text:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Avala/Proposed decision

all proposed

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or vote to abstain.
 * Only items that receive a majority yea vote will be enacted.
 * Items that receive a majority nay vote will be formally rejected.
 * Items that do not receive a majority yea or nay vote will be open to possible amendment by any arbitrator if he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.
 * Items that receive a majority abstentions will need to go through an amendment process and be re-voted on once.

Conditional votes for, against, or to abstain should be explained by the arbitrator in parenthesis after his time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were enacted.

Proposed temporary orders
1) {text of proposed orders}

 * Yea:

 * Nay:

 * Abstain:

Proposed principles
1) Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. See Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

 * Yea:
 * Fred Bauder 12:37, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 16:51, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 09:14, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * mav 05:16, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Martin 15:34, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC) Based on Talk, it appears that many of the objections raised by Nohat and others have been (at least partially) resolved by edits to the policy page. Indeed, the phrase "Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point" is nohat's, who "voted" against. Martin 15:34, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Jwrosenzweig 20:02, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC) (I personally approve of this principle, but I would say, based on Wikipedia talk:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, that the community has not yet affirmed this as policy, and therefore I am hesitant to make it a principle here. Are we allowed to establish as a principle a proposed policy?  I was an early and ardent supporter of the policy, and remain one, but I don't know if we can treat it as established.) Given Martin's reasoning, I feel safe in accepting. Jwrosenzweig 21:33, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * the Epopt 06:32, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * No:

 * Abstain:

2) The English language Wikipedia site is an international site which welcomes and expects participation by editors from all countries.

 * Yea:
 * Fred Bauder 12:37, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 16:51, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 09:14, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * mav 05:16, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Jwrosenzweig 20:02, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Martin 15:36, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * the Epopt 06:32, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Nay:

 * Abstain:

3) Editors with a national background, in this case, Serbian, are encouraged to edit from a Neutral Point of View, presenting the point of view they have knowledge of through their experience and culture without aggressively pushing their particular nationalist point of view by emphasizing it or minimizing or excluding other points of view.

 * Yea:
 * Fred Bauder 12:37, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 16:51, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 09:14, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * mav 05:16, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Jwrosenzweig 20:02, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Martin 15:36, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * the Epopt 06:32, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Nay:

 * Abstain:

4) Neutral point of view as defined on Wikipedia contemplates inclusion of all significant perspectives regarding a subject. While majority perspectives may be favored by more detailed coverage, minority perspectives should also receive sufficient coverage. No perspective is to be presented as the "truth"; all perpectives are to be attributed to their advocates. See Neutral point of view

 * Yea:
 * Fred Bauder 12:06, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 16:51, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Jwrosenzweig 20:02, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC) (Mav has a point, but I believe the word "significant" accomplishes the purpose. Granted, we're not defining it well, but these things are hard to define...I think the guiding principle, though, is that obviously we include a number of minority perspectives in contentious articles, and this is good, but not all perspectives are deserving of encyclopedic treatment.)
 * Martin 15:36, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC) (noting "significant" and "sufficient")
 * I agree with both Mav and James - significant minority viewpoints should be included; this (by definition) excludes extremist ones. →Raul654 19:30, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * the Epopt 06:32, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Nay:
 * mav 05:16, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) Too broad. There are extreme minority views (most often the idiosyncratic views of the editor) which should not be included.

 * Abstain:

5: Although negotiation is not explicitly mentioned in dispute resolution it is contemplated under the initial steps of Wikipedia's dispute resolution policies under language which suggests users who are in conflict talk to one another on their respective talk pages and on the talk page of any article in dispute. Effective negotiation often requires courtesy and respect for the other party and their point of view, see Wikiquette.

 * Yea:
 * Fred Bauder 12:06, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 16:51, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 09:14, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * mav 05:16, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Jwrosenzweig 20:02, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Martin 15:36, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * the Epopt 06:32, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Nay:

 * Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact
1) User Avala created a template, Template:NAM, which because of the large number of countries involves was quite large and would reasonably, if accepted by the Wikipedia community, be added to about 100 articles. Avala's initiative was contested by User Snowspinner who first blanked the template and then listed it as a candidate for deletion . See  where although the page was severely criticized there was failure to achieve a consensus to delete the page.

