User talk:Nathan/Archive 7

Hi, Avruch! I'm going to remove the LRGH link again from Laconia, New Hampshire. It's a hospital, or clinic, and having a link on the city's page is simply advertising. Furthermore, the Laconia Motorcycle Week belongs on Laconia Motorcycle Week (where it already is), the Laconia & Weirs Beach Online is an advertising site, and the Lake Winnipesaukee Historical Society belongs on Lake Winnipesaukee, where it already is. All of these are types of links that are discouraged by WP:EL. If you disagree, let me know here? Or on the talk page of the article? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi SatyrTN. The historical society is already on the page under "Sites of interest" so I have no problem with you removing that, or the Weirs Online link either. I think it makes sense to leave the other two, and here's why - LRGH is, I believe, one of the larger if not the largest employer in Laconia and certainly its most visible and well known. It's the major care center for people in a fairly wide radius around Laconia (much of the Lakes Region, as its known) and the only major business that I recall which remains in downtown Laconia itself. As for the motorcycle week link - it definitely belongs on the article, but it doesn't hurt to have it on the Laconia article as well I don't think. I suppose neither link is for a site specifically about Laconia, but the hospital and bike week are the two major elements of Laconia that people are likely to know about or want to learn about. If you're convinced they don't belong you can leave them out I guess, but I think they're helpful enough that they could reasonably stay. Avruch ^T 01:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The only other thing is that normally I would have expected to see you discuss this with me prior to reverting again, given that the links aren't harmful or misleading. Avruch ^T 01:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I was overbearing about deleting the links, but I feel a bit strong about them :)

The link for the official Motorcycle Week website definitely belongs on the article Laconia Motorcycle Week. Given that this article is about Laconia, not the Motorcycle Week, having a link to the MC site isn't appropriate. There are a couple links to the MC Week article, which totally is appropriate, though.

As for LRGH, besides the obvious conflict of interest of a user named LRGH adding the link, the article says nothing about the clinic. It may be the largest employer, in which case that could be in the article. Then, maybe, I'd be willing to leave the link in the "External Links" section. I don't know.

You talk as if you're from the area - are you? I'm currently in Center Harbor, NH, and have been to LRGH several times :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I am indeed - Gilford, actually, which is right next door. I've never been to LRGH as a patient, and not at all for quite a long time - but I have some good memories of rounding with my dad on weekend mornings once in awhile. Try to get the opportunity to go out on the lake before you leave the area. It's a little chilly this time of year, but you might still be able to catch the Mount Washington (the boat) tour at its Center Harbor stop. Avruch ^T 01:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I might... But I live on Squam and have been coming here for most of my life, so a) if I miss it, I'll have another chance, and b) I'm a Squam snob - Winni is ok, but my lake is better :) :) :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ohh I thought you were just visiting. We used to have a place on Squam way back in the day, and one parent just bought that convenience store near the bridge by the sandbar. So I'm not against Squam, but I've always been partial to Paugus Bay and the broads - especially after summers on Bear Island. Plus, can you beat the witches for coolness?Avruch ^T 01:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The witches? You lost me on that one! The convenience store - in Holderness on Little Squam? Several family members have said that it's neat, but I haven't been by there this year. Do you ever get to Awakenings in Laconia? That's my favorite cafe in the area :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

