Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:56, 15 June 2008

Avruch

Voice your opinion (talk page) (37/0/0); Scheduled to end 21:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Avruch (talk · contribs)

Conomination by John - It is my pleasure to present to you Avruch. After studying his contributions, it seems apparent to me that he is ready to be an admin. With 6311 edits since May 2007, and a good spread across the namespaces, I believe he has more than shown his readiness to take on the responsibility of adminship. I would encourage you to thoroughly review his contributions as I have done. A few highlights chosen from his more recent edits:

Here he is, making a constructive suggestion at a talk page of a controversial article, here and here he is making substantial improvements to articles. Here he shows himself to be extremely clueful in the area of policy development, by proposing a slowdown of change, and he also initiated the discussion here which drew significant participation from the community and I believe led in some cases to a change in the way RfBs are closed.

Here is a recent example of his wide participation at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents; I think it is fairly typical of his contributions there in that it is constructive and shows good knowledge of policy. His involvement in this contentious AfD was helpful and constructive. Here he engages in insightful and constructive debate with an admin about a block of another user. I could go on, but suffice it to say that I would be very happy to work with Avruch as a fellow admin. He is hard-working, articulate, tactful, patient, always willing to learn and embrace criticism, and at this point is more than ready for the tools.

Lar and I have been working with him sporadically since late February (!) at User:Avruch/Admin coaching, which I encourage you to review. As he said there, “Misplaced Pages presents a vision that is easy to get excited about, obviously, and it is peculiarly satisfying to feel as though I occasionally contribute meaningfully to something that is so useful for so many”. That rang a bell with me; I too am still excited by Misplaced Pages and it strikes me that we need more admins who retain excitement and freshness, but who also have the experience, knowledge and temperament that is required. I believe Avruch fits this description and I therefore recommend him to the community as an administrator. John (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Conomination by Lar - It goes without saying that I vouch for what John says about Avruch. While I do not always agree with Avruch about everything, I find that he is a thoughtful and considerate editor who really cares about the project. We put him through his paces when he asked to be coached... I know there's some controversy about coaching... Some folk see it as "grooming" for adminship, or a way to get marginal candidates to pass. But not John or I. We see it as a chance to vet whether someone is ready or not, we ask them a lot of hard questions, trying to dig into WHY someone wants to be an admin (it's a thankless job, at best, and can often get you lots of sticks and bricks). We don't always pass on our coachees, and we don't take many on, only one at a time usually, and we're hard on them. And slow. If you want admin mill candidates, don't come to us!

But anyway... Avruch gets why we're here: this comment to The Undertow really resonates for me. He has a deft touch and he's willing to gracefully stick up for others (this thread was perhaps not my finest hour, I still think the article was deleteworthy as it was but I could have handled it better...) Avruch is ready. He's been ready for a while now but he's too polite to have nudged us hard enough to move this along. I feel bad that we dragged our feet on this, but at last, here we are. Please give him your hearty support. I know I will. ++Lar: t/c 21:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you, Lar and John, very much for the co-nominations. Its a privilege. Avruch * 21:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I plan to continue to contribute to the various noticeboards (particularly WP:AN and WP:AN/I) that I've been involved with in the past, and perhaps look into whether I could be helpful at WP:AE and the newer conflict boards. My most useful contributions to these boards have been, I think, comments and actions that reduce the heat of conflicts and intervene before the melodrama gets out of hand. Admin tools are often not required in these sorts of things, but occasionally I find myself waiting for a thread to pick up an admin contributor once its clear that administrative action is required.

2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?

