User:Avala/Answer

Here I will write about almost completely false accusations by Snowspinner.

I will follow User:Snowspinner/Avala Evidence and try to provide answer to everything written in there.

User:Snowspinner has been very agressive many times. In some arguing with him, I tried to reach compromise but they were rejected by Snowspinner. He was pointing to consensus. His consensus can be found at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Avala where he had votes of the sides that were completely unneutral like User:Romanm and the vote by User:GeneralPatton who calls other users "cunts" but it will be explained later. I also once mentioned Snowspinner in requests for arbitration, and somehow I have felt his angriness since than.

I will put what Snowspinner said in italic and the answer in bold.

One such edit war can be found regarding Template:NAM. When it was suggested that the box was overly large, and it was suggested that NAM might not be a good subject for an ASB, the following posts ensued: [1] [2] [3]. When the box was subsequently listed on VfD, Avala’s responses were of similar tone – the archived VfD discussion can be found at MediaWiki talk:NAM.

I actually don`t see the problem in here, this box passed VfD and I don`t know why is Snowspinner still arguing about it. Consensus he was pointing to many times was actually proven in here. Regarding those links it is mostly discussion and don`t need any comments.

When faced with this criticism of the box, Avala also responded by deleting the comparable NATO box from a bunch of articles and replacing it with a box that simply said the country was a part of NATO. This can be seen at [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] and [9].

I was trying to point that Nam box was not only organization box with many country links. I also changed it to have only NATO emblem and text-Member of Nato, because it was visually much better. I also made Template:NAMm in the same way which was not mentioned by Snowspinner. These links are placed just for no reason because they are showing how I edited those articles-swaped Template:NATO with Template:NATOm. Anyways I think i proved my point because Template:NAM was not deleted

This was followed with a discussion regarding Template:Serbia and Montenegro, the following edits were made: [10] (Note here what might be taken as a personal attack) [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. These edits, made in response to the concern that the box didn’t have enough information to be worth making an ASB about, demonstrate hostility, refusal to negotiate or seek consensus, and general unhelpfulness in favor of being excessively provocative.

Again Snowspinner still seems to be angry that those boxes weren`t deleted. I am very shocked we are still talking about this box, on whuch everyone agreed , box is still here and no need to discuss something like that. This was written by Snowspinner , I guess, just to make those evidence list longer.

He somehow accepted that Template:SFRY should be placed in history articles of these countries not on main article. But still never said he agree but only stopped replying.

Another edit war occured on Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, where Avala sought to remove the honorific "Her Majesty." Avala violated the three revert rule on this article as shown here: [16]. [17], [18], [19], and [20]. In discussing this edit, Avala adopted a hostile and beligerant tone, frequently responding with large amounts of capital letters and exclamation points, giving his posts an exceedingly aggressive tone, and generally refusing to accept widespread opposition as a reason to stop reverting. See [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27].

My point was that we shouldn`t include Her Majesty in the article because Britannica, Encarta and any tiehr encyclopedia does not. I have some links at User:Avala/EII. Anyways I was called an "idiot" together with Hemanshu for deleting HM from first sentence. I agreed to use HM elswhere in the article but once again my compromise proposal was rejected. Only thing I was trying to gain is NPOV but it is hard to get with many stuborn users who like to press revert. I was also accused of using sockpuppets in that article, even though I never did something like that. All these links are more like they were placed by Snowspinner in my deffence that as an "evidence": [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34].

Many times I said I PROPOSE A PEACEFUL SOLUTION in the article and on IRC but I guess it was wrong because Snowspinner is using it against me. His idea is I guess to propose hostile solutions. I am really confused why did he post it in here. Also anytime I tried to write anything that was not OK by Snowspinners POV I got problems, and was threatend to get banned

Avala’s most problematic conduct in an edit war, however, comes from Milan Kucan and Janez Drnovsek. (Note that this matter was previously turned down for arbitration). Avala sought to add a note that both Kucan and Drnovsek were being accused of war crimes. More or less everyone who was not Avala objected to this on the grounds that it did not appear to be a serious charge, mentioned only marginally in one paper. I will not list every reversion and edit made to these articles – only those with relatively abusive edit summaries. For Drnovsek: [35] [36] [37] [38] and [39]. For Kucan: [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45]. In discussing these reversions, the following posts were made: [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52]. Note later that he listed several of those who were opposing him in this on Vandalism in Progress. Note also the violation of the three revert rule at [53], [54], [55], and [56].

