicable to civility here. Giano is known to have a short temper, and calling out Giano's remark by responding attackingly like that (rather than saying something like "isn't it more likely that FT2 simply told Durova he was preparing a statement?") was a bad choice. --bainer (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess the difference I would argue in this case is that the "take your victims as you find them" maxim assumes the presence of a victim, or more accurately a victimizing action. Interpreting my comment as a breach of policy (creating a victim) stretches reason. To escalate a dispute there needs to be one - what dispute was at the core of FT2's predicted statement and the comments from myself, Durova and Giano? None of the three of us were much involved in the OM debacle, nor did we have any other running dispute. I can understand the desire to discourage actions that contribute to a conflagration, but there must be a limit - an action that to most people would cause no harm or upset at all shouldn't be seen as the blameworthy point of origin for a wheel war in which I wasn't involved at all.


 * Look at Geogre's evidence - pointing to me has already, it seems, encouraged him to state that he would have blocked me for "taunting Giano" in a "back and forth" - apparently unaware that I'd made only a single comment, and no other contribution to the ensuing drama (since the AE thread played no role). When you admonish behavior that previously fell far below the threshold of an arbitration remedy, you encourage administrators to expand their notion of what violates policy to your new limit. Although it occurs to me that Geogre often construes strident and vulgar comments as within the bounds of civility, so its strange that he, of all administrators, considers my comment blockworthy in this case. Avruch 15:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you apply the eggshell skull test evenly, as a thought experiment, then Giano is by far the most destructive single force in the history of Wikipedia. :) MastCell Talk 16:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Finalnight's RfA
Regarding your comment, Finalnight has made it clear he won't be running again, so that's not an issue. He's pretty well disheartened by this process, as he well has a right to be. What a hot mess that was... S. Dean Jameson 19:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it appears he's retired. Hopefully he changes his mind. Its unfortunate that he wasn't aware of how brutal the process can be, something I know from personal experience. It looks like he went from proposed nom to request in just a couple of days, and for someone who hadn't had any experience with RfA before I imagine it was a bit of a shock. <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 19:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's unfortunate, but not surprising, as I wrote at his talkpage. He was subjected to quite a beating, nearly all of it completely undeserved. I note particulary Durova's "8.9%" comment that apparently swayed many "per Durova" oppose !votes. S. Dean Jameson 20:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, I don't know that the 8.9% element had much to do with anything. By the time I posted my "Per Durova and PeaceNT" oppose, it had already been struck out - so the per Durova opposers after me knew already that 8.9% was inaccurate. I also don't think he misrepresented the sort of work he did on the articles he noted, and so that element of what Durova wrote had no effect on my oppose either. <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 20:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't mean to imply that you were swayed by the 8.9% or the questioning of his integrity about the articles he noted. I've seen you around enough to know you have your own opinions, and form them based on your own reasoning. This time, I disagreed with you, and strongly so. My concern was that there were pileons based only upon D's reasoning (or, perhaps, simply because she opposed, which is equally sad), and no other reason. A really good editor has been lost to the project because of this mess, and that's truly unfortunate. Regards, S. Dean Jameson 23:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

wikilink to Wikipedia Foundation
why did you remove the wikilink to Wikipedia Foundation? I didn't wikilink it again, but I was curious. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If it said Wikipedia Foundation I probably removed it because it was a redlink, although I guess it would have made sense to switch it to Wikimedia Foundation. You can put it back if you like - I was distressed at the state of that particular paragraph, and probably just overlooked the sensible change there. <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 23:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. I probably misspelled the name, that's why it was a red link. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:TABOO
Hi. Interested in your thoughts on this. Peter Damian (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC).