A: I'm pretty happy with my contribs to Norman Finkelstein, J Michael Bailey and A Moral Reckoning (the three GA articles I've worked on). Also Daniel Goldhagen, Daniel Pipes, The Man Who Would Be Queen, Hitler's Willing Executioners, Abraham Foxman, Roger Stone and a few others. I also started the poll at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/RfB bar (originally it was on WT:RFA) that led to changing the passing percentage for bureaucrats. Aside from these, I've cleaned up a number of articles (particularly shaky BLPs), added references in many cases, and generally I hope made thoughtful comments in some difficult discussions at the various administrator noticeboards.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I've been in some minor content conflicts in the past, and I've commented or been peripherally involved in a number of conflicts at AN/I and one or two that were at arbitration. I think I've dealt with it fairly well - I have a tendency to be sarcastic, which I think I've kept reined in most of the time. My approach has generally been to not say anything that many people are saying, or anything that would increase the temperature without adding a significantly different or new point of view. In my opinion almost all conflicts on Misplaced Pages get blown out of proportion to their actual wider importance, and its key to keep that sense of perspective in mind. Misplaced Pages is a great project, and Wikimedia is a very interesting foundation that has done and can do a lot of good in the world - but, in the end, it is not my job and it is not life or death for me or anyone else. Some examples of controversial situations I've been involved in... Disputes at Norman Finkelstein, Giovanni di Stefano, Warren National University, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex, Allegations of Israeli Apartheid, The Man Who Would Be Queen and related J Michael Bailey to name a few off the top of my head. All of these disputes are pretty quiet at the moment, luckily, but they are all in perennially controversial subject areas so its not unlikely they will flare up again.

• (Note: I moved answers to 2 and 3 (with some editing) from identical questions I recently answered at WP:ER.)

A quick additional statement since the answers to 2 and 3 were previously written. Thank you, Lar and John, for your advice and assistance over the months since the beginning of admin coaching. Admin coaching is a great opportunity to get advice and perspective from experienced administrators - while I don't think admin coaching makes someone a good administrator, the input and imparted wisdom that it can provide are definitely helpful and in my case much appreciated. I approached two of the most experienced and well thought of administrators around, not sure if they would agree to work with me, and I'm glad they did.

I've been asked a number of times lately why I haven't already had an RfA, and there are I suppose a couple of answers to that. One is that Lar and John are really busy ;-) Another is that we've had concerns about my focus on the boards, and how that could potentially impact any request. My view is that the admin noticeboards draw drama with or without my participation, so if I can contribute in ways that have a positive impact thats a valuable service I can provide. I hope the community will trust me to continue to volunteer in this way and others, with the added utility of the admin tools. Thanks for taking the time to review this request and I look forward to your questions and comments.

Avruch * 20:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Additional questions from Haemo: You appear to have an interest in taking part in troublesome or contentious areas on Misplaced Pages; something which admins need to do. However, with that said, we really need to get a better sense of how you view an admin's role in this respect, and what kind of application you feel your expanded powers would have. This is not well-treated in the current stock questions, so I feel it necessary to pose several new ones:

4: Recently, there has been much ado about civility, good faith, and contentious areas. Wikipedians have generally recognized that there is a conflict between these three guidelines/policies; contentious areas (esp. civil POV-pushing) can exhaust the patience of even the most tolerant editors, resulting in incivil outbursts anda toxic editorial tone. Many editors have been given a "pass" for rampant incivility because they do necessary work — many other have objected to this, arguing that it is a double standard and unfair. Because there has been no consistent understanding of where the balance between these lies, many editors have become disillusioned for opposite reasons — some because incivility is being tolerated, others because people doing good work are being punished after losing their temper under stressful circumstances. Where do you understand this balance to be, and how would you approach a situation like the one generally described?

A: These are tough questions. On Misplaced Pages we describe them as policies that editors are required to follow; in truth civility, the assumption of good faith in others and respect for the opinions of others are responsibilities we have as people. Because we come from many cultural backgrounds, many social backgrounds and the widest variety of people it became necessary at some point to make sure everyone was aware that these responsibilities applied on Misplaced Pages just as they do in life. Unfortunately hard work doesn't exempt you from these responsibilities on Misplaced Pages just as it does not in life. We all encounter anger and stress on-wiki and off and yet others shouldn't allow us to use that to ignore our responsibilities as members of this community and participants in this project. Folks are responsible for their own actions, and provocation is not an excuse. That said - each situation is different and it would be unwise to expect our policies to be enforced inflexibly without regard to the unique circumstances of each case.