A little brain freeze on my part - we had a place on Squam like I wrote, but the store is actually on Winnisquam. If you ever drive from Tilton to Laconia in the summer, you've seen the sandbar - there is usually at least a dozen or so boats anchored. I'm thinking about a vacation next year put-putting around selling drinks or something to boaters. The witches are a cool landmark on Winnipesaukee - kind of like nipple rock and the loon sanctuary. They're sharp black rocks (look like witch hats) in a group on the way into the broad lake coming from Weirs Beach. I'm not sure if I've been to Awakenings or not - I couldn't name a lot of those little downtown shops, but over the years I've been to nearly all of them I think! I even worked at the downtown newspaper for a short time before moving to Vermont. Avruch ^T 02:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Neat - I like that paper :) I haven't been boating around Winnipesaukee at all, I don't think. Awakenings has only been there a year or two. Maybe three? But they have good coffee, a nice staff, and free wireless. I recommend 'em :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you say, and I have little patience of the-sky-is-falling-ism myself. The sky is most emphatically not falling here. My frustration stems especially with the fact that nobody in a position to do so (including quite specifically Jimbo) will explain i. what his authority is, and ii. where it comes from. While my complaint might at first glance appear to be partially alleviated by what he wrote - he is, after all, partially explaining his view of i. - I find it very irritating that somebody who will not explain the source of his authority (beyond to say that it's "historical") will wander in to a contentious Arb Comm election procedure just to remind all concerned that he won't hesitate to ignore the whole thing (well, mostly) if he doesn't think the community has chosen wisely. In the same way that I object to the faction of Wikipedians who delight in poking perceived "cabalists" in the eyeball, I don't much care for Jimmy's finger in our communal eye. Also irritating is his characterization of his role as that of a constitutional monarch combined with his claims to the power of what amounts to an absolute monarch. Anyway, I do regret if I came across as predicting the dead walking the earth and such-like, but I wanted to explain myself. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, sorry it took me a bit today to respond. I think "tradition" is more the source of Jimmy's authority, and that seems to be what he and others refer to when describing his role. Tradition is a, er, traditional method for maintaining structures of authority - most monarchies continued past the credible assertion of divine right, for instance, and few authoritarian governments in the world today claim either divine will or the will of the people as the source of power.

As far as his reminder regarding the election process - it seems to me to be pretty close to similar reminders he's given at previous elections. My point is that an argument to reduce his role/authority on Wikipedia needs a substantial basis - a clear explanation of how that authority is detrimental to Wikipedia, how it hurts the process of creating an encyclopedia. Criticizing him for repeating his own view of his role in the same manner and forum as he has previously, and criticizing his view as conflicting with his prior statements, is just not substantial enough to be more than hand-waving. Perhaps "the sky is falling" was an exaggeration of your tone - but many comments of a similar philosophy written by others are quite breathless in their revolutionary fervor. Self-defeating strategy, if you ask me. Avruch ^T 19:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

[1] I assume you know there is already an article about Edward Nottingham? Risker (talk) 19:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I do. Avruch ^T 19:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You've got mail. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Replied. Avruch ^T 14:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

As we've previously discussed, I've put your name forward for a referee panel WP:Arbitration enforcement#Further Proposals--Tznkai (talk) 01:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

...my computer buzzes... loudly. I'm not pulling your leg or anything. It has never happened before. I clicked on and off your userpage three times.. always the same thing. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 16:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

haha, that is really strange. My userpage is a mess, it barely works in any browser, etc. I haven't had the time or inclination to fix it, since the links I use are still accessible, but maybe I should if its actually causing mechanical errors...Avruch ^T 16:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Avruch! Thank you very much for your support and comments in the RfA. It passed today, and your comments were much appreciated :) -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to freeze the discussion in the sense that no one can reply, I froze it because jc37, Jennavencia, and myself were essentially (from WP:AN):

We are beginning to recirculate our own reasoning. And if we cannot recognize each other's logic, then therefore the discussion will only transgress into a mess of quotations. In a way, this is for the benefit of the neutral user, which has to read two and a half pages of direct discussion, and several others for reference.

Nevertheless, thank you for your comment. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Strange way of putting it. It did seem like you were talking past eachother a bit, though, so perhaps it was for the best. I find jc37 to typically be an intelligent and reasonable editor (and admin, if I recall correctly), so I'm thinking that a resolution can probably be found through discussion. Avruch ^T 02:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I don't think jc37 as disagreeable (except when he's against Jennavencia), but we are in gridlock. For what it's worth, I think we're having a COI between the older group: the one's who's been active since July; and the newer group: the ones who's just joined or have been "watching" but decided not to participate until now. I think they feel left out, especially in HereToHelp's case. If I were more partisan I would voice my disagreement and push forth the agenda that the older group established. However, decisions like that: I think should be left to people like you. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

(Posting this here because apparently the discussion is "frozen" elsewhere according to comments on AN and CaC's page. I'm not sure why its frozen, but just in case it gets removed there I'll repost it here as its directed at you anyway).