 * Yea:
 * Fred Bauder 12:54, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 16:54, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 09:14, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * mav 05:16, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Jwrosenzweig 20:05, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Martin 20:14, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * the Epopt 06:32, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Nay:

 * Abstain:

2) It is probable that to User Avala, who has a Serbian background, the Non-Aligned Movement which was founded by Tito has more significance than is usually accorded it by Wikipedia editors.

 * Yea:
 * Fred Bauder 13:09, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 16:54, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 09:14, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * mav 05:16, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Martin 20:15, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC) ("finding of probable fact? :)")
 * the Epopt 06:32, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Nay:

 * Abstain:
 * Jwrosenzweig 20:05, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC) (How is this a finding of fact? And why is it important?  I'm confused.)

3) User Avala, in his attempts to find a solution to this problem created the templates, Template:NAMm and Template:NATOm.

 * Yea:
 * Fred Bauder 13:44, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 16:54, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 09:14, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * mav 05:16, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Jwrosenzweig 20:05, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Martin 20:19, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * the Epopt 06:32, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Nay:

 * Abstain:

4) The templates, Template:NAMm and Template:NATOm were not considered an acceptable solution to the "large template problem" and were deleted. User Avala tried out Template:NATOm in a few articles, see     and . These were promptly deleted and Avala did not pursue the matter.

 * Yea:
 * Fred Bauder 13:44, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 16:54, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 09:14, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * mav 05:16, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Jwrosenzweig 20:05, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Martin 20:19, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * the Epopt 06:32, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Nay:

 * Abstain:

5) Considering the matter of User Avala's actions concerning Template:NAM raised by User Snowspinner as a whole: Avala proposed an initiative which he attempted to defend when it was challenged but did not engage in behavior which violated Wikipedia policy, See Be bold in updating pages

 * Yea:
 * Fred Bauder 13:44, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 16:54, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 09:14, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * mav 05:16, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Jwrosenzweig 20:05, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Martin 20:19, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC) (some bits were borderline disruptive, but I think Avala didn't cross the line on this one).
 * the Epopt 06:32, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Nay:

 * Abstain:

6) User Avala created Template:Serbia and Montenegro, which is now Template:Serbia and Montenegro. This was criticized by Snowspinner and others as being "too small", see MediaWiki talk:Serbia and Montenegro and its page history. Avala's response to this criticism can fairly be criticized as defensive and insistent. The template remains in use, see Serbia and Montenegro.

 * Yea:
 * Fred Bauder 14:09, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 16:54, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 09:14, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * mav 05:16, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Jwrosenzweig 20:05, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * the Epopt 06:32, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Nay:
 * Martin 21:39, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC) I didn't think Avala was particularly at fault, given his trouble with the language, and that he'd just had a prior dispute with Snowspinner on a related matter. A bit of minor irritation, no harm done. It was defensive and insistent, but can't really be criticised on that basis.

 * Abstain:

7) User Avala engaged in a dispute regarding the use of the honorific "your majesty" in the article, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom removing that language from the article 4 times in an 8 hour period. Again in the face of general opposition Avala's response was to be argumentative and insistant, see Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom.

 * Yea:
 * Fred Bauder 14:09, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 16:54, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 09:14, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * mav 05:16, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Nay:
 * Yea. Jwrosenzweig 20:05, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC) Switching from yea -- upon reflection, I think we unfairly single out Avala's behavior. While he was the worst of offenders, I think, he was dealt with very harshly -- I think a lot more could have been done to assume good faith and generally act with pleasantness on the many who opposed him there.  I would support a version of this finding that noted that there was an atmosphere of hostility -- Avala may have been the worst, but he was goaded into some of it, I think.
 * Martin 22:53, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC) There's the lack of nuance that one might expect (and be frustrated by) in a non-native English speaker. To criticise either side at this level would be micromanagement.
 * the Epopt 06:32, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Abstain:

8) In the face of general opposition from other editors, who felt that evidence of the charges was not sufficient, User Avala inserted into Milan Kucan and Janez Drnovsek notes that both men were being accused of war crimes. In pursuit of this objective Avala engaged in an edit war, see, For Drnovsek:    and . For Kucan:. In discussing these reversions, the following posts were made:. including these 4 insertions which occured in a period of 4 hours:, , , and. Again Avala was defensive, insistant and abusive.