 * Thanks. I've commented on the talkpage and made some revisions to the page itself - to clarify, is it an essay or a proposed policy? <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 19:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've modified pt 4 as you suggest. Obviously it needs discussion.  What is the route to being policy?  We desperately need some guidelines on this.  What a mess.  Peter Damian (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that criticism of an editor (it should say editor, by the way, since person could also mean the subject of an article etc.) is "entirely unacceptable"? There is a place for direct, constructive criticism. <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 19:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And as for making it a policy - put proposed on the top (look at the documentation of the template for more info on how to use it) and wait for consensus to form either way. <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 19:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Continue on talk page.Peter Damian (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No kidding
I'm not pointing to only his bad block. His harassing attitude to people casting oppose at the RFA is a big problem. Among your suggestion, I would better talk with him at his talk page? Are you kidding me? I don't want to be blocked by him during bickering with him. Block reviews are generally held longer than that super fast archive. Covering up is not nice.--Caspian blue (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * They're generally open as long as the review of the block continues - once its been reversed, and consensus is established that it ought to have been reversed, there is nothing left to review. My point was that if you want him to apologize, you have to ask him. No one can or will require him to do that, so why request it on AN/I in a closed block review thread? <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 22:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Frankly speaking, your fast archive views like you defend him. Since we don't have the formal procedure in counterpart of RFA, and RFC/User is useless, here is no need to hushly close the thread combined with the block review and Al Tally's misconduct. To me your suggestions are all far from good solutions.--Caspian blue (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you look, you'll see I criticized him and endorsed the unblock. <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 22:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I read it, and you left a pretty soft note on his conduct as well as "mild suggestion" on his talk page. What I am saying here is your suggestion far being useful--Caspian blue (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Coker proposal
Avruch, see my 03:09 post re your proposal at Talk:George Thomas Coker. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 03:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Talk:George_Thomas_Coker, your proposal is gaining ground. Would appreciate input. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 13:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Judaism Newsletter
This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list.


 * Newsletter delivery by xenobot  02:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Coker
Thanks for your help on the Coker article, although I'm still a bit concerned that we didn't really take the subject's heartfelt plea into the strongest possible consideration, the added context and emphasis really does make a difference. I also wanted to get your opinion on the repetition of the quote a full four times in the Hearts and Minds (film) article. It's in the body once, and repeated (with only minor variations) in the references section - #'s 5,7 and 8. Seems overdone to me, especially considering the subject's feelings on the issue. And that repetition is why H&M shows up first in the Google search. Dreadstar †  19:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look. I'm not sure how serious repetition is if it appears in footnotes, but if there is an objection... on the face of things it would seem unnecessary. <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 18:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The repeteated quote seems to serve no true purpose in the footnotes, and I don't see any reason to rub the guy's nose in it by repeating it over and over...even in the footnotes.  It appears to me to be a real smack in the face, knowing that he objected to the comment being repeated in Wikipedia in the first place.  "You don't like it, well then, we'll just repeat it over and over, then..."  And you're absolutely on target with your comment below, it's not critical or key information to the subject at all.  Dreadstar  †  13:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

thanks
for this. Not sure how I removed that, definitely wasn't intentional. Good job paying close attention. Any objection to removing the duplicate mentions of Coker's quote? <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 21:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I assumed that the deleted text was simply editing an old copy of the article. Even though the Wikipedia software does a decent job of putting up a pink header message when you edit an out-of-date version, I have made these errors myself when I have been editing an article and forget that there might be other editors editing the same one. As to Coker, the quotes were added for two reasons; To support the claim that the statements had been made, and to show that there were some differences between them. I do object to the removal of quotes in general, and to these ones in particular, but I will not stand in the way of their removal at this point. As there has been no disclosure of what the subject's concerns were and as the concerns were never passed on to any independent third party who might offer some detached guidance on how to address them, we received no suggestions on possible solutions to his issues, which might have included reducing the number of times the quote appears. It is still rather disturbing that it took seven months and some rather malicious accusations against me to get the reliably-sourced details added at the Coker article, and your suggested wording largely echoes the suggested text I had proposed in January, but it is clear that your modifications offered a means to finally break the logjam. Thanks for all of your efforts. Alansohn (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It is interesting that there are some discrepancies between supposedly direct quotes, and I do understand the desire to note directly that the footnoted reference contains the referenced quote. I think, though, that the position of the footnote (and the availability online of the reference) presumes that the reference indeed contains the quote - easily confirmed, in any case. That leaves the discrepancies as a reason for including the quote multiple times - given the objection, it seems to make more sense to just leave that to the reader to discover. It isn't a crucial piece of information, its just interesting. And as to the Coker article -- happy to help. Bringing a problem up to a forum (in this case, RfB - not usually a good forum for content issues, but there it is) often is a good tool to get outside views and perhaps a fresher perspective. Both can be particularly handy in resolving a long standing but entirely civil dispute, so in this case I'd say the catalyst for solving the problem was yourself. <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 22:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, Avruch, you and your proposal were the catalyst for the Coker resolution. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 09:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Definitely agree with Rlevse here, Avruch provided the key wording that helped provide more appropriate context and emphasis on the background of the quote. Good job, Avruch! Dreadstar  †  13:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

re: FYI
''. <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 21:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)''

