User talk:BenAveling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Yamanote Halloween Train

It's really not worth the trouble. This is clear admin abuse, but so what :-) Vincent 03:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

AFD is not a vote. It looks like one, it has a lot in common with one, but it isn't a vote. It's an attempt to achieve a consensus decision, or failing that, to measure community feeling.

Several registered users saying something does not outweigh one anon saying something else, if the lone anon's arguments are stronger.

The opinions of newcomers and outsiders count, but not always at full value - sometimes they just aren't representative of the wider wikipedian community.

The closing admin uses the page to make a decision, considering first the weight of argument, and then perhaps the weight of numbers. Mistakes happen, which is why WP:DRV exists. The raw numbers are a part of the process, sometimes they they are even the major part of it, but it's not a vote.

Regards, Ben Aveling 07:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks of Duke53

Ben, thank you for your comments regarding Duke53 and his allegations of personal attacks. I agree that I have been harsh with him, but I certainly did not start out harshly with him. It was only after a multitude of interactions on several articles did I become harsh. He has an axe to grind and I think he abuses the placement of warnings on other editors' pages. I should not have said he was not intelligent, the rest of my comments I do not regard as a personal attack. I should have been more positive, but if you review the long edit history on Mountain Meadows Massacre, for example, you will see that he does not compromise his position on anything. It is very frustrating.

I would ask you to montior his edits and coach him. He does not take counsel easily, but someone has got to take him in hand so that he becomes an asset rather than a nusance. I have found that achieving a NPOV position is difficult for him. Thanks again and I will strive to be more positive, even though it is very difficult with this editor. Cheers. Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll try. Regards, Ben Aveling 03:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help with that poster User:Storm Rider

Since you are already involved with this dispute I would like your help. He insists on calling people names and adds other immature comments. I would appreciate it if you took this case. He is persisting in this despite your involvement. TY Duke53 | ^Talk 03:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I think he regrets calling you names. But do you understand why he did so? Regards, Ben Aveling 03:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not apparent from the comments he makes upon editing (since you gave your advice). Will you help me in my complaint against his behavior? I have had no luck in filling out forms around here. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Duke, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to complain about his behaviour; the only issue I had with him we've discussed and we've reached agreement on. I think the some of the problems you've had in filling out forms may be because your expectations are quite high. Wikipedia is wonderful and getting better, but it isn't always everything we might like it to be. There are always going to be vague and messy areas, places where the rules don't quite say what to do, even places where the spirit of the rules and the letter of the rules contradict. There are going to be times when other people do slightly the wrong thing, and we have to decide if we live with it or if we spend our time trying to fix it. Sometimes people need us to explain things to them in detail, and sometimes people just tell us things and expect us to work out the detail for ourselves. It's a bit of balancing act, but with a bit of give and take, things generally come out OK. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is wonderful and getting better". Thanks for the laugh; your little idealized vision of wp makes me wonder why you got involved in the first place. If people are allowed to do as they please then why did you care what was going on? I'm pleased that you can be so confident of what is 'a little wrong'. Duke53 | ^Talk 01:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

As per your request on your talk page, I'll leave this unanswered. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admin infallibility?

Admins are definitely not infallible. However, they do deserve the benefit of the doubt and an ordinary user should never revert an admin if the admin is stating they are taking an action AS an admin (this has nothing to do with regular content editting). If the ordinary user feels the admin has made a mistake, they should discuss it with the admin first. If that fails to satisfy them, then they should file a complaint at WP:ANI or some other appropriate venue.

I stand by my statement: "[One] should never, however, revert an action made by an admin if the admin has stated that are acting in their administrator capacity." Johntex\^talk 03:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Duke should not have reverted your change, but that is because your change was right, not because you are an admin. Regards, Ben Aveling 03:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Even admins should not revert other admin actions. To do so is to engage in a Wikipedia:Wheel war. If it is ill-advised for an admin to revert another admin's administrative action, it is definitely ill-advised for a non-admin to do so. Johntex\^talk 04:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Also, I see Duke is trying to claim that I did not answer his question, but he is twisting the situation. Here is the chronology. Since it is still visible on his Talk page, I will not provide diffs, but I can do so if they are needed:

Initially, Duke did not ask me about my removal of the comment, he simply reverted me. I left him a message on his Talk page advising him not to do that. Here left a message on his talk page' (not on my talk page, which would ensure I saw the reply). Thhe question was "Why wouldn't you want the entire exchange documented?" If he wanted an immediate answer, he should have left a message on my page so that I would get a message indication.