 * Yea:
 * Fred Bauder 14:09, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 16:54, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * mav 05:16, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Martin 14:19, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * the Epopt 06:32, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Nay:

 * Abstain:
 * Here again, I'm moving from yea to abstain -- less certain than in 7, since here I think Avala is more clearly instigating rude behavior, but again, I think he's being given some help. I know from painful personal experience how hard it is to behave civilly when someone is being rude to you.  I also know how vital it is, and I'm not seeing that editors who deal with Avala are making enough of an effort.  I'll have to think about this one. Jwrosenzweig 21:56, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

9) Both User Avala and User Snowspinner and the others who have opposed Avala's edits and initiatives have poorly developed negotiating skills and display failures in mutual courtesy. While Avala often reacted too strongly, Snowspinner and his colleagues were dismissive of Avala and guilty of stonewalling, claiming that matters under dispute were "settled", that Avala was opposing "consensus", etc. rather than seeking solutions which would have accommodated his initiatives and the Serbian and other points of point of view Avala had put forward.

 * Yea:
 * Fred Bauder 13:02, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 16:54, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Martin 14:19, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) yes, but it should be "Snowspinner and some of his colleagues".
 * the Epopt 06:32, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Nay:
 * In the case of HRM, I saw lengthy attempts to discuss the issue, all of whom opposed Avala's changes. More to the point, I do not endorse negotiation in all circumstances, particularly when one person is opposing a large number of others. To do otherwise would be an invitation for crackpots and POV pushers. →Raul654 09:14, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree with Raul. mav 05:16, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree with Raul's ultimate conclusion, although I have to add that I think we characterize some of the discussion of HRM too generously if we call it discussion -- I grant that there was consensus, but there was also rudeness, and not only from Avala. Jwrosenzweig 20:05, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Abstain:

Proposed remedies
proposed wording to be modified by arbitrators and then voted on

1) The above findings of fact show that Avala has often worked against consensus and majority opinion. We therefore rule that Avala must follow the majority opinion of the users involved concerning any controversial edits that Avala makes. One specific consequence is that violations of the three revert rule are not permitted. This probation period will last for one month.

 * Aye:
 * →Raul654 02:42, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * mav 02:45, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delirium 03:04, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * the Epopt 03:44, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 19:04, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Nay:
 * I find no evidence of the problems in the findings of fact in recent edits, most of which are noncontroversial edits in the Serbian area. I guess the question remains unanswered of what his behavior would be should he jump back into a controversial topic and a dispute arise. In any event he appears to be avoiding conflict at this time. I don't see the problems as one of conforming to majority rule, but of ensuring that should Avala add information from a minority viewpoint that it be supported by substantial authority rather the flimsy basis he relied on previously. In any event should a conflict arise he should not try to settle it by endless repetitions of his position and reverting. Fred Bauder 04:36, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Martin 15:31, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) (per Fred)

 * Abstain:
 * Jwrosenzweig 22:19, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) (I don't know that the findings of fact demonstrate this, but I am satisfied with it as a consequence.)

2) For a period of 3 months, should a serious dispute arise between Avala and other users with respect to editing of an article Avala is required to cite substantial authority supporting the position he is taking and either enter the dispute resolution process regarding the matter or drop the matter. A serious dispute is defined as one in which any party to the dispute has reverted the other 3 times or more. After Avala makes his third revert he shall cease editing the article with respect to the disputed matter until completion of the dispute resolution process. Resolution of the dispute in his favor shall require verification that the authority cited adequately supports the information he advocates including in the article. With respect to matters of taste such as size of templates he is required to defer to majority opinion.

 * Aye:
 * Fred Bauder 04:36, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * --mav 08:50, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 19:04, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Martin 15:31, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 04:56, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

 * Nay:
 * Jwrosenzweig 22:19, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) (I don't understand -- it looks to me as though every content dispute will be submitted to dispute resolution....and dispute resolution isn't supposed to legislate content. Perhaps I misunderstand.)

 * Abstain:

3) Given the fact that Avala is now editing at a low rate, we reserve the right to revisit the conduct issue of this user once/if Avala starts to edit at an increased rate again and other users complain about Avala's conduct. This probation would last one year.