I provided evidence, many evidence which you rejected in worst style. No compromise again. Finally I decided not to write anything in those articles anymore becuase there is no point , ver loud Slovenian users were against my edits and I decided to leave even though article is not complete.

Some of this tendency towards edit warring may be explained by the attitude expressed at [57], in which Avala suggests that an edit war can be justified if the user “knew much more than other users” – an attitude which goes against the Wikipedian drive towards consensus.

Well, I think everyone will agree with me that two users can't fight about for an example Heart where one user is cardiologist and the other one is pool cleaner.

Avala also regularly demonstrates a lack of understanding of Wikipedia conventions, policy, making spurious listings or votes on ViP, RFA, and FAC. When called on these listings, he responds with the hostility described above.Examples of this include his opposition to User:Snowspinner’s nomination on RFA, which was on the grounds that User:GeneralPatton had supported the nomination. This can be found at [58] with further explanation and comments at [59] and [60]. Obviously, the vote itself is not actionable - one can vote however they want. My concern is the larger issue of not seeming to work within the context of Wikipedia conventions and engaging with the community - particularly when combined with his nomination of User:Nikola Smolenski, which demonstrated a lack of understanding of what people look for in an administrator. When users pointed to edit wars Nikola had engaged in, he maintained that this should be ignored in the face of Nikola’s edits and promotion of Wikipedia. Although, certainly, these things should be weighed, the seeming disregard for concerns as towards Nikola’s judgment seems further symptomatic the described lack of awareness of normal Wikipedia conventions and procedures. Evidence of this can be found at [61], as well as [62] (Which was linked to above). Again, nominating a user and supporting him is not itself actionable - what concerns me is that not wanting to be on the same list as another user is considered a good reason to oppose a user, but concern about edit wars and misconduct are not. And, more broadly, what conerns me is that these things, combined, seem to indicate willful disengagement with Wikipedia as a community, and to constitute deliberate provocativeness so as to disrupt Wikipedia's function.

I think is is my right to nominate whoever I want. Plus I see that you are very angry because of my vote even though you say you are not. Your tone sounds like you are very angry, and I think that you should just take a rest. Mentioning evidence in style like this is some detective work on spying the country makes you look funny, and I am not personal attacking you. I am just saying it with best intention

Later in this text I will copy/paste some parts of Snowspinner's nomination to show how this evidence list made some people vote against him

On FAC, he has made a number of unsuitable nominations, and been obstinate about objections. Furthermore, he has shown a disregard for the request that each nominator only submit one article. Some of his many nominations can be found at [63], [64], [65], and [66].

The latter two are particularly telling. Russian humor at the time of its nomination was little more than a list of Russian jokes, as you can see (It hasn’t changed), and Parliament of Serbia and Montenegro was a mess – poor grammar and formatting, and over half the article consisted of source text. Its original form can be found at [67].

When people raised the natural objections, a typical flurry of snippisness and refusal to change anything ensued. Note particularly the refusal to summarize source text. [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] and [76]. The last is particularly noteworthy, with its insinuation and near-personal attack of Snowspinner, saying “We all know why you are doing this, Snowsppiner [sic]. It is sad but I shall not comment it in here.”

Another display of unhelpfulness on FAC can be found when someone objected to the placement of an ASB on Nikola Tesla and complained that the see also section was gratuitously long, his response was [77], indicating an unwillingness too His activities at FAC extends into Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates, where he listed L. Paul Bremer saying that it was a “stub” at [78]. Later, he denied calling the article a stub, as shown at [79]. The article, of course, was not a stub – here is how it stood when Avala listed it – [80].

I just don`t get your point in here. First link you provided after saying :"he has made a number of unsuitable nominations" I see the nomination of the article that became Featured? Do you check or just post these links? Still I have a right to nominate an article I think deserves to be nominated. Sometimes I made mistakes, I agree. When you said these are some of mmy many nominations you were wrong because I can`t think of any other nomination I made. Then you say "when someone objected to the placement of an ASB". I thought it was you? Anyways many many people agreeed that Nikola Tesla article should become featured but you dissagreed about the box, and links. I hoped that you will help in making it better, but instead you raised your nose because on IRC noone agreed with you. Like I said million times I never called L. Paul Bremer article a stub. I said it is more a stub then featured. You probably didn`t undersand me well but what I meant to say is that this article is longer than a stub but certainly not of featured quality. You even posted links in here which prove everything what I said. I guess your play is that people will get bored after 70 links, and that they will beleive you. I just hope that such a thing will not happen.