5: Canvassing, sockpuppetry, and meatpuppetry are more complicated than most editors believe. While the line may appear clear-cut, it is often difficult to discern and you, as an admin active in contentious areas, will probably encounter where it blurs most. Where do we draw the line between collaborative editing and canvassing? If I go on IRC and start griping to an audience I know will be sympathetic about my Misplaced Pages problems, am I implicitly canvassing? What if I tell a friend, who then goes and edits for my position? In the modern world of dynamic IP addresses and complicated public allocations, where is the role for assuming good faith? For example, suppose in an ArbCom case there is an editor accused of sockpuppetry because users editing from the same dynamic IP range of him have been editing and supporting his position. He maintains that they are not him, and this is merely a coincidence because (1) the range is large and (2) people in his area would generally share similar opinions. ArbCom has previously used a rule that substantial similarity is enough in this case — is it? Is he guilty of sockpuppetry, or is he a victim of circumstance? Does this open the door for joe-jobing of editors? What do you do about friends at the same school, editing from the same set of computers, helping each other out? Is that meat-puppetry, or is it collaborative editing? I'd appreciate your thoughts on this issue, but definitely do not feel obliged to answer each question posed in order (or at all) — they're mostly rhetorical, and I'm looking for a more rhetorical position.

A: Few lines are clear cut. Just the fact that our policies are editable and in flux means that no application of them is going to be totally clear cut. I think we have to expect and allow people to communicate with eachother, and we should be as careful as possible when we restrict that. That goes for both on-wiki and off-wiki communication and collaboration. In the situations you describe above it would sort of depend on the specifics of the behavior involved and other types of analysis. In the Mantanmoreland case I (unpopularly) expected a higher degree of correlation between the two usernames involved. Ultimately the analysis provided was extraordinarily rigorous, and I agree that we can't expect that in each case. Part of the problem (without rehashing the entire case) is that demonstrating disruptive behavior on the part of either username required linking the two together. So in the situation of classmates, people from the same geographic area, etc. I think we would need to carefully determine whether the behavior involved amounts to disruption if a conclusive link between the usernames can't be established. Few cases are this complex, that I've seen - many instances of sockpuppetry are relatively clear because the behavior patterns are distinctive and easily matched. Some are not and unraveling the yarn can be a multi-person job or require a decision involving many members of the community. Certainly this is an area where I would be cautious - it will be a long time before I feel comfortable making decisions in these sorts of cases without significant consultation. The good news, if you read this far, is that few problems on Misplaced Pages require immediate action and there seems always to be time to get a few reality checks from others with more experience.

6: Fair use is one of the most complicated, frustrating, and befuddling parts of Misplaced Pages for all editors; but especially new ones. When I look up at the right, I see a tagline that says "Misplaced Pages: the 💕". How do you interpret this dictum? What is the role of fair use on Misplaced Pages? Does non-free content have a role, or are we better off like de.wikipedia without non-free content? Should we consider the fact that many editors are firmly committed and invested in articles in which non-free content is an integral part — and are often justifiably upset when their content is removed, or judged no longer acceptable as guidelines change.

A: Fair use is a legal doctrine in the United States and elsewhere (under various names) that allows the reuse and republication of certain content within limits and for a specific range of purposes - including education. The goal of the Wikimedia Foundation is to accumulate and distribute the sum of human knowledge to as many people in the world as we can - free of any direct cost. To accomplish this goal we must allow the content we accumulate to be reused by anyone, for any reason - because Wikimedia is about more than just this website, or even any of the other websites it maintains. Through CDs, Wikimedia Academies, conferences, printed versions and cooperation with commercial organizations Wikimedia can reach areas of the world with limited access to the Internet. This goal prevents us from utilizing a great deal of fair use content that we might otherwise be able to. In order for our content to be truly free, we must have as little non-free content as we possibly can. In instances where free content can replace non-free content, we simply cannot continue to host the non-free content. Where non-free content is all thats available but including it is not vital to furthering our goals, we cannot host it on Misplaced Pages. In some cases we can make limited use of non-free content, but we should be as restrictive as we can reasonably be. Its a difficult and often frustrating limitation, but a sacrifice we make in order to truly accomplish what Wikimedia has set out to do.