Ahhhh....I don't think I knew that. Even less surprized now at the turn of events, and now it becomes obvious personal baiting of bishonen and giano (in my mind). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello
Hi Avruch,

I hope I didn't come across as rude on Geogre's page. I guess some people probably don't know about the history of "Chillum", but I thought Geogre made it pretty clear before you went to his page. This appears to be a long standing feud besides the "drama" seeking. Sorry if I offended; it wasn't intended. Tex (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

di Stefano
I've brought SB's edits up on the talk page. You may wish to comment there. I hope that we can avoid further edit warring over this matter. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for your comments here. <b style="color:#8080ff;">  SIS </b>  22:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The Judaism Newsletter
This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list. As always, please direct all questions, comments, requests, barnstars, offers of help, and angry all-caps anti-semitic rants to my talk page. Thanks, and have a great month. <b style="font-family:Georgia; color:#000000;">L'Aquatique</b> [ approves | this | message  ] 20:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Newsletter delivery by xenobot  20:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Rfa Piotrus
Thanks for informing me about Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2. -- Matthead Discuß   20:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Avruch (is that ch like in Scottish "loch" or "ch" like in children?), if you look at the talk page of the other banned user - the one I mentioned in my posting (who, let us be specific, I have no reason to believe to have returned), you will understand what I mean. There is more false flagging going on now: some of the returnees (both Russian and Estonian) were not actually banned, but got such a bad reputation that they use different account names now, and I think may even be sharing the new accounts (and again, on both sides). I cannot prove anything of course. Though one of these accounts suddenly starting to pontificate on mathematical talk pages would give the game away of course (my writing this probably means it will not happen, even though I am now purposely refraining from linking to the two guys). On reflexion, "may be" should be added to what I wrote there. Do you think I am allowed to modify that statement? --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 09:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: BLP
Thanks for your comment. I like to confine discussion of articles to their talk pages so that others can contribute to the discussion, so I will reply to you there. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

On Dr. Arthur
Let me tell one thing. Don't doubt Dr. Arthur. He just happens to make a mistake but he is really a good person. In fact, I believe he happens to be one of the top sysops on Wikipedia. Cheers. — Orion11M87 (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

IP vandals
Hi Avruch - thanks for your comment on my talk page (I really do value criticism when it is constructive). I think you are right that I fell behind, way behind, on community practice. And I have changed my behavior accordingly, which I hope resolves the immediate dispute. That said, If I understand the current system we have what is in effect one mechanism or process for dealing with vandals. I do not think our policies require this, and I actually think it is counter-productive. At some point - when it is clear that my comments are not directed at anyone personally (and I honestly value the efforts of the many editors who endlessly fight vandalism) and hopefully when no one will respond to me personally - I would like to open up a discussion on this. I think there is a difference between a homophobic, sexist, or racist vandal who is trying to hijack Wikipedia to spread hate, and the narrow POV pushing vandal who selects one or a small number of articles, and the random vandal who makes randomly inane, silly, or obscene comments regardless of context. I think these different kinds of vandals should be handled differently. Also I think it matters whether the IP address is a publis space, a private shared space, or a private and personal space - different kinds of addresses should be handled differently. in short I think we need a more nuanced and siphisticated strategy for dealing with vandlas. in some cases this may call for exactly what we do now; in other cases more, in other cases less. I hope at some point we can all have a civil discussion about this. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 06:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

TRE
Actually I didn't know that. I just know he became an admin, "retired" almost immediately after, renamed himself to Eye of the Mind, and deleted the Main Page a couple weeks later. I didn't know he did it twice. I actually couldn't figure it out in the logs either. What's the back story? --JayHenry (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Replying
Oh sorry, when looking through the opposes I thought a different comment was made by the other user. Thanks for clarifying. &mdash; Sunday  Scribe  22:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Note to myself about articles to rework...