On VIP, Avala listed User:Romanm and User:GeneralPatton who were clearly not committing vandalism, but who were merely disagreeing with him on the matters of Milan Kucan and Janez Drnovsek (Note that the exchange between GeneralPatton and Avala that resulted in the personal attacks happened after this point). I’m still working on finding the actual edits – it appears that ViP was affected by Wik’s vandalbot attacks, and that the edit history is lost somewhere. I’m not entirely certain where. As soon as I find those, I’ll post them.

I am waiting for you to post them. To help you he called me cunt-pickice and i will shit on your kings picture-serem ti na sliku kralja

Smaller instances include the questionable practice of voting for one’s self on RFA, as shown at [81]. Although its unclear whether this is an actual violation of the rules, it is, again, certainly a disregard for convention. There is also the voting in a long-ended poll at [82].

Actually you couldn`t find anything so you pointed to "There is also the voting in a long-ended poll". You should know that I settled this up with Raul on IRC because you were there. He said that some admin unprotected the poll and that he will do it again. And the reason I voted was that this poll was mentioned as alive on IRC so that is why I voted. I just placed a vote not checking the note at top of the page. Are you the only one who sees the problem in here?

Avala also engages in personal attacks with some frequency. When called on these personal attacks, whether in IRC or Wikipedia, he frequently refers to an incident in which User:GeneralPatton called him a ‘cunt” in a foreign language, seeming to believe that because he was a victim of a personal attack at one point, he somehow has eternal amnesty from the personal attacks policy. One instance of this fixation on this instance can be found at [83], which is arguably a personal attack as well.

(note: I've never told him he's a "cunt". He's making that up. -- GeneralPatton 01:40, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC))

Other examples of personal attacks can be found at [84] (The term roughly translates to “petty lawyer” as far as my skill with a Croatian dictionary goes). [85], [86] contain abusive edit summaries.

Also possibly of interest is [87], in which he responds to GeneralPatton, who, as noted previously, he has a bad history with, clearly yelling, though it is not clear what he is saying, since he’s responding in Croatian.

I think that we have some double standards in here. When Adam Carr called us all idiots, you did not react, when I was pointing to GP swearing you did not react. Now you pint to GP saying "I've never told him he's a "cunt". He's making that up" but not to when he admitted it saying something like-"I just said he was editing in the most cuntish way" even though "pickica" is noun.

It would be really helpful if you could point where did he say that. Nikola 23:10, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think it was at Vandalism in progress. [[User:Avala|Avala|★]] 14:04, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I saw many other users saying something like:yawn reverting rubbish. I don`t see why am I the only one you point your finger to? Anyways I regret for saying that.[88]?

In [89] I was very angry of some POV edits, while at the same day in Serbia volonteers of SRS were shooting at people who think differently. I was shocked to see such thing on Wikipedia and had to point to other users what kind of peace party SRS actually is

At [90] I will translate it all.GeneralPatton saying:look,look that Serbian takes care of litlle Ivica, now we can see who is he(pointing that I like Ivica Racan). What I said is:YES, YES I AM RACAN'S. HOW DID YOU GUESS?. I don`t know why did I keep my capslock on but I was certainly not yelling.

Here I will post opposals of Snowspinners nomination most probably because of his way dealing with me. Also on IRC many users were questioning why is he behaving so badly to me.

Oppose

1. [[User:Avala|Avala|★]] 10:01, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC) - You have support of the GP, who calls other users "cunts", and uses fascist abbrevations. It is outrageous and I can`t get over it. My vote can still turn to yes but not under any condition, I am very sad to vote no because of third party, but I am affraid that users like GP will be able to continue with such behavior. [[User:Avala|Avala|★]] 10:01, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
   • This very well may be the dumbest, dumbest, dumbest vote I've ever seen on RfA. Vote on the candidate's merit, not that of the people supporting him... blankfaze | (беседа!) 11:51, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
     • I don`t want to be in the same group with such people as GP. And please don`t call my votes - dumb. We have no personal attacks policy in here.Avala 12:14, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
       • Sorry, but that vote is dumb. If you don't want to be in the same group, then just don't vote at all! Voting against someone on account of something they have absolutely no control over and that relates in no way to their potential to be a good admin... makes you look like an 8-year-old. blankfaze | (беседа!) 12:52, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
         • Just utterly baffled here. a) Who is GP? b) What actions, exactly, would you have wished and expected Snowspinner to take? Not taking sides, just puzzled. Dpbsmith 13:07, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
           • To answer your first question, Dpbsmith, I think "GP" means GeneralPatton. --Merovingian✍Talk 13:19, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
           • On b) It looks like you are asking the question to blankfaze but presumably you mean avala. Pcb21| Pete 10:33, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
             • This thing with Avala has been going on for a while, for more see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Avala. -- GeneralPatton 02:46, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
   • I'll second the opinion that your vote is dumb. (A personal attack would be calling you dumb.) It's unfortunate you can't muster the maturity to separate one user's behavior from another's reputation -- but it's not surprising, reviewing your history. Glass houses, pal. Cribcage 18:07, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
   • Well, I, for one, am glad. I think George Washington should be the only American to have the honor of being elected unanimously. Waitamminit, is Snowspinner even American at all? Rats, I should have asked him that before I voted! - Nat Krause 10:24, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

