User talk:BenAveling/Archive2

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

Joseph Todaro Sr.

Ben,

I just arrived back in town yesterday, to start I appreciate the support I got from you, Zoe and Alex, I love these other so called experts, writing style can always be improved and I stand behind all my Buffalo-Todaro family information, I think the thousands of Buffalo News articles are a reliable sourc. We have Buffalo crime writers like Lee Coppola that have been writing about the Buffalo Family and the Todaros for 30 years. By the way I still have everything I copied off the Buffalo Mobsite by Supercrack, which covers everything he did. His writing style is very loose and the grammer needs work, but the point is made. There's a ton of information that I never mentioned about the Todaro's because I've never set out to demean or slander anyone, actually I thaught I made Joe Todaro out to be really respectable. I go to La Nova regularly, it's in my old neighbourhood and believe me when I tell you the todaro family do alot for the community, but also trust me when I say that I didn't mention shit. I never mentioned the murders that they've been directly implicated in, not to mention every one in the Buffalo area knows that they controlled one of the largest narcotics rings in Western New York, along the East coast and up to Florida in the 1980's and early 1990's. My father went to the dice and card games in the 1970's and 80's that were held in the Grant St. and Hertal Ave. area and became friends with Jimmy Sicurella, the man accussed of being the shooter in the Cammilleri hit. As far as posting anymore articles or anything a else, let the MAFIA EXPERT handle it, I'm to busy writing a screenplay. Thanks again.

Little Joe Shots

By the way, if your interested in that Buffalo Family info, there's enough for a book, so if you can figure an easy way for me to get it, to you let me know.

Thank you, Creature

Thank you for Megatokyo tip and handsome compliment, Creature. Zilla act like admin always. Not yet have community trust. But not give up! [/me goes off to inflate edit count and apply for Editor Review.] Bishzilla | grrrr! 01:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC). [reply]

When did IRC become official?

Hi Fred, IRC may be a great place to find officials and chat them, but since when did IRC become a valid chanel for official business? [1] Regards, Ben Aveling 07:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was its original purpose. The creation of the channel was the subject of extensive conversations between Jimbo and others. It was to be a place where problems which required action by administrators could be brought to by the office, discussed and acted on. Fred Bauder 16:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some Updates

Hello Ben Aveling, I meant to also leave you a post. First I would just like to say I do stand by the comments I left on Bishonen's talk page. I also think it is very respectable that you have put as much work as you have into this ordeal. I would like to just make a couple more statements for you. I never had a problem with most of Revolver's edits, it was the tactics he used against other editors that made me notice him. An example: I noticed that a banned user (Revolver, yes I had problems with him before but I had nothing to do with his ban) had come back in late December. I did a Check User for what I thought were Sock Puppets. I was then immediately harassed by the editor, 3RRs were slapped on my IP and Talk Page, and a Check User was put up for my account. OK then, all's fair, maybe I'm the vandal...except for the simple check on my User Contributions show I had not made an edit for THREE MONTHS! I stand by my edits. I vicariously edit very little and only what interests me. I expect other editors to stand by what they edit. I'm sure you could. But if someone has to retaliate, at all, against any other editor...you're covering up and hiding something (not to mention being childish). I think the editor in question has a history of doing things he shouldn't and then obfuscates the facts when someone points it out. Here is my question. If everything goes through and the user is allowed to edit again, what should be expected? I guess what I would like to know is will this exempt this person from all wrong doings? If somebody once again brings up an example of vandalism or trolling will the editor simply be able to say "look no problem, here is my proof" and then shows the outline you have worked on? I believe you are accepting a big responsibility by helping him “prove his innocence”. Well I believe you are a very intelligent individual and are attempting to do the right thing, and I respect you for that. I hope you realize what you are doing. Take Care, ShuckyDucky 20:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that Revolver wasn't blocked and isn't blocked[2]. He's used a number of accounts, but never more than one at a time. [3]

Yes, there has been harassment inappropriate use of warnings amd reverting without trying to find a middle ground. (And not just by Revolver.) If he is unbanned, that doesn't give him a free pass. It doesn't mean that he has been found 'innocent' of all charges. All it means is that people are prepared to give him a chance to show that he can make a positive contribution. If he doesn't do that, he can be blocked again.

I noticed your break. To be honest, it did make me wonder why you chose that moment to return. I ended up deciding it was coincidence. If you and Certified are the same user you do an excellent job of sounding like different people.

If there are any conditions you'd like to put on Revolver, now would be a good time to mention them. And if there is anyone else who has clashed with him, I would appreciate their input also.

Thanks for your message, it's clear that you too are trying to do the best for wikipedia, even if we don't quite agree on what best is. :-) All the best to you too. Ben Aveling 21:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recalled it was Ragnarok that was banned and not Revolver after I made the post. They are the same user, by admission, right? Do you think the editor would have acted any differently or would not have been banned if he was still using the Revolver account? In other words I can't understand how that is a valid agument, and I think it a bit fallacious to say he should still have priviledges just because his original account was not banned (or is this a convenient loophole?). As far as using more than one account, it just looks like he was trying to get around the original ban, but also it looked like he was using it as cover. Used one for awhile and then switched over to another. This is all from my point of view. It looks like Revolver edits quite a bit and if he tread a bit more lightly I'm sure no one would mind (including me). No I'm not CG, I don't have as much time to be productive on Wikipedia as he does. Thanks for the reply, and take care. ShuckyDucky 02:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5 Whys

Hi. I was going to edit the 5 Whys article, and saw that you recently removed an external link. However, you left another external link in place. I don't understand why you removed one, but not the other. Is there a reason for that? If I was going to remove just one of those links, I probably would have chosen differently. --72.141.21.242 23:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The one I removed looked like original research, and I mistook the one I left for something more official than it actually is. Having had another look, I think I agree with you. I'll switch them over. The Bill Wilson article is worth reading while the one I originally left, isn't. Regards, Ben Aveling 05:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:

Please put new discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Social Dynamics (2nd nomination), and not open an old archive. Thank you. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on your talk page. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, we only do that for discussions that have not been closed yet. Discussion may be extended if not closed. Once it's closed, even if it's overturned, the proper thing is to set up a new afd. Because the one afd would account for: first arguments closing with delete, overturned and restored, DRV, second afd. It's too much for any admin to close. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page. --Nlu (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re RFA conversation

Thanks for letting me know, and for your thoughts as well! Seraphimblade 05:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]