 * Aye:
 * --mav 08:50, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 16:25, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 19:04, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Martin 15:31, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Jwrosenzweig 22:19, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 04:56, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

 * Nay:

 * Abstain:

Enforcement
proposed wording to be modified by arbitrators and then voted on

1) Violation of the three revert rule will enable admins to ban Avala for 24 hours.

 * Yea:
 * →Raul654 02:43, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * mav 02:46, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * the Epopt 03:44, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 04:37, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 19:06, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Martin 15:34, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) (replace with "nay", should the proposed 3RR change take place)
 * Jwrosenzweig 22:19, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Nay:

 * Abstain:

Discussion by arbitrators
I think we need to do much more policy work on negotiation as a step in dispute resolution including extensive presentation of effective techniques. Certainly in this case all participants have failed abysmally in negotiation. It is not sufficient to simply state your non-negotiable position on a talk page. Fred Bauder 13:10, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

Avala's misuse of vandalism in progress is worthy of note. The featured article candidates looks worthy of dismissal, at first blush. Martin 22:58, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I would propose consequences, but as I'm obviously not in step with the majority of arbitrators on this, I think it would be fruitless. Based on my votes above, I have a hard time seeing what, beyond a moderate censure, perhaps a restriction from a few pages (?), would be appropriate, but I know I have seen Avala's actions as far less serious than the rest of the AC has.  Is someone intending to bring this to a close?  If nothing is proposed soon, I suppose I'll have to offer something, but as I note above, I think my proposals would not be the "will of the council".  Hoping for closure, Jwrosenzweig 20:40, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * It's been nearly two months since this case came up. Is applying sanctions this belatedly really going to help anything?  If Avala has been a non-problematic user in the meantime, then it seems the problem has already solved itself.  --Delirium 03:04, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

 * If Avala is not currently causing trouble, then nothing will happen to that user under the proposed remedy. --mav 03:19, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Motion to close

 * 1) the Epopt 14:58, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC) Withdrawn. the Epopt 03:44, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Opposed to closure:
 * 1) We have no remedies or enforcement above.  Unless the above votes to close proceedings are implicit acceptance that no censure or consequence of any kind is necessary, I urge my colleagues not to close this case. Jwrosenzweig 19:04, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Whoops! Sorry I missed that. I'll see if I can cook up some proposed remedies soon. --mav 19:14, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Disagree as currently stands. James F. (talk) 21:25, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Motion to close 2

 * 1) Since all rememdies now have enough votes to be enacted, I move to close. →Raul654 05:00, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Agreed. Jwrosenzweig 15:12, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Close. --the Epopt 15:50, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Yep. mav 20:34, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


text:
User:Gregchapman

Thanks to Wikipedia I can now google myself and come up on the first page. Granted I have to google my username, but I don't mind that.

I've also done some work on evowiki, which people should check out; it could use some help.

Other than that what do people want to know? (a/s/l?) 24/m/CA(USA)

And the real question, is anyone actually reading this? Doesn't matter. I was just happy not to have to dig through a bunch of pages of not-me on google before I actually found myself and I wanted to share that with the world.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:Gregchapman


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Avala/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please choose an appropriate header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Please do this under a seperate header, to seperate your response from the original evidence.

Be aware that the arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent.

Snowspinner's
See User:Snowspinner/Avala Evidence
 * Nikola answered in here why did I call Snowspinner a "drveniadvokat". Because she was answering my question to another user. Nikola also found where GP is insulting me. I think Nikola had a hard time to find this so I would like to thank him alot. Anyways all this can be found inside of Snowspinners evidence. [[User:Avala|Avala| ★ ]] 19:53, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

User:GeneralPatton has inserted a heap of lies at Snowspinner's evidence page directed at Avala and me. I will call several users who know the language in question but are fairly neutral to the issue to give an answer to this once and for all:

 * Does "choban" means "shepherd" and is it derogatory
 * Does "pickica" means "little cunt", "little bird" or "little one"
 * Does "serem ti sliku kralja petra" really means "I shit on picture of King Peter" or "oh, I’m so scared your highness"
 * Does "drveni advokat" means "wooden lawyer" or "dickhead" and how derogatory it is