jc37 - maybe this is a stupid question, but do you tihnk the outcome would have been different if the closure had been managed in the way you would prefer? Numerically represented it would have looked identical, is that right, because there was a limit to the number of votes and there is no way to count non-vote comments? So the discussion element would have entered into the final analysis primarily if it conflicted strongly with the numerical outcome. Did that happen, in your view, and you think the close should be other than what it was? If not, is it fair to say that your criticism is more to do with process than with substance? I understand (as I think does Jennavecia and ChyranandChloe) that process is not unimportant - on the other hand, it does seem unnecessarily disruptive to go back and rework the process now after it has already been completed - particularly if the outcome would ultimately be the same. Avruch ^T 19:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

To tell you honestly, I never got as far as to try to assess the consensus myself. (Though I would greatly argue that there indeed are several ways in which a closer could weigh the comments presented.)

When I noticed that the closure seemed solely based upon support "votes" and nothing else, I immediately went to User:ChyranandChloe's talk page for clarification. And since then it's been a roller coaster ride of accusations of bad faith and simple bad faith, both directed towards me. (I won't go into it more than that here, except to note that I've posted a more lengthy clarification at WP:AN#Clarification.)

And I dunno about "disruptive". What I'm finding interesting is that there's a sudden light of transparency being shone on the process to date, and there appear to be several who aren't happy about it.

I will admit that User:ChyranandChloe added another concern when they noted that the process was initially hammered out in IRC as a compromise, and that the subsequent compromise is contrary to WP:CON, merely because they felt that there was "no other way". I think we're starting to see "other ways" proposed already.

I suppose I should note that I honestly was unaware of the prescribed process invented on IRC, as I presumed this was an RfC/straw poll as presented, and as such, presumed it would be closed according to the regular Wikipedia policy of WP:CON. This was honestly a case where I discovered/uncovered/was made aware of information as the discussion progressed.

Honestly, I really don't think that there is any reason to be concerned about putting the current process on "pause" in order to resolve the questions of consensus. If anything, it's probably more in their interest, as it's likely that if this had happened later in the process, the whole thing would likely have been invalidated, and they would probably have to start over. Right now, I think that there is much here that is salvageable, and a way forward may be found.

So anyway, I guess the "short answer" is: I'm not sure, but we'll see? - jc37 06:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot - great work! Barrus' non-Nasdijj works are extremely obscure so I've asked Mary to come back with verifiable commentary on them as all I can find is extremely uncomplimentary (apart from her own blog, which isn't a proper source). I'll let you know if anything comes of that. Vizjim (talk) 07:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

This edit refers to me personally which is a direct violation of Wikipedia's admonition to comment on content and not contributors. Please take up any issues you believe I have editing with the appropriate noticeboards and refrain from referring to me personally on article talk pages or in edit summaries. Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I know you wrote "Serious warning" - but honestly, you can't be that serious. Avruch ^T 19:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I always find it best to be over-the-top when dealing with Wikipedia. In any case, thank you for referencing that thread at OrangeMarlin's page. MastCell is a very wise contributor. I have very simple and well-defined goals for Wikipedia that are explained on my user page and I have been successful in the past in getting them accomplished through various techniques that others find "unorthodox" or "over-the-line". Nevertheless, those who have tried to show me a "better way" have never successfully convinced me that they actually had one.

The article on Elonka Dunin is somewhat disgraceful and it seems to me that it needs some massive amounts of improvement.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of BLAG Linux and GNU, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://wikibin.org/articles/blag-linux-and-gnu.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Should probably whitelist sources of previously deleted Wikipedia content... Avruch ^T 22:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I should be able to get something going this weekend. Wizardman 16:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately no. I have a couple free hours now though, so I'll do it before I forget. Wizardman 01:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:EVula/Userboxes/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rlevse, thanks very much! Illustrious company on that page of yours, maybe you should have waited a couple more years for me ;-) A good idea, your "Happy Your Day" campaign - it lightens the tone and adds some consideration of others to the atmosphere, so thanks again for that. Avruch ^T 20:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem, you deserve it. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

If you think I've done anything wrong... I want you to know I completely agree with you. Slap me if needed. I'm supposed to be the solemn, level-headed kid. That IRC kid is not me. —Ceran^{(dream / discover)} 02:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I actually have no idea what you're referring to. Sorry... Avruch ^T 20:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