7: You are going to be monitoring the admin boards, so what is your position on criminal threats like death, suicide, or terrorist? Don't feed them or ensure that you call the authorities every time? Somewhere in between? At what point are we letting people disrupt the encyclopedia, or overlooking a potential cry for help? Do admins even have a role in this respect?

A: I've been involved in two related policy proposals. One is WP:TOV which sought to mandate reporting requirements and other steps for all threats on Misplaced Pages. The other is WP:School threats which sought to encourage individuals to report threats against children at school to the authorities when possible, and to encourage editors to report these threats to noticeboards when they feel uncomfortable contacting authorities themselves. I opposed TOV and created the school threats proposal, because I don't think we can impose an obligation on our editors to do anything off-wiki they don't want to do. On the other hand I believe that specific and clear threats - particularly those reminiscent of the school shootings experienced across the United States - ought to be reported when found. I haven't reported any myself yet, but I'm willing to do so. The question of what is a "clear and specific threat" is a tough one that falls to personal judgment.

8: As an admin, you may become the target of real-world harassment solely because of your position here. Do you feel secure in this respect? Misplaced Pages is often used as a venue for people to bring real-world feuds or harassment into the digital realm — continuing disputes, posting personal information, "outing" editors as having noxious real-world affiliations or opinions? Is it the role of Misplaced Pages's admins to protect the anonymity of editors? Even if the editors reveal themselves, then regret it? What do you see is the role for privacy on Misplaced Pages, and how should an admin deal with harassment (either of themselves, or of another editor)?

A: Well, I am already the target of a lawsuit from a very wealthy lawyer. The only concession I've made to this is that I try not to link my identity on-wiki with my identity on mailing lists where I use my real name. I'm sure it won't be long before the connection is revealed, because I'm a fairly prolific poster. I've been quoted about Misplaced Pages in a number of national papers, first through a story in the LA Times and then through one distributed by the Associated Press. I'm proud to have been associated with Misplaced Pages and the Wikimedia Foundation. I think people should be as private as they are comfortable being - if their level of comfort changes over time, we should respect that and protect their right to maintain some control over their identity. Admins aren't police, though. We're just regular people and volunteers, so every editor needs to be aware that the ultimate responsibility for protecting them lies with them personally. Harassment should be dealt with according to policy. Those guilty of true harassment should be barred from the community permanently. We can't make the Internet safe, but we are certainly able to bar transgressors to the extent technologically possible.