Nikola 19:40, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Since I've been called to translate, here I my answers:
 * Yes, and in usual contexts yes, AFAIK.
 * The first one.
 * The first.
 * Verbatim it's the first, but since I'm not a native Serbian speaker I don't know how derogatory that would be.
 * (Disclaimer: this translation does in no way prejudice my opinion about the Avala case which I am about to express when I find some time. It is merely that - a translation.) --romanm (talk) 20:20, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Notice that Romann is a native Slovenian language speaker, not a native Croatian or Serbian speaker, so it’s understandable he’s confused with the various slang. Romann have you ever taken a course on any of these languages? GeneralPatton 20:23, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I've also been asked to translate. "čoban", "pičkica", "serem ti sliku kralja Petra" -- those are all profanities, plain and clear insults. I saw GeneralPatton say several of those and I noted already on tangentially related pages that this is plain rude and that I don't have any particular desire to be associated with it.
 * The phrase "drveni advokat" means "wooden lawyer", but I don't really know what this idiom means (it sounds like a Serbian idiom, and I don't know many of those) though it does sound like something that would be used in a derogatory manner.
 * Overall I don't know much of the issues at stake here... this petty-insult-related quabble doesn't sound like something too interesting. If Avala's guilty of anything, I'd say it's those reversions he used to do, that were against wikiquette. Being insulted by GP doesn't seem relevant. --Joy [shallot]   21:05, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * On the insultiveness of this phrase, I supply this Google search which shows how people use it in reference to themselves. I think that this makes it clear that the phrase is not particulary insultive.

 * Translations:

 * "... But if I have to be wooden lawyer of DOS, then I have to say..."

 * "...now I shouldn't be wooden lawyer, but our sportsmen should present..."

 * "...Actually, here I'm like some sort of wooden lawyer to them..."

 * "Sorry, you were talking to Srki, it wasn't my intention to be wooden lawyer :)"

 * Nikola 08:29, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Please reffer to my awnsers at User:Snowspinner/Avala Evidence and User:Orthogonal/Avala_evidence. GeneralPatton 21:35, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

GP has not edited Snowspinner's subpage since I have asked for these translations and on Orthogonal's subpage he replies to a completely unrelated matter, again in an attempt to denigrate me. Nikola 22:17, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Nikola, I think i've awnserd this on those pages. I really don’t understand why you are getting all emotional over this, I really do not mean to as you say “denigrate “ you. I think your unsuccessful RfA nomination by Avala and the numerous comments by other users speak for themselves. It’s funny how in more than 3000 edits of mine the only controversial thing seem to be about a dozen of thease edits and exchanges of mine with Avala and yourself. At the same time you’re the one that’s just constantly engaged in revert wars and POV wars with numerous users. Not to mention that Avala also seems to get himself into trouble a lot, but at least he’s not an intentional POV warrior, he just seems to have some problems in communicating with some other users. I really wish you weren’t so openly hostile to and distrustful of most Croat and Bosniak editors, especially User:Asim_Led who’s made that wonderful page about Sarajevo almost all by himself. I wish you could be more open-minded to people of other nationalities and faiths, since you really can be a good editor when you don’t let yourself get too emotional about issues. GeneralPatton 23:04, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is all a bunch of lies, from the beginning to the end. Nikola 23:18, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Nikola, saying something is a lie is a harsh accusation, so where is your evidence, where is your rebuttal? Point out what you think are lies and set the record straight. I’d really appreciate to see something more substantial than just harsh words, one sentance accusations devoid of any real substance.GeneralPatton 23:44, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't feed the trolls. If someone is interested in detailed rebutall of these lies, ask me here or on my talk page and I'd be glad to answer. Nikola 23:54, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Nikola, I have over 3000 edits on a wide variety of issues and topics and nobody has ever called me a troll, I really find this insulting. I asked you to respond with substance, and instead you’ve responded with a derisive accusation. Again, I just wish we had a better and more constructive dialogue, just like I do with almost all other users here. Nikola, we’re writing an Encyclopedia, not waging a war. Please use reason, not emotion. GeneralPatton 23:57, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