We deeply appreciate you contribution on our concern. I am raising some rejoinders. Thanks.[2]--Lux Lord (talk) 07:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I applaud you removing the derogatory comments in the ANI thread. Unfortunately the commons admins rejected deleting the pictures in question (see User_talk:Rootology#Images_of_Florentino_Floro). Pcap ping 12:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I was directed here by User:TenPoundHammer. I was trying to find someone who wouldn't mind archiving my usertalk pages for me because I'm not very astute on that sort of thing and it would take me forever to figure it out. Thank you very much in advance, especially if you can do that for me. Thanks. Atlantabravz (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a million for the archiving. I really appreciate it. Atlantabravz (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

We-ell, I could have told her to take a hike as I saved typing out 'cheers' or 'regards' or whatever 000's of times, but i thought about it and wonmdered what folks thought. If they truly thought it was annoying I would have ditched it, so I posted a poll. I am sure most looked at it and were libertarian in their views on whether I did it or not...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

[3] – RyanCross (talk) 04:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm addressing the issues on WJBscribe's talk page.--Tznkai (talk) 03:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I was looking at the SSP case you submitted, and we would much appreciate it if you provided diffs supporting your case. It would make the process much faster and much easier for the investigators. Thanks! ~SunDragon34 (talk) 04:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I've asked the referee panel to convene, as seen here. Thank you. --Tznkai (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge, yes.--Tznkai (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Robert Eric Wone, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Eric Wone. Thank you. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 08:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Avruch,

Wishing you a happy a new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 20:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You removed my comment from Jimbo's talkpage. This is not technically against the rules, but it is generally considered very rude. Please do not remove others' comments. Thank you. 173.66.190.81 (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems clear to me that you are an editor with an account, who has logged out in order to make an annoying but high profile post. I'll let you in on the answer, though - it will be replaced in a couple of days with a thank you note for meeting the goal. Avruch ^T 18:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you please examine the article again and see if your BLP concerns have been met by yesterday's expansions? I'd really like to close that thread out and move the notability discussion into the AfD, but User:NurseryRhyme disagrees, so a third party view would be helpful. Jclemens (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is seriously arguing that Joe was never a plumber. He obviously did plumbing work. What's at issue are the details around that, and his personal views on taxes since they were a part of McCain's creation on the campaign trail.

We've gotten to this point because Collect worked as hard as possible to eliminate qualifiers that were present in the media and part of the story.

To keep these facts out, he's used shifting arguments that change with the winds He also goes with great frequency to the BLP noticeboard to argue debates he's lost on the talk page.

Basically most other editors, myself included, just want to show the multiple facets of Joe the Plumber that are readily gleaned from the papers. Collect on the other hand seems to be fighting the last election still. Mattnad (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for making comments all over the place. The fact is that you have actively canvassed others, and that you are not editing in good faith by doing so. As for asserting that you have the support of "most other editors" that is not only unclear, it is quite likely an errant claim on your part. BTW, your comments were " Joe was never legally a plumber " "there are other official sources in that section that say he's not a plumber at all" It is also of interest that you appear unable to post without referring to me by name. As for what that editors feels is relevant is a claim in the lede that Joe owes taxes -- without mentioning that Joe was never notified of the lien (wrong address) and that the lien was paid. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wiki stalking personified!Mattnad (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys - the content portion of this should be on the article talkpage or the various noticeboards where its being discussed. For the rest of it... If you want to calmly discuss behavioral issues with eachother in a mediated environment, thats something we could arrange. Otherwise, you should either drop it or discuss it directly on one of your own talkpages. Avruch ^T 16:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Just thought I'd tell you. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 22:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Avruch, thanks for your message. I have replied on Worldruler20's talk page. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 13:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been adding and readding the correct date of death November 4th to the article and added "Please Read the Article First" to keep people from putting Nov 5.

It was not meant to be permanent just meant to educate whoever kept changing it before I went to add the correct date. Which I did afterward. No harm no foul. And like I said, I also added sources to prove the correct date.

