Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:41, 16 June 2008

Avi is trying to take a short wikibreak and will be back on Misplaced Pages soon. Most likely, however, Avi will not be able to keep away from Misplaced Pages for that long, and will probably be back a lot earlier while making some small edits every once in a while anyway.

Archives
Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3	Archive 4	Archive 5
Archive 6	Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9	Archive 10
Archive 11	Archive 12	Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15
Archive 16	Archive 17	Archive 18	Archive 19	Archive 20
Archive 21	Archive 22	Archive 23	Archive 24	Archive 25
Archive 26	Archive 27

RfB

Hey, I hate to be the one to inform you, but, I'm afraid it appears that your RfB has been closed as no consensus . I thought you would have made a great 'crat, and, hopefully you'll review the opposition's comments, and work on those areas, then try again in a while. SQL 15:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts on your RfB

Hi Avi. First I wanted to say, sorry that you didn't pass your RfB, but congrats that the process is over. I had some thoughts on the RfB that I wanted to share with you. This weekend I was considering voting, putting in a support. I didn't, and finally, this morning, I thought and didn't again. The reason? There was already an established sizeable opposition. The weight of the various oppose reasons could be argued, but none-the-less, they were for the most part valid. In regards to becoming a bureaucrat, I'm a strong believer that there should only be a promotion when there is virtually no legit opposition. I didn't add my support, because while I think you are qualified and would make a good 'crat, I think it is more important to respect the opposition's current concerns. Bottom line: I didn't want you to pass because enough community members raised their own personal concerns. This leads to a serious concern: because of accepted rules of promotion, we might be doing the wrong thing, not promoting someone who will likely help where we need it... a clear "net-positive", if you will. In all likelihood, if the crats promoted you, you would go on to do good for the project and would no doubt benefit others. However, there would always be that nagging thing, 20 or so good contributors who felt you weren't ready. Finally, my point: The strength of Misplaced Pages is not in its ability to always do what's for the best, but rather, to hold consensus above virtually everything. The whole project seems to be based on the theory that consensus is more important than anything, and who knows, that might be right. So, the Catch 22 is that I think it would be the best for everyone and everything if you had become a crat this time around, but it would have undermined the concept of clear consensus, which in these parts, is everything. So, maybe we suffer a little now without a good crat, but the stubborn project lives on. Hopefully it lives on to see RfB Avraham 3, where all opposition concerns have been properly addressed and we can have you in an appropriate rank. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message Avi. I am little disappointed myself that your RFB did not pass, I still think you would make a good bureaucrat and I have done my research to come to that assessment. My suggestion now is simply to try and address the oppositions concerns, continue to contribute to to the RFA process, and try again in the future. Good luck! Camaron | Chris (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the unfortunate turn of events. If it is any consolation, your support section was indeed lengthy and massive. That should buoy your spirits. I think you'd make a fine bureaucrat despite the so call "lack of WP:U participation". Anyway, good luck to you in the future if you decide to run again. I'll be there with my sign of endorsement aloft. : ) Cheers dude. Look forward to your comments at RfA. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 16:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Second'd. Ironically, the fact that the result was No Consensus as opposed to Did Not Succeed should be encouraging, as well. Thanks also for the kind note - and I'll be happy to support you if and when you take another shot. Best, UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 16:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

And indeed thirded. I spent a fair while looking through all the arguments as I hadn't really run into you before - and after I had, I really felt you'd make a great bureaucrat. Good luck if you do choose to go for it again in the future, I hope you do! ~ mazca 16:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the above. IMO, the opposes weren't that convincing, but oh well, you can always try again. Good luck if you do. (and let me know ifwhen you do, I'll support then too unless you delete the Main Page between now and then. ¬_¬ ;) ) Thingg 17:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I was very disappointed at the decision — I felt with a tally of 82% supporting your nomination, it should definitely have been closed with consensus to promote. I think the point that was made by the bureaucrats that there were a fair few people opposing per people who were then satisfied by discussion was very valid. To be honest, I'm not all that sure how the decision was arrived at based on the discussion that they had. If you go again some time in the future, count on my support — we need more crats, especially ones who are enthusiastic about it... —Alex.Muller 18:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

A pity. The close was alright but the sentiment of the debate wasn't so good. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I was sorry to hear your RfB failed. I hope you'll come back later and become a bureaucrat. Cheers! - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 17:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Me too . Please do come back again. I was closing watching the election and never thought it would fail inspite of such huge support :( . Best of luck for the future :D -- TinuCherian - 17:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about it too. Good luck next time! :) Sceptre 17:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I supported your RFB and I would support again in the future. Since you offered to help, please read the discussion immediately above your recent comment on my talk page, especially the last paragraph, and tell me what you think. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah well, so near and yet so far. I'm sorry it didn't work out this time, Avi, and I hope you'll try again when you feel the time is right. In the meantime, you might wish to consider some easy alternatives. Regards, Jakew (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL!! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