 * Useful Jew
 * Court Jew

and associated walled garden of substandard articles. <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 17:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Also In the Name of Identity: Violence and the Need to Belong. <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 17:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Responses
I didn't know that's how that part worked, thankyou.—  Dæ dαlusContribs /Improve 05:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Oded Schramm
Other deceased users' talk pages have been protected; some have not. If you'd like to bring it up on AN, feel free to do so; I feel that protection isn't too harmful, but someone there might have an idea of what the best way to handle the situation is. Ral315 (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Giovanni Di Stefano
I'm not sure I understand your removal of the WPBiography template from Talk:Giovanni Di Stefano. What do you mean with "it's unused"? The template itself is obviously being used on countless other pages, since it's supposed to be used on all BLPs. --Conti|✉ 16:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The assessment area is not used, and we've had no input that I'm aware of from anyone actively involved in the project itself. Its the BLP template that is supposed to be used, not necessarily the wpbiography template. What's the value of the wpbio template, given no involvement by the project and no use of the template params? <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 16:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the template had the "importance" tag set, at least. Usually I'd agree with you that those Wikiproject templates should only be added if the corresponding project actually contributes to the article, but I'm not sure if there's much of a point of removing the WPBiography template, since it's somewhat of a special case. Aren't there bots out there that add that tag automatically to every BLP? Even if not, I'm sure someone will readd the tag again eventually. --Conti|✉ 17:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Could be. I'm not sure how a bot would identify the page - by the blp template you mean? Seems like a waste of a bot task, to me. Anyway, the formatting was screwed up a bit by an error in that template, plus it struck me as unnecessary clutter since it was unused. I guess if you or someone else wants it there for some reason, I won't remove it again. <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 18:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not feeling particularly strong about the issue, so I'll leave it at that. I think there was a bot going through Category:Living people, adding the template to the talk pages at one point, but I might as well be wrong there. --Conti|✉ 19:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice!
Wikilove for Sodaro! I guess you're a Colonial too? Non Curat Lex (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Not officially. I was a student there in 00-01 before transferring to Vermont. Fond memories of that particular class, though. <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 16:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * So you used the 3rd edition, as did I. We may have been in the same class; I took it either in Spring of '01 or Fall of '01.

On another note: I know you have been following the discussion at pro se. The other day, I posted this proposal on the talk page the other day intending to be a request for urgent action, but no one seems to have noticed. Feel free to leave any thoughts you might have - if you feel like it. Non Curat Lex (talk) 07:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Mediation request for NZ inclusion on GDS' article
In order to solve the revert war on GDS article over the inclusion of the banning from New Zealand, I have opened a request for formal mediation at Requests for mediation/Giovanni Di Stefano. Please participate on the discussion. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Im a PC
I am curious as to why you placed in nowiki the following info:
 * Though considering the statement a "non-denial denial", Tim Beyers of Motley Fool notes that the new ads appear to have initially achieved their goal. Conversely, Jack Loftus of Gizmodo noted that if Apple were smart, they would have another Hodgman/Long spot making fun of this oversight "produced and in the can yesterday". Zach Epstein of BoyGenius Report also points out that the irony of the discovery is detrimental to Microsoft's efforts.

- Arcayne   (cast a spell)  16:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I mentioned my reasoning in the post I made to the talk page, but I'll elaborate - thanks for asking. It struck me as mostly background noise, rather than new information. Going backwards - I think the irony is apparent and not really worth pointing out, suggestions for an Apple campaign don't seem to belong in this article, and a note that the ads achieved their initial goal isn't really criticism.


 * There were a number of comments on the talk page about reducing the size of the criticism section, and the version after I removed a bit seemed to be both condensed and to represent the spectrum of criticism of the campaign. We can discuss it further on the article talk-page if you like. Thank you for your reply to my comments, by the way - its easy to get irritated with people and get into sort of an antagonistic back and forth. Hopefully involving other people breaks the cycle and gets everyone to focus on productive discussion. <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 17:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I can understand your point, about the "background noise", but the comments provide context of the errors and the prevailing thoughts at the time - or at the very least, provide much-needed context for the average reader.
 * As for the rest, thanks for responding. :) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  19:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

wheel war
I'm saddened and disappointed about how this is going. Had to say it to someone. Good night. Dloh cierekim  03:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Its frustrating, but there is no wheel war that I'm aware of. <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 03:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)