First of all, he doesn't have 3000 edits :) He edits in streams, amassing tens of edits for what people usually need 1-2 edits. He probably has about 300-600 regular edits. For an extreme example, see . Nikola 00:08, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Again, I see no substance in your awnser. I invite everyone to look at my contributions, and it is close to 3000 edits, and what's that bad with editing in streams? Nikola, you're avoiding the real issues, the way how I edit is really a non issue and inconsequential in this whole arbitration. It’s certainly better than these two, I at least try to add new information instead of engaging in revert wars. [] []. Nikola, i really don't know why you so passionately see this as some kind of an ideological battle instead of a cooperative project aimed at creating a superb online resource that tries to provide fainress and balance to all sides, not just your own. GeneralPatton 00:23, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Avala's
See User:Avala/Answer

orthogonal's
I should note that I didn't know Avala except from occasionally hearing his name at third hand in #wikipedia IRC, and from what I heard I assumed he must be a troll of the worst sort. Indeed, I still don't know Avala, having spoken to him for only a moment or two in IRC -- and I think he can be abrasive.

At the time I also barely knew Snowspinner (but had a favorable impression of him, and even planned to vote for him for ArbCom), when Snowspinner asked those of us in IRC to take a look at his "Avala Evidence" page. When I did, I was struck that Snowspinner's "evidence" included Avala's nominations and votes on Requests for Adminship -- including Avala's vote against Snowspinner.

My feeling then and now, is that while one might disagree with another's vote, sanctioning someone for how they choose to vote makes a mockery of idea that a democratic vote means one should be free to vote one's uncoerced conscience.

Even then, I still assumed that Avala must be a "bad troll", because, well, that's all I'd heard of him in IRC. Still, I thought it advisable to take a closer look at Snowspinner's "evidence", given what Snowspinner was willing to call evidence.

In summary, what I found was a an amazing pettiness and an untiring willingness on Snowspinner's part to peck away at Avala's apparently honest efforts to contribute to the Wikipedia community, until Snowspinner managed to provoke an angry or defensive reaction -- which then Snowspinner added to his list of Avala's "crimes". Snowspinner seems to have taken many opportunities to criticize or misconstrue Avala, but few or no efforts to grant Avala (who unlike Snowspinner is not a native speaker of English) the benefit of the doubt, try to understand Avala's positions, or to reach a modus vivendi with him.

But what is worse, as Snowspinner's feelings about Avala's vote makes clear, is Snowspinner's tendency to proclaim that there is a single community consensus on wikipedia (the spirited and unending debate on VfD presents evidence to the contrary), that Snowspinner knows what the consensus is, and that deviation from that consensus is, or should be, actionable.

Snowspinner writes "Avala also regularly demonstrates a lack of understanding of Wikipedia conventions, policy, making spurious listings or votes on ViP, RFA, and FAC.... 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."

Spurious listings and votes? Spurious according to whom? To Snowspinner and some soi-disant "community conventions" that Snowspinner, who has been at wikipedia less than four months, claims to be spokesman for.

"[A] lack of understanding of what people look for in an administrator"? What people? People who agree with Snowspinner, apparently. A Democrat might claim that a particular Republican nominee "demonstrate[s] a lack of understanding of what people look for in an administrator." Or a Tory might claim it of a Labour candidate. But all that means is they disagree with the candidate; that they have different values, different criteria by which they judge a candidate.

Snowspinner seems to go further: he claims not only that Avala is wrong for having opinions and values different than Snowspinner's, but that Avala is in the wrong -- and subject to sanction -- who holding views and having values than are not Snowspinner's opinions and values.

I see Wikipedia's diversity of values and opinions to be a strength that we draw on to make a better, and more well-rounded, encyclopedia. Snowspinner implies not only that difference is bad, but that Snowspinner is the one to judge what differences should be allowed -- and which should send someone to Arbcom. Such a narrow and stultifying view seems to me to be antithetical to what we are here for, and to what a wiki -- a envoronment where anyone may edit -- stands for.

I looked only at the "evidence" Snowspinner has amassed, so anyone can easily make his own evaluation, just as I did.