As I see you are starting the daunting task of sending around little RfB thank you spams, I thought I would save you the trouble of stopping by my talk page. While I can understand that it is disappointing to come so close only to hear that you did not make it, but I trust that you will improve in areas that have been discussed in the oppose section and will come back in four months or so stronger than ever saying "I told you so!". Cheers, Tiptoety 18:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Dude. Not cool! So sorry to hear it didn't pass. However, it's no big deal. Think of it as not getting that promotion at work that will move you one more floor up (with no elevator) and add an extra five hours to your work week with no extra pay. You should actually be celebrating no extra work for even less thanks. Srs. Everything looks better through my rose-colored shades. :) Lara❤Love 19:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everyone above =P Nice "translation" of my username! weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

RfBs are among the most frustrating things a user may experience on Misplaced Pages, but please don't be frustrated. Focus on all the support/compliments you've received, as well as on valued advices the opposition may have provided, and keep up your outstanding work. And please try again, and again, and again. :-) Best regards, Húsönd 19:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm somewhat disappointed by the closing, but if you do not oppose it, then I will not oppose it. Just remember to take all constructive criticism and supports and compliments to heart. I feel it is inevitable that you will be a crat, just keep trying. bibliomaniac15 20:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Support Requests for bureaucratship are, at their heart, a project-wide referendum on the judgment of the candidate, and whether or not that judgment would be properly used, in accordance with[REDACTED] policy and guideline, to determine consensus in requests for administratorship, flagging bots, and changing usernames. To serve as a bureaucrat requires a demonstrated understanding of policies and guidelines, especially vis-a-vis sysops, current familiarity with the RfA process, and a demonstrated understanding of consensus. A bureaucrat must be open, willing to discuss difficult issues, and willing to admit to errors in the rare event they occur. Lastly, a bureaucrat must be cordial and civil, as failed RfA's hurt, whether or not adminship is a "big deal". In my opinion, Rudget Avraham fills all of these requirements. I have collaborated with him on a successful RfA, and hopefully another one in the wings, and I can assert he is cognizant, current, and competent when it comes to understanding the RfA process. He is always polite and friendly. My response to this is that as the primary function of a bureaucrat is to determine consensus on requests for administratorship, his experience and input at this venue, both prior to and after his RfA indicates that he can judge community consensus properly and understands the process. Good Luck!

   Well ja. Rudget (Help?) 20:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

2. Support. What can I say? Noting the opposition last time I said to participate more in RfAs, which you did, and looking good at it imho. Looking at the main points of the opposition now, I'd have to speak rubbish: participate less in RfAs and wait considerably longer (half a year?) so as to avoid the impression of neediness for the tools. But it's rubbish, because I'd have to follow it up with the suggestion to carefully avoid giving the impression to be carefully avoiding giving the impression of neediness; etcpp. So all I say is good luck next time, should you try again, that is. dorftrottel (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
3. Support It was borderline, but I thought you'd pass. I was really disappointed when I saw your message that you didn't. Third time's the charm, I suppose. Enigma 21:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Dang. Honestly, you're better than most of 'em in there right now. Thanks for the message and I wish you best of luck the next time 'round. I'm an Editorofthewiki 21:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Avi, see my response to your comments here here. Best regards, gidonb (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

(cheers for using my real name in your message :p) Hello Avi. My condolences for not passing your RfB, but I'm sure you'll pass if you try a third time in the coming future and you would make an excellent 'crat. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR 22:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Good luck post-RfB, Avi! I think you will be a great future bureaucrat (no doubt about it!). You really know my (and many others') concern about gettins some experience with the various username-related activities of bureaucrats, so I wish you the best on that. One suggestion I might have, not that it may make a lot of sense, is not to try too hard? Which seems sort of contradictory, because in order to get the Username experience, you have to make a point to work on it. So, perhaps that's not really useful advice. Oh well! :) Seriously, though, I'm looking forward to supporting whenever you come back up for it. -- Natalya 11:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, sorry to hear you didn't get the 'crat bit. That was a damn close run thing though, I really thought you were going to make it. Anyway I hope you continue to be involved at RfA, your comments are always thoughtful and interesting. the wub "?!" 12:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the message. I'm sorry to see it was unsuccessful. Such is wiki. Don't let it put you off trying again in the future though. Best of luck, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe it. I still don't see what the reason is - the debate seemed to say that several of the "opposes" were questionable. Sigh... I guess I'll never understand the expectations for admin or bureacrat. Do try again! Love teh latin name - should have thought of that myself! Thanks! King Pickle (talk) 01:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for your message. I found your RfB difficult and I very nearly switched to support. My stated reason was the prime motivation and, as you could tell, I struggled with it. I think it'd be fairly easy to deal with that and return in a few months. Heck, I'd be happy to nominate you - I have a 100% record with RfB noms. I think you've impressed plenty of people with the way you've handled yourself during the stress of the process, even, I would suggest, opposers. Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ain't no thang

