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
Avala's
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)