1. Before I had a chance to answer that question, he asked a second question, again on his talk page. "Are you telling me that by reverting that I was breaking a Wikipedia rule? "
2. I answered the first quesiton by saying "As I said, if you want it for evidence, then you can use a diff - you don't need to revert the change." I felt this was a sufficient answer.
3. Duke apparently disagreed. He asked again here "Why wouldn't you want the entire exchange documented? Are you telling me that by reverting that I was breaking a Wikipedia rule?"
4. I answered again "I'm telling you just what I said "You should not revert that sort of edit. If you want a record of that comment for some reason - use a diff." You knew you were reverting an administrative action and you did it anyway. That wasn't a good thing to do."
5. He still didn't like that answer, he said "I consider you deleting his comment 'not a good thing' to do. I consider your commenting 'don't revert me like that' 'not a good thing to do'. You're right, I knew what I was doing; I also couldn't find a rule telling me that I couldn't do it. Now I'm asking an admin (you) to show me that rule."
6. I expanded on my answer "Clearly, policy encourages administrators to use discretion in defusing situations. Interfereing with an administrator is against policy. If you disagree with my actions, you should talk to me about your complaint rather than reverting. If discussion fails to satisfy your concern, then you can report me. You should never, however, revert an action made by an admin if the admin has stated that are acting in their administrator capacity."
7. Duke then replied "If you disagree with my actions, you should talk to me about your complaint rather than reverting".. I believe that your idea of 'talking' is quite different than mine; I have asked you numerous questions to which you have never given a straight answer. Your idea of 'talking' is simply for me to 'listen' to you and not expect any answers; I don't feel that admins should act in that manner. You ignore my questions but continue to be evasive; why?" This is a complete red herring. He is twisting things around. I was referring to his initial decision to revert me, instead of talking about it. He did not discuss first. He reverted first. I began the converstaiton, not him. Also, by this time I have answered every question he has asked. I have not been evasive at all.
8. I explained this to him.
9. He replied "Quote the rule to me.
10. I explained "I removed someone else's comments, not yours. You had no reason or right to restore them. You are being argumentative and you keep wanting to distract from the issue at hand, which is that you were wrong to remove my change. This conversation is not going anywhere so I'm taking a break from it. As I said, if you feel I've acted inappropriately, file a complaint. From my perspective, this converation is over. You may have the last word if you want. Just be aware that you have been warned and that if you do such a thing again, I will block you."

Johntex\^talk 04:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Johntex, thanks for putting in such a full summary of what happened. A couple of points in response I want to make. Firstly, Wikipedia:Wheel war is a guideline, not policy, and it's mainly talking about real admin actions as "unblocking or reblocking a user; undeleting or redeleting; or unprotecting and reprotecting an article". I don't believe that just nominating the revertion of another users comments as an admin action makes it an admin action, especially if one is already 'involved' in the discussion. Reverting comments is something that all users can and should do, in certain circumstances. Further, wp:ww doesn't say "never revert", it says "talk first". Basically, it's 3RR for admins. It certainly does not give Admins more rights than other users to decide which comments on a talk page are permissable and which are not. You say that "Interfereing with an administrator is against policy". Which is true, to the extent that interfereing with any user is against policy. It's no more or less wrong to mess people around if one is an admin and the other isn't. Admins have extra tools, not extra rights. Duke was wrong to revert your change, but no more so than if you were not an admin. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Buffalo Family and Joseph Todaro

Hi Ben,

Sorry I haven't gotten back to you sooner, I live in Fort Erie, Ontario and keep an apartment in Buffalo, New York where I was born and raised. I 've spent the last 6 weeks in Buffalo and my internet connection is here in Canada. Like I said i was born and raised in Buffalo and I've read the local news paper every day since I was 15 years old. My father was also a bookmaker and professional gambler (more of a hustler, cards, pool, ponies, sports). He still goes to the occassional late night poker games with some of the "boys" in Buffalo and Cheektowaga. I was raised on the Westside of Buffalo, living on Fargo Ave., Rhode Island Ave., Abbotsford Place and now my apartments on Parkside Ave. by the zoo. The Westside of buffalo was predominately Italian from the early 1900's to the late 1960's, early 1970's and then became predominately Hispanic, I win both ways since my father was born in Italy and my mother in Puerto Rico. I'm researching as much as I can about the Buffalo Family. They had a great site a few years ago by supercrack, but it disappeared right away. I been inside La Nova Pizza a million times, it's a Buffalo landmark, not to mention a $25,000,000 a year business. Can you believe that shit and to be perfectly honest i think they have the second best pizza, with Mr. Pizza on Elmwood Ave. being #1. I did the write up on Joseph Todaro Sr., but I did it more for myself and I'm thimking about doing a buffalo Family page. I'm starting to get that Wikipedia wants short, sweet and to the point when you write so thats what I'll give' em from now on. Anyway take care and by the way, you must have checked the Alexbonaro page, if not it's got alot of good Family charts.