   Are you kidding? Oh, yeah, you are. The not funny thing kinda got to me for a minute, there. Mike H 15:16, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

   • I have decided to vote to support the nomination solely because God has not voted in opposition. - Tεxτurε 17:43, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
2. I oppose solely because people are jumping on Avala for opposing. Who cares? If he feels like opposing, then allow him that privilege. Frankly, I don't care what his reasons are. And anyway, Snowspinner has 40 votes in favor... I do expect people to jump on me for this one as well. And Cribcage -- have you even read the personal attack page? If I were to say, "articles written by Cribcage are dumb", that's obviously a personal attack... or, "every article written by ugen64 is racist"... ugen64 21:40, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
   • If it makes you feel better, I think your vote is just as dumb. Cribcage 02:38, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
     • No, dumber. At least Avala's was (peripherally) related to the current nomination. My discretion as a beaurocrat is to totally ignore both Avala's and this objection, and I recommend any other beaurocrat do the same. If this weren't such a landslide in Snowspinner's favor, I would make frivilous objections like this a serious policy matter. →Raul654 18:47, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
3. Oppose. [personal attack removed by Ambivalenthysteria]. Lirath Q. Pynnor

   (Personal attack was "Snowspinner is a jerk." I feel that especially on voting records like this, confidence in the system requires transparency, and transparency requires not altering someone else's words. I also note that Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks was never passed, and so is not policy. -- orthogonal 23:51, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC))

   • I think Lir should have been banned a long, long time ago -- but for the record, I don't like the idea of censoring others' comments, particularly on a ballot. Cribcage 02:43, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
     • I don't think Ambi was out of line. It was an unsubtle and unequivocal personal attack, and was well justified under Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks. I'd have done it if it were any RFA other than my own. Snowspinner 13:50, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

       But Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks was never passed; it's partly Snowspinner's reliance on non-policy policy that led to my vote. -- orthogonal 23:51, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

       • I prefer to leave a link to the diff showing personal attack removal. But that's me. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 17:05, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
         • Here is the link: [91]. I looked at it and thought "is that all?" but it is a direct personal attack and the removal is appropriate. - Tεxτurε 18:11, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

   I think that Ambivalenthysteria should remove, or all personal attacks or none. [[User:Avala|Avala|★]] 09:40, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

4. Oppose. sorry snowy maybe next time!--Plato 22:00, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
5. Reluctantly oppose. After reading User:Snowspinner/Avala Evidence, in which Snowspinner includes as "evidence" against Avala that Avala opposed Snowspinner's previous nomination here, and that Avala nominated a candidate Snowspinner finds unworthy, I'm worried that Snowspinner doesn't clearly enough distinguish between his personal opinions and Wikipedia policy, and is too likely to see mere differences of opinion as actionable "rule breaking". I say this as someone who also finds Avala difficult, and as someone who had planned to vote for Snowspinner both here and for ArbCom. -- orthogonal 22:54, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

   My objection was not that Avala nominated a candidate that I find unworthy - it's that he does not seem to consider "engages in edit wars and deletes other people's polls" to be a reasonable grounds for opposition, while finding "I don't want to be on the same list as person X" to be reasonable, which is part of the larger problem of not respecting or engaging with the community of Wikipedia and its consensus and conventions. Since that's unclear, I'll edit the evidence page to make that clearer. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Snowspinner 23:07, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

6. Oppose, based on the tendency for confrontation and rash judgement evident on his edits to this page. Zocky 23:14, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