Come to think of it, we disagree on everything! What the heck was I thinking?! Hah, hah, but really, I know we've tangled, but I feel like I've seen you grow as a wikipedian, and I guess hope somehow that my attitude has rubbed off on you a little. I stumbled in there accidently from Eleland's talk page, and read everything, and knew I had to say something, and in my gut just felt you were up to the task. Perhaps it was what we call in poker a "crying call" but even still I believe it was the right one. Too bad I'll not get to find out, since you didn't pass thru this time -- I'm sorry my vote couldn't put you over the top. -- Kendrick7 03:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note Avi. Sorry you didn't pass. You should rest assured knowing that many people like me feel pleased (and well served) by your diligent work in Misplaced Pages and I'm sure you'll find many other opportunities for your leadership. HG | Talk 04:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

RE:Your message

Hey Avi, thanks for your message. I too was disappointed to see your opposition, as I feel you would make a great 'crat. And don't worry about the name mix-up, it made me chuckle :) Good luck with your endeavors in the future, if you ever need anything, feel free to drop by. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 06:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

RfB fail = teh suck

Make kitteh sad... kitteh not even sure anymoar wot pplz look 4 in bearcatz?! Totalee lame! Hope fyoochur RfB iz not fail again, WP miss out. ~ Riana ⁂ 16:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your RfB

Sorry, Avraham, no T-shirts this time. Here's a Barnstar instead. :) Acalamari 20:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For your great answers and communication with other users throughout the RfB. Acalamari 20:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Your RfB

I just became aware of your (regrettably unsuccessful) recent try at RfB. Had I known about it I would have wholeheartedly supported you. I recently put one of those automatic who's-going-for-RfA-and-RfB thingies on my talk page, so if you give it another shot I'll notice more readily and be able to put in my two cents. In a way it's a shame that we have such strict rules about canvassing because it would be better if more people knew about these things. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

RFB

RFA Thanks

Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Incidentally, I didn’t !vote in your recent RfB because every time I vote for someone there they seem not to be successful, and I didn’t want to be a jinx and affect the outcome. (I know, silly to be superstitious about these things, but…) If it helps, you were in my thoughts throughout the process. Best, Risker (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank-spam

Thanks Avi, much appreciated :) Gatoclass (talk) 06:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks!

		RfA: Many thanks
		Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Old RFAs

Avi, do you know what is up with Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Encephalon 2 and Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Encephalon 1? You voted in the 2nd, but it was never accepted. MBisanz 08:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

nit-pick question

I realize I'm nit-picking here, but I was wondering why the neutral on EVula's RfB? Are you trying to tell EVula that the questions are important to you? Sorry to single you out, but I just don't understand the purpose of the neutral (I've seen it a few previous times, but chose not to ask). I also am waiting for answers before I express an opinion. Enigma 05:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I just ask to try to understand the purpose of being neutral first, as opposed to waiting until after the questions are answered, and then supporting or opposing. Just seems unnecessary to enter something and then have to cross it out. Sorry again for giving you a hard time about it, but I'm really trying to understand. Enigma 07:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Your question to Ryan

What you may take from the conversation is that JAZ, NK, and TorahTrueJews.com, are currently considered fringe groups and may not be used for sources outside of articles about them. If you have another source which you believe may be problematic from a WP:RS perspective, you are more than welcome to drop me a line on my talk page or via e-mail for comment. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 02:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned at the irregular fashion that two of these groups (the ones I want to use) are labelled "Fringe", a charge that's never been put to the community and I don't believe can be sustained. I've posted the numbers as I understand them repeatedly, I'm not seeing any better information, just increasing threats of a perma-block.

I'm concerned at the highly irregular way that this accusation of "Fringe" has become "not reliable" - that's not what WP:FRINGE says. (NK want Israel dismantled no matter what danger there is to Israelis, a position which is likely to give people more problems - even then, I don't see how we can simply label a group of devout Jews as being untrustworthy with no evidence).

I'm highly suspicious that the two groups in question (bizarrely, the smaller and truly notorious NK seems to have been acceptable until now) were labelled as "extreme" and expressing "hate-speech".