Whew! Avruch * 01:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

General comments

• See Avruch's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Avruch: Avruch (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Avruch before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. --John (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Per conomination. ++Lar: t/c 22:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Been waiting for this one for a while. Avruch is awesome. Very awesome. Always has intelligent things to say. And all that nice stuff. Great guy, etc. Naerii - Talk 21:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Strong support. I would have nominated this editor myself. In fact, I tried yesterday. MrPrada (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Of course. Wizardman 21:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Support I kept waiting and waiting for him to run. MBisanz 21:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
7. Support - My involvement with this user has shown that he exhibits a large amount of Clue. Possibly more Clue than one person can safely handle, but I'm confident that this user is more than capable of the task. Gazimoff _Read 21:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
8. Strong Support. Several months ago I told him that I would definitely support an RFA submitted by him--and I've been waiting ever since. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
9. Support. Very nice, you'll make a fine admin, I'm sure. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 22:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
10. Dlohcierekim 22:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
11. Duh. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
12. YES! Al Tally 22:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
13. Absolutely without a doubt. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 22:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
14. Strong support - will make an excellent admin based on past contribs and evident high level of clue. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 22:13, June 14, 2008 (UTC)
15. - I admit I was confused when I saw this users name on the RfA list; they spoke to me with the fluidity of a well versed administrator totally competent in their function inside Misplaced Pages. I found this user, in our brief past interactions, to be polite, well-mannered and totally sane! Would make a remarkably balanced, fair and thoroughly decent sysop based on their ability to handle potentially fiery situations alone. I have no qualms about handing over the mop and am totally satisfied that they would not abuse it in any way, shape or form. Strong Support :-) Scarian 22:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
16. Support of course. —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
17. Support as I totally thought he was one already. No problems at all, has always come across as mature and sensible. ~ mazca 22:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
18. Maxim_(talk) 22:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
19. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
20. Confused What do you mean you are not already one??? Spartaz 22:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
21. Nothing wrong here. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
22. I-thought-he-already-was-one-Support. Lankiveil 22:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC).
23. Support This editor goes far above and beyond my basic criteria of trustability with a mop. ⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 22:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
24. Support; always thought he was an admin, because he acted like one. Most definitely. --Kakofonous (talk) 22:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
25. Support All his contributions and comments I've come across have been clueful. --NeilN 23:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
26. I strongly support this nomination: I've had nothing but positive interactions with Avruch, and seen only good work from him. He has great knowledge of policy, gives helpful input on the relevant noticeboards and on Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship, is civil and decent, and overall, an excellent contributor. He'll make a great administrator, and you can count me in with the people who were going to ask Avruch if he wanted to be nominated, but were beaten to it. :) Acalamari 23:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

    In addition, he's among the first 20 people I gave rollback to, and his use of that tool has been fine. Acalamari 23:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

27. Not bother to check the talkpage, contrib history or count Support, as I am going simply by the interactions I have had with the candidate. Will make an excellent sysop. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
28. I thought he was one already so much I asked him to do a (non-controversial) admin action for him last night. Sceptre 23:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
29. What Majorly said!!!..--Cometstyles 00:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
30. What Cometstyles said!!! —Animum (talk) 00:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
    I humbly apologize for my somewhat impetuous previous support; after pressing my modified “Save page” button, which looks more gray than blue due to my amazing CSS skills, I immediately thought to myself, “This requires more thought.” When I further examined Avruch’s contributions, I found that he made extensive contributions to The Man Who Would Be Queen, while ignoring such high-brow featured articles as Wonderbra, eliciting either a COI with regard to the first – or if he truly were to be queen, perhaps the second as well – or a distaste for popular undergarments.
    As for the ever-present aspect of contribution counting, I must admonish this user on his edit count, for it is truly lamentable that someone as experienced and level-headed as Avruch can overlook the important area of edit count maintenance – the first digit is divisible by the second, but this trend does not hold true for the third and fourth! You should always seek to improve the statistics by which so many newbie editors will inevitably judge you.
    Of course, one cannot overlook some way in which I have interacted with Avruch in the past. This crucial insight will give me a candid look into his past, his future, the present, his behavior, the upcoming Presidential elections, my horoscope, the weather in London, gas prices, the existence of aliens, the Jedi council, penguin mating times, and so many other things. I do believe that once we both did indeed comment on the same discussion thread, albeit not one concerning many of the aforementioned topics.
    In the end, however, the positives marginally outweigh the negatives and tip the scales in favor of supporting this candidate for adminship. Many thanks if you forced yourself to read this far. —Animum (talk) 01:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
31. Support. Calm down, people. — Athaenara ✉ 00:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
32. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 00:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
33. What Giggy said! giggy _(:O) 01:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
34. Whoa, he's not an admin? GlassCobra 01:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
35. Excellent Editor, great answers, will do well. Dusti 01:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
36. Support an excellent candidate --Stephen 01:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
37. Support. bibliomaniac15 01:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
38. Support - Assumed he was one already. VegaDark (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
39. I'm pretty sure the sky is blue, therefore support. Daniel (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
40. Support not only did I think he was an admin already, I actually thought he was a 'crat. Excellent questions to the optional ones. (Note - I re-numbered them so people could refer to them without confusion). xenocidic (talk) 01:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral