User talk:Avraham

This is Avraham's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Avraham.
Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite, and welcoming to new users Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks For disputes, seek dispute resolution	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52

Sudais

Fine the article should have well cited references however I think it is unfairly tainting the entire article, you can't have a neutral article that documents someone purely by stating their (heavily disputed) errors. I'm going to keep the cited references but I will also update the article with some positive and referenced aspects so as to have a more balanced article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakimonk (talk • contribs) 08:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

If you can find citations that are:

1. Verifiable in reliable sources
2. Encyclopedic
3. Help flesh out the article

that would be fantastic. The idea is not to villify Sudais. However, it is undeniable that his comments about non-Muslims (Jews, Hindus, Christians, etc.) and the world-wide response is pretty much at the core of why this man is more notable than most Imams. If you find something that is not properly cited, let's discuss it on the talk page. But the panorama interview by the BBC and their subsequent explanation is about as reliably sourced as anything on this project, I'm afraid. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much :) the article is excellently edited now, it seems a lot more balanced

also I honestly believe his comments are unfairly taken out of context and if I recall correctly he was quite emotional about the situation of the Palestinians who had recently been undergoing a form of extreme desperation for medical supplies and food, but that's my personal opinion but the article is quite good now, thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakimonk (talk • contribs) 18:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. I understand; we all have our opinions as to subjects of the articles on Wikipedia; what we try to do is strictly adhere to our guidelines to ensure that every articke gets treated the same way. Thank you for finding those sources which help flesh out why Sudais is notable and balance the article in accordance with WP:NPOV. A pleasure working with you! -- Avi (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Mark Adler for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mark Adler is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Adler until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 21:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Responded on AfD page. -- Avi (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Confirmation requested

Can you please confirm at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#PumpkinSky_emails that the edits were deleted and not oversighted? Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Y Done Confirmed -- Avi (talk) 01:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 01:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure. -- Avi (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

UTRS Account Request

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. -- Avi (talk)

Your bureaucratship.

Your bureaucratship was closed on 20:26, 08 April 2009 by Rlevse. It appears that Rlevse had his wife, JoJo vote, creating a conflict of interest. I do not suspect you were part of said conflict. Would you accept having another, untainted, bureaucrat review his close? Thank you. Hipocrite (talk) 13:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe it necessary, in that the close was completely uncontroversial; I had a support ratio of 22.5:1 which far exceeded even the most draconian 9:1 requirement of the "dark days" of RfB. Even if JoJo's support is discounted, I cannot imagine another 'crat closing Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Avraham 3 as anything but a pass. In my opinion, such a review would only serve to increase unnecessary wikidrama. Now Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Avraham 2 would be another story, but that one was deemed unsuccessful after a crat chat so the point is moot, in my opinion. Out of curiosity, Hipocrite, has there been anyone clamoring for my removal due to the close? -- Avi (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer - that is fine by me, but I thought you should be made aware. No. I would support your remaining a bureaucrat and have had no discussions with anyone other than you, here, regarding this matter, as I don't participate in non-public discussions of Wikipedia content/conduct. Hipocrite (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The close was practically SNOW, so I can't imagine it would end differently, but procedurally, I would think any such request would belong on WP:BN; I don't think a 'crat should be opining on the correctness of one's own nomination.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe I was being asked for my own opinion as an editor, not as a crat. See Hipocrite's question to Franamax, who most certainly is not being asked as a 'crat . When there is doubt about the hat I am wearing on the response, I usually tag it (like I did at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#Under controversial circumstances). -- Avi (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Upon reflection, it appears my response may have sounded like a rebuke for you answering; that wasn't my intention. My poorly worded point was that, if the question even needs to be asked, it ought to be asked of other 'crats, and therefore not here. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

No worries, it wasn't taken that way. You had a legitimate concern about the question and whether or not I was being asked as an official or as an editor. The former would have been inappropriate; thankfully it was the latter. -- Avi (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Informal CU request

There's some pretty nasty trolling going on on Talk:Fisting targetting User:Ctjf83. Can you take a look at the recently blocked accounts User:Vallejobadlands, User:Droidhelper, User:Ziplinezulu, User:Droidfetuses and User:Decentsentinel? I don't know if they are connected to User:68.103.24.102, but blocking that IP would probably be a useful preventative measure. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

If you believe the IP should be blocked due to harassment, by all means do so. Otherwise, please file a wp:SPI request with diffs; unfortunately, we shouldn't just CU willy-nilly (fishing and all). That doesn't stop you from warning/blocking accounts for violating WP rules. -- Avi (talk) 04:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that you go "fishing" -- there is already clear connection between the accounts -- I was suggesting that further incidences might be prevented by identifying the underlying source. I'll take it to SPI, but this seems like a fairly innocuous request to me. Perhaps I should have emailed instead. Thanks anyway. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem, and I'm sorry if I came across too brusque. It's just that there has been discussion that we need to make sure that checks are run appropriately. As annoying as it is, unless it's an emergency or there are privacy-type issues, it's better for all involved to actually file the SPI. Firstly, it helps keep a record on wiki as to who was checked, why they were checked, and the results. Secondly, if the diffs are brought it is much more capable of being justified in the event that someone claims "misuse of tool". Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand completely. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Josef Mengele (and other articles)

Hi Avi,

I've run into an issue with User:Mystichumwipe at Josef Mengele and a couple of other articles. I think my assessments of the issues and situation are reasonable, but he has accused me of bias and is asking for outside eyes to look at it. You're pretty calm and level-headed, and have a reputation for neutrality and even-handedness; would you mind taking a look? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Avraham,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

2012 AUSC candidacy

Further to our previous correspondence, your Audit Subcommittee candidacy page has been created. Please visit the page to review (and if necessary, edit) your nomination statement, as well as answer the standard questions. You should also keep watch for any further questions the community may pose. Feel free to contact myself or another arbitrator if you have any questions. Once again, thank you for your offer to serve on the subcommittee. –xeno^talk 03:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)