Avruch, I feel that I should inform you that I have added a comment to the WP:AN discussion about the departure of William Coleman. I want you to know that I do not intend it as an attack, but that I do feel it is important for me to understand what has led him to accept your explanations. I have looked at the comments posted on his talk page, and in other places, and whilst I believe that you did not expect the controversy your nomination provoked, I am concerned about aspects of your response since then. I don't want to move on from this with a negative impression of you, and so I'd appreciate it if you could give some thought to what I have written. Of course you have the right to choose not to respond, and I am not saying that you owe me an explanation, but I would appreciate you choosing to expand on what has happened so that I (and possibly others) don't form an opinion without flagging concerns to you and providing an opportunity for a response. I recognise that you were likely upset by some of William's comments, and I also recognise that some of my comments may be overly harsh - I can't be entirely rational on a topic like this, and so I ask that you accept that my comments are meant as an appeal for information, rather than a direct criticism. Jay*Jay (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response, Avruch. I have, in turn, responded. For the record, I am pleased to find that the impression that I had formed is inaccurate, and I hope we can work well together into the future. No hard feelings? Best, Jay*Jay (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Avruch, I have started a thread at WP:AN about your closing and marking as 'resolved' the above discussion. Here's a link. I want to make it clear that I am not asking for any sanction of you, and I completely understand your desire to have the thread archived. However, I am not sure that the action that you have taken is a good idea, as it removes the context from the part of the discussion which you separated. I'm also not sure whether it is considered acceptable, which is why I have asked. You may want to monitor any response and / or make a comment. Best, Jay*Jay (talk) 13:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Avruch, I am not surprised that you added a comment to the WP:AN thread - that was why I left you a note to advise that I had asked the question. I have added a link and explanatory note, to the earlier discussion, and marked the present discussion as resolved. Feel free to add if you think this is an inaccurate summary of the outcome. Best, Jay*Jay (talk) 10:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Avruch: I have registered as you suggested. I really don't understand how to do all of this stuff because I am a low-tech person who knows only how to type. It is my desire to edit the Shoplifting Wikipedia Article to include some mention, if not the history, of Civil Recovery Demands. In a world where Civil Recovery Demands against "first offense" shoplifters is growing every day and where the law surrounding arrests and city tickets for "stealing" which is prosecuted and defended as misdemeanor or felony larceny is algo growing, Wikipedia could help to bring some light on the subject matter ----if they want to. Some of the Cities have already stopped sending their commissioned police to store security offices to ticket "first offender" shoplifters who have surrendered the merchandise with an offer to pay and are using the Civil Sanction ONLY against first-offender shoplifters who have no criminal record of any kind. They probably still have an option to use the criminal sanction and call the police but maybe the police will now make the Retail LP security personnel (in their agency of city-licensed security police, file a complaint with the Prosecutor??instead of traveling to the security offices of the retail stores.
When you consider that in States like Florida and Washington State, the Retailer can demand $200 and attorney fees for a $2.00 wholesale item that retails for $10.00, the incentive is there to arrest for profit for the store and for the LP personnel. The cities and small towns who have rehab schools and plea bargains for first offenders who are arrested or ticketed for "stealing" also earn revenue in the term of fees and fines and bonds etc.. and legal fees for the local bar and justify the use of the resources provided by the taxpayers to travel to the stores to arrest and or ticket first offenders ---with the view that the arrest/ticket etc.. together with a civil recovery demand letter will certainly act as a deterrent to any second attempt to steal by an amateur shoplifter. The public records DO indicate that there is no defense in the lower court to a ticket for stealing and it is the city who bears the responsibility for the ticket or arrest and any prosecution of the matter, and the retailer is protected from lawsuits.
I don't understand why I wasn't allowed to edit and post the Tennessee Law for shoplifting and the civil demand letter. Tennessee seems to have updated the law but I am not an attorney and I don't understand fully all of the implications. I do know that several years ago, The Vice Mayor of Nashville was arrested for shoplifting at Target during the Christman season. He was running for public office and his opponents must have outed him to the Tennessean, the newspaper in Nashville, who ran an article about his rehab in a "school across the river" and how this had been his second offense against Target, etc.. It is public policy and the policy of the police to make sure that the "notables" and the "famous" make the papers because it reinforces the civil demand sanction and the civil recoveries while protecting the police (who do not make the public policy) who implement the policy of the cities and the retailers.
Thank you for any help you can give me. I think I am registered, now!
