| Revision as of 13:11, 12 May 2008 editAnonymous Dissident (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users41,040 edits ironic, but it needs to be noted that only 'crats should edit this page.← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:47, 12 May 2008 edit undoThe Rambling Man (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors286,429 edits ++Next edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| If I were to act alone, I would close this RfB as unsuccessful. However, I'd like other bureaucrats to chime in. ] (]) 12:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC) | If I were to act alone, I would close this RfB as unsuccessful. However, I'd like other bureaucrats to chime in. ] (]) 12:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :Well statistically alone yeah, it's on the low side. However, a number of objections have been "per X" and X has subsequently had his or her objection(s) resolved, and moved to either Neutral (e.g. John Vandenburg) or Support (e.g. Ryan Posthlewaite). It may be that these existing "per X" opinions need to be revisited by the editors raising them? ] (]) 12:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC) | :Well statistically alone yeah, it's on the low side. However, a number of objections have been "per X" and X has subsequently had his or her objection(s) resolved, and moved to either Neutral (e.g. John Vandenburg) or Support (e.g. Ryan Posthlewaite). It may be that these existing "per X" opinions need to be revisited by the editors raising them? ] (]) 12:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :And at least three editors were neutral but leaning to support. Is there a precedent for the reconsideration of existing !voter's viewpoints for a limited time period (say 2 days) whereby positions can be reconfirmed or otherwise? ] (]) 13:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:47, 12 May 2008
- Please do not make any edits to this page unless you are a part of the bureaucrat user group.
The varying opinions in opposition are strong. The issues involve (1) Avraham's judgment, reactions, and handling of disputes, and (2) Avraham re-applying for RfB too soon after the first try. Numerically, this RfB sits about 82.3%, on the low side of the spectrum considered at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/RfB bar.
If I were to act alone, I would close this RfB as unsuccessful. However, I'd like other bureaucrats to chime in. Kingturtle (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well statistically alone yeah, it's on the low side. However, a number of objections have been "per X" and X has subsequently had his or her objection(s) resolved, and moved to either Neutral (e.g. John Vandenburg) or Support (e.g. Ryan Posthlewaite). It may be that these existing "per X" opinions need to be revisited by the editors raising them? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- And at least three editors were neutral but leaning to support. Is there a precedent for the reconsideration of existing !voter's viewpoints for a limited time period (say 2 days) whereby positions can be reconfirmed or otherwise? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)