(Timestamp sig Avruch ^T 17:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC))

Why did you nominate it? It does as little use as a userspace. If it gets deleted, delete userspaces. Chubbennaitor 16:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Is not only because I felt like it deserved the ArbCom's attention, it was to head off a more explosive war... there were those prepared to delete it under BLPSE (which is.. to put it lightly.. a sore spot at the moment), and others said they'd block any BLPSE action. So rather then have all that happen, with all the unpleasantness, let's get ArbCom eyes on it and see what they want to say on it. I'm going to be cleaning up the main article Laura Didio at some point.. the problem with a encyclopedia that techies contribute heavily to, the people the techies hate get rather hit hard. (and I'm a techie who reads Groklaw, so that's something ;)) SirFozzie (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't get that impression but I probably haven't read all the pages where discussion was taking place. If people were threatening to go to war over it, I suppose pinging ArbCom isn't the worst thing you could do. It doesn't seem likely that the committee will take any action, though. FT2 even described why the redirect may not violate BLP. Avruch ^T 03:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Avruch. You're a clerk now, huh? Yes yes, I know the rule about posting in one's own section only. But that doesn't mean anybody is obliged to remove a one-word post. It's merely something you can do if you want to... spread the wikilove, I guess. Hope you enjoyed it. Bishonen | talk 01:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC).

You should probably stick to constructive contributions to the RfAr, or just everywhere in general. When you choose not to, and there is a simple and specific rule that requires you to, then I think anyone is free to go as far as a simple "undo" to correct your mistake. Avruch ^T 01:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with your comment here. I guess I'd take it one step further, though. I agree that "the simple fact is that people are upset with [FT2] for a variety of reasons." To me, that's actually the heart of the matter. At some point the question ceases to be whether those reasons are fair or unfair. It becomes a matter of whether someone can be an effective Arbitrator when they manifestly lack the confidence of large segments of the community. If a large number of people vocally lacked confidence in my judgement, well, I could probably continue to retain adminship, but I don't think I could continue to be an effective admin. I've seen a few admins go the Blagojevich route - clinging to their legal authority despite having lost its moral underpinnings - and it's not a pretty sight. I guess I wish there were a face-saving way out of such a situation for FT2, but this community usually isn't happy with anything short of tar and feathers. MastCell ^Talk 19:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, people in political office often resign when their presence becomes disruptive to important business or significantly undermines the ability of an institution to do its work. The Blagojevich comparison has occurred to me as well, but I actually don't think its entirely apt. In this case, the accusations against FT2 strike me as both relatively minor and not well substantiated - certainly a contrast to Governor Quidpro.

We don't put administrators through regular reconfirmations, and when its proposed the reasons given for not doing that in the future typically center around the obvious fact that administrators make decisions that anger people. Its understood that upsetting people isn't necessarily wrong - decisions have to be made, and inevitably protests will follow. We try not to make our administrators vulernable to desysop for calls that upset some people but are generally recognized as good, and this is a reasonable and necessary approach.

We do desysop administrators for poor judgment that loses the faith of the community, or a significant portion of it. I see no reason that we should make an exception to this practice for arbitrators - if there have been calls that show significant instances of poor judgment on FT2s part (and I'm not arguing either way on that question), lets discuss those instead of what has actually been occupying everyone's attention lately. We should review substantive complaints of poor judgment against arbitrators - but we should not allow insubstantial allegations to railroad someone off the committee, no matter how vocal the engineers are. Doing so doesn't strengthen the community or the committee, it weakens both. Avruch ^T 19:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the reference to Blagojevich was inapt; certainly nothing FT2 is accused of approaches the gravity of the charges against Blagojevich, but it seemed a striking example of an individual who remains in office despite a loss of public confidence. I guess my point is that the evidentiary substance, or lack thereof, of this specific set of allegations is almost secondary at this point. We're not talking about convicting someone of a crime here, but only about whether he retains sufficient community trust to be an effective arbitrator of disputes. The allegations are "substantial" in that they have caused a large segment of the community (and, I suspect, of those on ArbCom itself) to lose that trust. MastCell ^Talk 20:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