Little Joe Shots

Hi Joe, Do you still have copies of the pages from the Buffalo Family website? Is the other stuff you wrote about online somewhere, or do you know which editions of the paper contained the information? Basically, I think if we can find something that backs up the mafia connection, a lot of the rest of the details can be taken on trust. We just don't want him suing us because we said he has mafia links.  :-) Regards, Ben Aveling 04:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Here are some online sources, you have probably seen them all:

• Gangsters-Incorporated.tripod.com article on Buffalo crime family

Note: the Buffalo family page, the Leonard Falzone page and the Joseph Angelo Pieri page all claim the Todaro involvement in, if not running, the Buffalo LCN family

Note: Gangsters-Inc.tripod.com is in no way a source to go straight off but is a source none the less

• Mob Leaders chart on AmericanMafia.com, obviously these claims are back up by the AmericanMafia.com creator, notable true crime author, Rick Porrello, and the articles creator, one Allan May. The chart also cites the Justice Department and mafia turncoat Joseph Valachi as making the claims.
• The site Namebase.com shows that the name Joe Todaro was mentioned in the 1995 true crime book Global Mafia: The New World Order of Organized Crime by Anthonio Nicasso and Lee Lamothe.

I cannot put the link up because wikipedia have blocked the sites URL from being posted due to the site spamming wikipedia or something.

• Laborers.org article claiming Joe Todaro, Jr.'s and Leonard Falzone's involvement in organized crime related union activity.
• History of the Buffalo LCN family on AmericanMafia.com states leadership of Joe, Sr. and Joe, Jr., sources the Justice Department, FBI etc.

Thanks for supporting the Joseph Todaro, Sr. page and being reasonable. Alexbonaro 06:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

We'll get there. What usually happens is that we have to put something together in user-space, then move it later. I'll wait for Zoe's OK to suggest it to Little Joe, but I think that will work here. I don't think anyone is worried about the claim that Joe T is a gangster, so much as worried that Little Joe might put in something that he knows about that isn't documented elsewhere, eg, that Joe T did something that no-one else knows he did. So it's not enough to show he's a gangster, we need to support each and every claim. Which is a pain, but that's the way it is. Thanks, Ben Aveling 06:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA discussion! I appreciate you contributing your voice to the debate and its outcome. I hope how I wield the mop makes you proud. Thanks!

— Saxifrage

[edit] DRV

Thanks for letting me know about the DRV (I was expecting it to be there one way or another). The AfD close was procedural, so I probably won't participate in the DRV debate. --Coredesat 06:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Todaro Sr.

If Little Joe wants to work on it in his name space, that's fine with me. I would undelete the article space if he wouldn't keep putting back the same claims without sourcing them. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please reconsider Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Third_holiest_site_in_Islam_(expression)

You said rename but there is already an article for that purpose. I have posted a coment on AFD page, please take a look. Thank you. --- ALM 21:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but that will not solve the problem. They will count your vote in keep. The POV filled article will then be kept. Rename is as good as saying keep :( . --- ALM 11:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My arbcom questions

I'm asking questions of candidates I'm thinking of voting for. Some I've made up my mind to vote 'yes', based on experience. (George, Flo). Some I've currently expecting to abstain, sometimes because I don't know them at all, sometimes because I expect a pile-on oppose. And some, I'm thinking about voting for, so I'm asking questions. I've read (confession: skimmed) what's already been asked and answered, so I sometimes adjusted on the fly, but the basic questions were

1. Which of the following roles should arbcom members fulfil: judge, jury, executioner, detective, lawyer, psychoanalyst, teacher, leader, parole board, parole officer, weighing machine, opinion poll, weathervane, policeman, keeper of the vision, guardian of the peace, visionary, psychic, nurse, other?

2. What would wikipedia lose if you were appointed to the ArbCom?

3. An individual question. Sometimes tailored to the candidate, sometimes just a random question.

The answer I would give to the first question are judge, jury and none of the others. And also, now that I think of it, asker of questions. What I want to know, and credit to anyone who visits here before answering, is to what extent they see the role of arbcom as weighing the evidence presented, which is my view, vs the more activist role some people seem to imagine.

The answer to the second question should be 'something significant', and preferably something wikipedia related. If you don't expect joining the arbcom doesn't reduce the time you spend on other aspects of wikipedia, then I want to know why.

I'm happy to discus any of the other questions I've asked. Sometimes I have an answer in mind, sometimes I don't. I just want to see how people respond.

Regards, Ben Aveling 22:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)