I'm very concerned that an editor claiming to come from this very community (telling us that JAZ is indeed "official" to the Satmars) was abused as being an inadequate editor (and presumably untrustworthy). (There was another such editor, now indef-blocked for sock-puppetry). This smacks of the personal harassment which has stalked many similar discussions and badly distorts articles. It is up to the knockers to prove that devout followers of Judaism are unreliable, because most of us are liable to defend them.

The community is united in its opposition to antisemitism - I don't see how that is compatible with this intense prejudice against the "True Torah Jews" and their large, carefully documented and multi-authored web-site, www.jewsagainstzionism.com. PR 18:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Avi - you offered to help me over WP:RS - I wonder if you'd try to check out Joseph (B) Schechtman for me? I can see a string of objections to using him on anything factual whatsoever, but I won't bother you with them immediately, can you just tell me what you think based on your initial somewhat in-depth but non-specialist look? PR 11:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

A discussion you may be interested in

Hey Avi, haven't seen you around as much lately. See this discussion. It starts with iridescent's comment (not the beginning of the thread). Enigma 17:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

My monobook

Can you unprotect it please? It wasn't doing much good anyway and editing with javascript turned off is the lose :( naerii - talk 04:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Eden Natan-Zada, Asher Weisgan

Thanks for the either/or pointer on the CATs used to describe these two situations. It looks like there is a possibility of an edit war on the two pages. I have accepted your judgement here as correct, either a terrorist or mass murderer CAAT, but not both, which seems the sensible thing. However someone keeps tampering with it. I don't want to be dragged into rv. wars, and would appreciate it if your could use your authoritative judgement to clarify the point on the respective talk pages. Sorry for the trouble.Nishidani (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks indeed. Regards Nishidani (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Marriage Under Fire

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Marriage Under Fire. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for voting

Please visit Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Rietti and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mordechai Suchard for comment DRosenbach 17:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

My RFB

Thank you for your comments in my RFB. Since it was only at 64%, it was a shoo-in to be unsuccessful, so I withdrew. I didn't want it to run until its scheduled close time because my intent in standing for RFB was to help the bureaucrats with their workload, not give them one more RfX to close. Through the course of my RFB, I received some very valuable feedback, some of it was contradictary, but other points were well agreed upon. I have ceased my admin coaching for now to give me time to revamp my method. I don't want to give up coaching completely, but I'm going to find a different angle from which to approach it. As for my RFA Standards, I am going to do some deep intraspection. I wrote those standards six months ago and I will slowly retool them. This will take some time for me to really dig down and express what I want in an admin candidate. If, after some serious time of deep thought, I don't find anything to change in them, I'll leave them the way they are. I'm not going to change them just because of some community disagreement as to what they should be. Will I stand for RFB again in the future? I don't know. Perhaps some time down the road, when my tenure as an administrator is greater than one year, if there is a pressing need for more active bureaucrats, maybe. If there no pressing need, then maybe not. Useight (talk) 03:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Twice this week

. Getting out of hand! Avruch * 02:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Does Jaakobou need your protection?

Hi Avi - you posted this "As per Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions, it may be time to request that Pedrito refrain from making any post or comment about Jaakobu other than e-mailing or talkpage messaging Jaakobu's mentors (Durova and myself). ... Pedrito knows that Jaakobu has, on his own, requested experienced editors' help in trying to navigate the difficult shoals of I-P articles" -- Avi (talk) 12:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I seem to recall how it came about that Jaakobou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) came to seek help - it was in the context of him refusing to answer questions about two suspicious accounts which seemed to follow him around, editing the same articles as himself. (We were presently told that this matter had been examined and they were definitely not sock-puppets of his, but a prompt denial would have saved around 5 days of drama).

And it seems a little strange to chastise anyone for picking on him, when he has such an outstanding record of handing out warnings and making complaints. PR 17:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Zionist offensive

Hello! Rabbi or Mr. Avraham. I am relativelly new in the Misplaced Pages, but I see that the Zionists made themselves very comfortable here, and are attacking everyone that believes different then them. I have created the Yishuv haYashan article, which is something important historically speaking. I see they are trying to remove any information about the Haredim who didn't participate in the Zionist movement. Furthermore the whole history of the Yishuv haYashan Kollelim was ignored but instead an article about Halukka in a negative spotlight. They are trying to persuade that all those who did for our brothers in Eretz Yisroel were Zionists. I would suggest that we incorporate in a Template:WikiProject:Yishuv haYashan or Template:WikiProject:Torah Judaism in order to clearify the facts.

HagiMalachi (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)