At the end of the day, we expect the office to be larger than the man, and the man (or woman, or what have you) to act accordingly. Only those with the full details know how critical FT2 is - or is not - to the proper functioning of the Arbitration Committee.--Tznkai (talk) 02:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• [4]. Nothing is really solved, of course. While the resignation was expedient and for the best in many respects... There are still allegations of misconduct against someone who remains in many positions of trust, and they haven't been heard in a formal, and fair, venue. Because further investigation will cause "drama", should it be abandoned? Avruch ^T 14:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tariqabjotu - I realize that you're an administrator and a mediator, that you are as cognizant as anyone is likely to be of the purpose of a talkpage and what contributes constructively to a discussion. Given that, I hate to lecture - but perhaps everyone occasionally needs a reminder of a few things. I understand you've got a history with Tiamut (indeed, I've read a fair amount of it on various pages), and that this colors your interactions and influences your interpretation of her (his?) comments.

On the other hand, this particular page is fairly high profile at the moment, and the discussions are evolving at a pretty rapid pace. It makes it very difficult to discuss and achieve a rough consensus on all the many areas of dispute if folks are commenting about other editors, about the subject in general, or otherwise focusing on conflicts or problems not pertinent to that article. I've been trying to nudge people, on their talkpages and at the article talk, into focusing solely on content specific issues. Do you think you could give me a hand, and hopefully keep this article and its discussion orderly until its no longer a current event?

(Incidentally, have you ever met Susan Silverman-Abramowitz? A rabbi in Silver Springs I used to know).

Avruch ^T 16:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you've chosen not to respond? Perhaps you could explain, so that I won't make the same error (whatever it might have been) again? Avruch ^T 23:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry... I thought I responded to this. I specifically remember writing an entire response, complete with the fact that I don't know who Susan is, but I suppose I never pressed the submit button. Anyway, I am unwilling to help you police the talk page. -- tariqabjotu 23:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

with the first six words of this edit. Thanks! Unschool 06:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Some person named Squeakbox had sent me a nasty, patronizing remark, and I was annoyed. JiggleJog (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Avruch, Do you recall the actual wording? "Essex Court" could be a reference to an address which refers to a specific barrister's chambers. At least, that is how I interpret this [5]. Use "Essex Court" in your Edit/Find. Hag2 (talk) 14:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The Essex court is just where one of the barristers of the case (Jeremy Johnson) is currently working. If it's confusing then it can be taken out. I added more sources --Enric Naval (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really that familiar with the court system in the UK, but here in the US each court is individually identified by its place in the hierarchy of courts. For example, you might say "Supreme Court" but that doesn't really tell you anything, because there are many "supreme courts" in the US - each state has at least one, and some states use it to identify a system of courts and not just one. So I'd expect to write United States Supreme Court, or United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, etc. When it says "High Court" in the article, which court is that actually? Lot's of text for a simple question! Avruch ^T 17:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

As I understand the U.K. court system, the "High Court" is a reference to an appellate court; yet perhaps not the highest court in the United Kingdom. My knowledge is gleaned from the Jeremy Bamber case in which Bamber's defense team has been before the High Court on several occasions in an attempt to quash his conviction. Hag2 (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Enric got the wikilink to the right court. Avruch ^T 17:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :)--Hag2 (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there any recourse for edits of this nature? How does one deal with this? Should someone with this POV actually be editing I-P articles at all? I'd appreciate some guidance. Thanks [6] Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think those sorts of comments are supremely unhelpful, and turn the focus away from the content of the article to the general dispute. I'm happy to mention that to Brunte, but as I'm not an administrator I would be unable to take any concrete action. Avruch ^T 20:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

More generally, to elaborate... Sometimes high profile topics draw short term editors who are attracted by the "hot button" aspect, have passionate opinions but who also have little interest in editing Wikipedia in the long term. Folks like this have a tendency to make inflammatory throw away comments that could get them warned/blocked. My feeling is that this sort of trolling behavior should be ignored until it gets significantly disruptive to the process of building an article. Racist comments can simply be deleted or ignored, and often those who make them will just go away. If it turns into a disruptive pattern, pinging an admin with a list of diffs is usually enough to get a long term block. Avruch ^T 21:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Avruch. Your clarification was helpful. In the area of I-P I was under the impression that there were special sanctions on editors. If it isn't too much to ask, could you clarify as to when they would come into play? Is it just for edit-warring or also for such types of remarks? When you say "racist comments can be deleted," would that include things like "Israelis are just like Nazis" ? Sorry to be a pest but I am really trying to understand this as this is the area in which I do much of my editing. Again, much appreciate your help! Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The whole conflict area was the subject of an arbitration case, and remedies passed included discretionary sanctions that can be applied to any editor. I reproduced the notice on the talkpage, here is the link from the archive: [7]. I've left a note at AN/I asking for the edit to be evaluated for meriting the sanction notice, at least. As I mentioned above, I'm not an administrator and only administrators can leave the warning. Avruch ^T 14:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The picture you wanted deleted, has been deleted.--Cerejota (talk) 10:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have made a couple [8] [9]. Please comment based on fact not your perception of it. I like you Avruch and I believe we have only ever had positive interaction, but I don't appreciate people turning up on "my" (not mine but....) talk making claims that are demonstrably false - as opposed to any statements I have made that are very much not demonstrably false. Pedro :  Chat  21:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll make it easy for you Avruch. Simply redact you blatant lie [10] on my talk that I've "made the same comments about Lar before" and we can move forwards. There seems no need for this hostility. Pedro :  Chat  22:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Since you linked to my correction of my mistake on Giano's page, which was minor, I'm not sure why you needed to point that out. As for the other, my memory may be faulty; its possible I'm thinking of this. What I wrote on your page, and what I've written here, is not a lie. Even so, I apologize for being mistaken.

In my experience Lar has been nothing but above board and conscientious with respect to his interactions and actions on Wikipedia. That you would make such strong accusations, but refuse to provide any evidence, does not speak against his integrity so much as yours. I realize you feel justified, and perhaps you know a great deal that I don't. I happen to believe that aspersions which cannot be proven should remain unsaid, but that is a personal preference. Avruch ^T 23:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

My Integrity is not open for discussion as I have not requested any tools other than those given to me at my RFA. At such time as I abuse those tools I have made my recall criteria both clear and simple. Pedro :  Chat  23:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Avruch, You seem to be highly respected, at least by editors I highly respect (namely Nishidani), so I would like to ask if you see a problem with my user page. As its contents have apparently inspired one to label me a terrorist, I would value another opinion as to whether the page should be changed. Thanks, Nableezy (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, here's what I think. Firstly, you should remove the piped links to the names of living people. The message you've written comes across just fine without those names, and using them could open you to accusations of violating the BLP policy. Second, I'll point you to WP:NOT#FORUM (I think that works) and WP:SOAP. Both pieces of text try to explain that Wikipedia is meant as an encyclopedia, a reference for useful information, and not as a forum for broadcasting closely held beliefs. Having your beliefs out there also might subject you to greater scrutiny or serve to further polarize the editing process on articles in the Israel-Palestinian conflict subject area.

Having said that... If you remove the piped links to living people, I think you could leave your userpage the way it is otherwise. I've seen worse, but it's well written and I don't find it inflammatory or offensive at all. I would interpret it as a reasonable plea for understanding and empathy than as an attempt to incite or inflame conflict. My opinions differ quite significantly from yours, but what you've written doesn't bother me and I certainly don't think anyone should label you a "terrorist" for it. Avruch ^T 19:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I would be willing to remove the pipes to the people, but I dont think they are really BLP violations, well maybe the Netanyahu and Sharon pipes should be removed, but I think I accurately represented the views of Dershowitz, AIPAC, and the ADL. If you think so though I will remove those. And I didn't think you would agree, which is really why I thought I would ask you. Thanks though, Nableezy (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait, AIPAC and ADL dont count in BLP right? And should I remove the Uri Avnery link and the Banksy as well? Nableezy (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Mostly I was concerned with the links to Dershowitz, Netanyahu and Sharon. The Dershowitz one is borderline, but I think to err on the side of caution it should probably be removed. And you're right, AIPAC and ADL don't count. Avruch ^T 21:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the suggestions. Changed the Dershowitz link to United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242#Legal_interpretation, removed Netanyahu and Sharon. Nableezy (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)