CJKC ---30 Jan 08 ll:45
RfA thank-spam
Nathan, I wish to tender my sincere thanks for your support in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 37 supports, 2 opposes, and 2 neutral. The results of the RfA are extremely bittersweet because of the recent departure of my nominator, Rudget. Hopefully I can live up to his and your expectations. I would especially like to thank Epbr123 and TomStar81 for mentioning that they were preparing to offer me a nomination. The past week has been one of the most stressful weeks in my life, and I appreciate your vote of confidence in me. If you ever need anything, just get in touch. -MBK00420:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to echo DuncanHill's comment, and express my gratitude as well for taking the initiative to create this category, and to add an appropriate, thoughtful, and concise explanatory section. It is very much appreciated. Jay*Jay (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it OK to comment on the idiotic contributions, if I refrain on name calling of the individual itself? Not sure how to make my point, be consise, and not offend anyone.VandleBlaster (talk) 00:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Avruch, in creating the category:LGBT Wikipedians and including a strong justification for its existence, you may well force other Wikipedians to examine their attitudes to user categories. In taking this action, you have restored some of my belief that wikipedia can be a place where principle is important. As such, I award you
The Special Barnstar
For making an outstanding contribution to the resolution of the user category issue, and by doing so in a way that recognises the value of the community of LGBT editors Jay*Jay (talk) 14:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Special Barnstar is meant to be awarded as a gesture of appreciation, and with the rainbow motif as well, it seemed particularly appropriate. Jay*Jay (talk) 14:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The work you did on the LGBT usercat is phenomenal! Thank you, many, many times, for your efforts to bring about equity. WP is a better place for your presence and contribution. --Phyesalis (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you wipe out most of the edits on this user's talk page? I don't believe he asked you to do so. Please fix it. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't wipe it out, I just put it behind a collapse box. If you click the 'show' button its all still there. Most of what is now behind the box is repetitive warnings, which I've collapsed in order to make a new start on his talk page and emphasize the importance of paying attention to messages about getting an account etc. The object is to address your concern constructively without being bitey about it or unnecessarily blocking someone who could ultimately become a useful contributor. Avruchtalk22:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but are you an administrator? If you are that's fine, but if not you had no right to refactor the user's talk page. It's fine to add to his page and make comments on the ANI, but unless you are an administrator with good reason, you should not have have hidden messages on his talk page. Ward3001 (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that strongly that the entire history should be immediately visible, then remove the hat/hab. It doesn't seem necessary right at the moment, and improved visibility of the newest attempts to corral the editor into editing within content policies would seem to be beneficial. If you disagree, make whatever changes you think are necessary and post about it in the thread on AN/I. Avruchtalk22:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My primary concern is not whether the information should be visible, but that you unilaterally decided to refactor the user's talk page without his consent and without administrator privileges (assuming you are not an administrator). You have overstepped your bounds by refactoring a talk page. Ward3001 (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think you are correct. Feel free to cite a policy if you like, and I will undo it myself. If you don't think the actual action is problematic (just that I shouldn't have made it) then I don't see what the problem is. Perhaps some IAR is in order, if indeed I violated a WP:TALK policy. Avruchtalk22:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TPG: "Behavior that is unacceptable ... don't edit others' comments". That would include hiding them, especially on the talk page of a user who probably doesn't know how to find the hidden messages. Ward3001 (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to argue with you about it, if you like just reverse it. If you read the page the section you refer to actually links to IAR. It also lists a series of exceptions, including refactoring. If you go to the bottom of the page (the User talk pages section) it says more latitude is generally granted. Nothing specifically says "You can collapse a huge IP user talk page in order to help solve a conduct problem" but I don't think arguing over the nits and nats of a guideline is really conducive. Avruchtalk22:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, I'm not going to change the talk page. It's not mine to change. Secondly, IAR is way overused to justify policy violations and acting on a whim. And thirdly, you don't know the consequences of refactoring a user's talk page. Like I said, what if the user is naive and simply thinks the messages disappeared. I am not assuming bad faith; your intentions may have been fine, just very thoughtless and without regard for the consequences to others. What if I had moved everything on your talk page to another page without previous warning, even if you knew where the information went? Would that be OK with you? What if I archived your talk page every day? Would you just assume that it was OK because of IAR? If you had done that to my talk page without my consent (and in this case, not even an explanation to the user), I would have given you a level one vandalism warning and reverted it. Ward3001 (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No it wasn't yours so much as the one's that followed. We're all trying to figure out how to evaluate RfA's, but sometimes it just feels like an overwhelming number of questions. It all started here. Then something just snapped. Dlohcierekim22:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments on AN/I
Hi Avruch. Thank you for your comments here. This is the first time I have intervened in a dispute like this, and I don't seem to have done a terribly good job at making it better, but I'd like to learn from the experience. When the user continued PAs after being admonished on RfC, maybe I should have just left a message myself on his talk. But I dislike empty words, which is why I thought it would be better to get an admin interested. Turned into a train-wreck, though. Anyway, thanks for your help. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're making fun of my spelling for goodness' sake? Forgive me for finding that extremely small-minded and petty.
I was operating under the working assumption that since no one reverted no-nonsense changes made but others who were !clerks and !arbs, the notes at the top were guidance only.
Why can't IP.75 chime in. He agrees with Down's reasoning, and he has a point about BZip about to piss himself if he doesn't get the tools by the end of the month. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.244.7.198 (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