My (incomplete) point by point refutation to Snowspinner's evidence (with some additions from User:Zocky) can be found here: User:Orthogonal/Avala_evidence. -- orthogonal 17:34, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I encourage the Arbcom to look into orthogonal's counterclaims against me here, if only so he will stop trying to twist my words and give up his bizzare and increasingly harassing jihad against me. Snowspinner 04:37, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

I think that orthogonal said everything that I wanted but in such a fluent English using beatiful and neutral forms. On the other hand Snowspinner says following ...who is also native English give up his bizzare and increasingly harassing jihad against me. I think that the reader can choose on his own. [[User:Avala|Avala| ★ ]] 19:32, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)


text:
Hawaiian Volcano Observatory

The Hawaiian Volcano Observatory (HVO) is an agency of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and one of five volcano observatories operating under the USGS Volcano Hazards Program. Based in Hilo, Hawaii, the observatory monitors six Hawaiian volcanoes: Kīlauea, Mauna Loa, Kamaʻehuakanaloa (formerly Lōʻihi), Hualālai, Mauna Kea, and Haleakalā, of which, Kīlauea and Mauna Loa are the most active. The observatory has a worldwide reputation as a leader in the study of active volcanism. Due to the relatively non-explosive nature of Kīlauea's volcanic eruptions for many years, scientists have generally been able to study ongoing eruptions in proximity without being in extreme danger.

Prior to May 2018, the observatory's offices were located at Uwekahuna Bluff, the highest point on the rim of Kīlauea Caldera. The summit collapse events during the 2018 eruption of Kīlauea damaged those facilities, so the observatory has since been operating from various temporary offices located in Hilo on the Island of Hawaii.

History
Besides the oral history of Ancient Hawaiians, several early explorers left records of observations. Rev. William Ellis kept a journal of his 1823 missionary tour, and Titus Coan documented eruptions through 1881. Scientists often debated the accuracy of these descriptions. When geologist Thomas Jaggar of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology gave a lecture in Honolulu in 1909, he was approached by businessman Lorrin A. Thurston (grandson of Asa Thurston who was on the 1823 missionary tour) about building a full-time scientific observatory at Kīlauea. The Hawaiian Volcano Research Association was formed by local businessmen for its support. George Lycurgus, who owned the Volcano House at the edge of the main caldera, proposed a site adjacent to his hotel and restaurant.

In 1911 and 1912, small cabins were built on the floor of the caldera next to the main active vent of Halemaʻumaʻu, but these were hard to maintain. MIT added $25,000 in support in 1912 from the estate of Edward and Caroline Whitney to build a more permanent facility. The first instruments were housed in a cellar next to the Volcano House called the Whitney Laboratory of Seismology. Inmates from a nearby prison camp had excavated through 5.5 ft of volcanic ash. Massive reinforced concrete walls supported a small building built on top of the structure. Professor Fusakichi Omori of Japan, now best known for his study of aftershocks, designed the original seismometers. This seismograph vault (building number 29 on a site inventory) is state historic site 10–52–5506, and was added to the National Register of Historic Places on July 24, 1974, as site 74000292.

From 1912 until 1919, the observatory was run by Jaggar personally. Many important events were recorded, although as pioneers, the team often ran into major problems. For example, in 1913 an earthquake opened a crack in a wall and water seeped in. The windows meant to admit natural light caused the vault to heat up in the intense tropical sun. The opening of the national park in 1916 (at the urging of Thurston) brought more visitors to bother the scientists, but also park rangers who would take over public lectures. The prison that had supplied laborers was replaced by the Kīlauea Military Camp.

In 1919, Jaggar convinced the National Weather Service to take over operations at the observatory. In 1924, the observatory was taken over by the United States Geological Survey and it has been run by the USGS ever since (except for a brief period during the Great Depression, when the observatory was run by the National Park Service). When the Volcano House hotel burned to the ground in 1940, the old building was torn down (although the instruments in the vault continued to be used until 1961).

George Lycurgus convinced friends in Washington D.C. (many of whom had stayed in the Volcano House) to build a larger building farther back from the cliff, so he could build a new larger hotel at the former HVO site. By 1942, the "Volcano Observatory and Naturalist Building" was designated number 41 on the park inventory. However, with the advent of World War II, it was commandeered as a military headquarters. HVO was allowed to use building 41 from October 1942 to September 1948, when it became the park headquarters (and still is today, after several additions).

About two miles west, in an area known as Uwekahuna, a "National Park Museum and Lecture Hall" had been built in 1927. The name means roughly "the priest wept" in the Hawaiian Language, which indicates it might have been used to make offerings in the past. The HVO moved there in 1948 after some remodeling of the building. This site was even closer to the main vent of Kīlauea. In 1985 a larger building was built for the observatory adjacent to the old lecture hall, which was turned back into a museum and public viewing site. In the mid-1980s, HVO launched the Big Island Map Project (BIMP) to update the geologic map of the island of Hawai'i. Its major publication is the 1996 Geologic Map of the Island of Hawai'i (1996) by E.W. Wolfe and Jean Morris, digitized in 2005.

Leadership
The Scientist-in-Charge has 3 main duties: manage funding and equipment availability to ensue smooth operation; direct staff on how to monitor and respond to volcanic events; and engage in outreach to the public.
 * HVO Directors
 * 1912 to 1940, Thomas A. Jaggar
 * 1940 to 1951, Ruy Finch
 * 1951 to 1955, Gordon A. Macdonald
 * 1956 to 1958, Jerry P. Eaton

 * HVO Scientists-in-Charge
 * 1958 to 1960, Kiguma Jack Murata
 * 1960 to 1961, Jerry P. Eaton
 * 1961 to 1962, Donald H. Richter
 * 1962 to 1963, James G. Moore
 * 1964 to 1970, Howard A. Powers
 * 1970 to 1975, Donald W. Peterson
 * 1975 to 1976, Robert I. Tilling
 * 1976 to 1978, Gordon P. Eaton
 * 1978 to 1979, Donald W. Peterson
 * 1979 to 1984, Robert W. Decker
 * 1984 to 1991, Thomas L. Wright
 * 1991 to 1996, David A. Clague
 * 1996 to 1997, Margaret T. Mangan
 * 1997 to 2004, Donald A. Swanson
 * 2004 to 2015, James P. Kauahikaua
 * 2015 to 2020, Tina Neal
 * 2021 to present, Ken Hon

Operations
The Hawaiian Volcano Observatory hosts a large monitoring network, with over 100 remote stations transmitting data 24 hours a day. This information is provided immediately over the Internet, as is live coverage of ongoing eruptions from several webcams accessible from the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory website (see External links). Another important function of HVO is to monitor the sulphur emissions that produce the volcanic pollution condition known as vog. The observatory advises the park service when to close areas due to this and other volcanic hazards.

While the main Observatory building itself was not open to the public, the adjacent Thomas A. Jaggar Museum included interpretive exhibits on the work performed at the observatory. The exhibits ranged from general information on volcanoes and lava to the scientific equipment and clothing used by volcanologists. Some of the museum's windows provided a sheltered view of Halemaʻumaʻu and the Kīlauea Caldera. A public observation deck at the museum, overlooking Kīlauea and formerly open 24 hours a day, provided views of the area.

On May 10, 2018, Hawaii Volcanoes National Park was closed to the public in the Kīlauea volcano summit area, including the visitor center and park headquarters, due to explosions, earthquakes and toxic ash clouds from Halemaʻumaʻu. While much of the park was reopened on September 22, 2018, the former Observatory building and Jaggar Museum remain closed, due to considerable structural damage done to the facility.

With nearly 70 million in federal relief dollars appropriated in 2019, the Observatory is currently looking for a new location for their operations. In April 2019, Hawaii Public Radio reported that a move of the observatory staff to Oahu was being considered. In August 2019 it was reported that the Observatory was looking for a new permanent site in Hilo to replace the transitional offices in use since 2018.

title: Hawaiian Volcano Observatory


text:
Talk:HMS Duke of Wellington (1852)

Great article! :o)

note to self: Sent for permission for a splendid pic, don't forget to add it Pedant

Archaeological investigation
I'm just watching a feature on the BBC about the investigation of the Wellington's remains, and how they were identified. I would imagine that for those who know how, there is a wealth of further information available in relation to that. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 19:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Beatty edit
I removed the uncited claim that David Beatty commanded this ship in 1900-02, but without signing in. His service records and the fine article on WP show he was recovering from wounds in 1900-02 and saw no service between appointments in Juno and Arrogant. DulcetTone (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:HMS Duke of Wellington (1852)