   In the name of openess, I think, though I'm not sure, that what zocky is objecting to is that I removed a pair of nominations under the policy that obviously unsupported nominations may be removed. I did so because they were becoming exceedingly vicious and hateful, and, in the case of one of them, because it appeared to be posted by a sockpuppet and seemed designed to foster exactly the kind of flame war that it did foster. Were I an administrator, I would have done exactly this, and probably warned some people for personal attacks as well. I say this by way of saying that, yes, I am willing to be decisive in my actions. If something is causing a problem, I will attempt to fix it. I will note in my defense, however, that I did not remove the nominations once they were reinstated. I will be decisive - I will not be stubborn and insistent. Unless there's something else entirely that you're referring to here, in which case I confess curiosity as to what it is. Snowspinner 23:24, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

   That is a part of it. Removing a nomination in less than 24 hours on an international website means that people from some parts of the world don't even get to see it. I call that rash judgement, yes. The other is including "Avala's limited fluency in English" as a reason to oppose his RFA. That's either a serious misunderstanding of Wikipedia (which I choose to believe) or a sneaky perpetuation of personal antipathy. I found both very undesirable in someone who is trusted with the Delete button.Zocky 23:44, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

   Limited fluency in English is a perfectly valid reason to oppose. This is the English Wikipedia. Admins especially should be fluent in the language as they must communicate frequently with other users. blankfaze | (беседа!) 23:48, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

   Honestly, I don't think the amount of time matters as much as you do... there's just no way that Avala's nomination is going to pass, and I think that was clear when I removed it. A nomination with 12 votes in opposition, which was what I think it had at the time, needs 40 supporters to pass. Only one RfA has ever passed 39 votes. It was not concievable that it was going to pass, no matter how many people had time to vote on it. Clearly there was disagreement with this. I stand by my decision, but I'm not rushing to take it down again, as I said. As for the other... I personally attribute a lot of Avala's seeming hostility to difficulty expressing himself in English. I find that a more sympathetic opinion than that he's a hothead. I think we're reacting to the same set of behaviors here, at least, though attributing different causes to it. Looking at my wording, though, i can see how it could be misinterpreted - I'll clarify. But both of those are neither here nor there, and I don't want this to turn into a lengthy debate on the matter. Feel free to bring it up with me on my talk page or on IRC if you want (And please do - I'm happy to explain myself). I just wanted to note that my approach towards this page regarding Avala's nomination and its removal would in fact be consistent with my approach towards conflict as an administrator, so that, should anyone else find it extremely objectionable, they would be aware and would vote accordingly. :) Snowspinner 23:54, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

   OK, I think I'm entitled to the last word on my vote. Removing anything of consequence in less than 24 hours keeps even regular editors, who take time to follow the running of Wikipedia, out of the loop and denies the user's right to reply to objections.

   The other thing is, Avala's English is nowhere neer as bad as you claim. I read all his comments on this page carefully. He has problems with articles and tenses, but so do most Slavic speakers. All his text is in fact perfectly understandable, if one reads it carefully. Zocky 01:08, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Well, after some consideration, I am compelled to oppose here. I do not often vote in such things, but I am not at all certain I agree with many of this user's views on WP administration, particularly regarding resolution of disputes without recourse to enforced procedure and regulations. Specific examples include Avala's RfAr evidence (which, while not containing any specific objections which would on their own disqualify a user from adminship, exemplifies my general feelings), and an opinion that mediation is not helpful; however, I also have a broad non-specific objection to hir general attitude and opinions in such matters. While adminship should be something bestowed upon anyone willing to enforce the community's decisions, rather than an ability to enforce one's own views, there is at present a certain status associated with adminship and it does result in one's own opinions, however inadvertantly, carrying more weight than a normal user's. I therefore cannot personally support adminship for those whose desired procedures differ so much from my own. —Lady Lysiŋe Ikiŋsile | Talk 00:27, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC) Having considered this further, I am changing my vote to neutral; not because my opinion has changed, but because I do not feel comfortable opposing a nomination on the grounds that I personally disagree with the direction the community is taking. The solution to the exhalted admin status seems to be in having more admins, not less. —Lady Lysiŋe Ikiŋsile | Talk 06:41, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)

Snowspinner sees to jump at everyone voting against him by making me look bad.

At the end I would like to say that I admit making mistakes, but many of them were made while I was young editor in here. Still Snowspinner IMO was never able to solve problems, had to appologise to some users before becuase of personal attacks. I am really sorry that someone is obsessed with me but he also gets hard time finding anything against me. Still Snowspinner was saying bad things about me on IRC and sometimes unaware of my presence. Once he said "I love to poke Avala".

I hope that Snowspinner will realise his mistakes and withdraw this request as soon as possible.

Yours sincerily --[[User:Avala|Avala|★]] 13:20, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)