The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for bureaucratship. Please do not modify it.

Avraham[edit]

Nomination[edit]

Final (135/6/3); Closed by Rlevse at 20:26, 08 April 2009 (UTC)

Avraham (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Approximately one year ago, I presented myself to the greater wikipedia community as a candidate for bureaucratship. I found the feedback I received those previous times to be both valuable and educational. Since that point we have had five excellent candidates successfully become bureaucrats. However, we have also lost the services of some of our more prolific bureaucrats. As such, I am still willing to volunteer my services to the project as a bureaucrat.

I had been approached by a number of people over the past six months about resubmitting my candidacy, and my original plan was to wait until a year had passed. My impetus for submitting my candidacy a month early is based on a specific need. Unfortunately, as the project has grown, the level of vandalism has increased dramatically, including vandalism that relates to the creation of inappropriate usernames—ones that defame and ones that violate privacy concerns. While there are mediawiki extensions that can hide usernames from logs, sometimes a full-out rename is called for. We have a few checkuser or oversight enabled bureaucrats, but there have been times when having more would have been helpful to protect the privacy of wikipedia editors or wikipedia biography subjects. As this need has been raised a few times recently on the functionaries mailing list, I have decided to post my candidacy earlier.

About me: I have been a member of this project since July 2005, and active since January 2006. I have over 29,000 edits, and near 31,000 if you count deleted edits. I was granted the community's trust as an administrator in July 2006. Most recently, I was appointed as a checkuser in October 2008. I am a sysop on the Commons and volunteer for the OTRS system. While the bots make clerking less of a need at the various name-change pages, I have taken the community's advice to heart and became more active at those pages. While I lack the technical ability to run a bot, I believe that I have the necessary understanding of the appropriate bot policies.

I hope that I my actions on this project and interactions with fellow contributors to this project have demonstrated the qualities and skills that the community requires of and desires in its bureaucrats and that you will allow me the privilege of contributing to the project in this fashion. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Self-nom -- Avi (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a Bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?

A. Yes, the criteria for promotion is community consensus. As stated on Wikipedia:Bureaucrats: “They are bound by policy and consensus to grant administrator or bureaucrat access only when doing so reflects the wishes of the community, usually after a successful request at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.” This is what requires us to have a human bureaucrat; it is not for the times when the consensus is obvious one way or the other, it is for the gray zone. Common practice is that over around 80% is clear, and under around 70% is clear, but that zone in-between is where the community relies on the judgment of its bureaucrats to best determine what its consensus is.

2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?

A. My first move would be to to discuss it with fellow bureaucrats, on an open page, where the bureaucratic consensus as to the community consensus can be followed and understood by all, as was done for my own unsuccessful second attempt. As there is bound to be those that will argue with whatever decision is reached in this kind of situation, having an open process and discussion makes the final decision more understandable which leads to much more acceptance. In the event I would be the only bureaucrat available to make this decision, I would do so with a detailed explanation of my thought process and which policies and guidelines were used to best capture the community's consensus, for the same reasons.

3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?

A. I have been an administrator on the English wikipedia for here for over 34 months. I have been considered worthy of that trust on the Commons as well. I have been trusted enough to be approached to mentor cases of editors as their last resort before community sanctions, and have been considered fair enough to be approached as such about editors whose issues deal with among our most difficult ones, such as the Palestinan-Israeli issues. I have been considered trustworthy, fair, and discrete enough to be allowed to volunteer on the m:OTRS list, where the most difficult and contentious issues that affect all Wikimedia projects, and are bound by the policies and guidelines of all of our projects, not just Wikipedia, are dealt with. Also, I have been considered honest, fair, and knowledgeable to be allowed to fight recidivist vandalism and sockpuppetry using the checkuser tool. I have done my best to both follow, as well as uphold, wikipedia policies and guidelines—both those that deal with article content as well as those that deal with inter-editor communications.

Questions 4-7[edit]

Optional questions from Jake Wartenberg adapted stolen from NuclearWarfare [1]

4. How would you close these RfA/Bs? If you opine for a crat chat, please express what you would have said there as the final determination of the outcome.

A.

• Carnildo 3 61%:

  Unsuccessful.

• ^demon 3 63%:

  I would have brought this one to chat. There are mitigating circumstances as demon was an admin prior, but in lieu of anything else, this one would likely remain as no consensus/unsuccessful.

• Krimpet 67%:

  Unsuccessful

• Danny 68%:

  As I opined (Support #127) I could not actually have closed that one. Had I not supported, I would have brought this one to chat. There are mitigating circumstances in this one due to Danny's previous position as an employee of the foundation that would have likely made him have more people who would be happy to see him fail than the standard editor (OFFICE blocks, etc.) and these need to be factored in.

• Ryulong 3 69%:

  Another chat, but outside anything else, this too would default to unsuccessful due to lack of consensus.

• Gracenotes 74%:

  As I opined (Oppose #25) I could not actually have closed that one. Had I not opposed, this would be another example of where the bureaucratic chat is key, as this turned more into a referendum on attack sites than a discussion about the candidate.

• DHMO 3 (at this point in time) 79%:

  As I opined (Support #280) I could not actually have closed that one. Had I not supported, I would likely have closed as pass at that time. Although, I should add that a chat would be helpful here too due to the number of opposes. (See question 12)

  Further question. Does oppose #74 have any particular relevance to your hypothetical closure? seresin ( ¡? )  06:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you asking me as an editor or as a bureaucrat? Asking me as an editor, which includes asking for opinions about the trustworthiness or non-trustworthiness of the people involved is irrelevant. What should have occurred, in my opinion, was for the accusatory information to be relayed to ArbCom who could follow up on it and either corroborate or refute it. Which may even have been done for all we know. -- Avi (talk) 06:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  If a release of private information occurred, the proper sanctions need to be levied. However, as a bureaucrat, one needs to take into account the hundreds of people who knew of the allegation and supported anyway. The bureaucrat's role is not to input his or her own opinions into the discussion but judge what the community feels. -- Avi (talk) 06:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Hundreds of people who knew of the allegation and supported anyway is more than a mite inaccurate. In the ten hours between when the oppose was made and the RfA was withdrawn, four people supported and at least seven opposed citing east's oppose. Your response seems to indicate that you believe ten hours is enough time for most who commented to be apprised of the developments and re-assess their votes, and that in this case you have chosen to believe that they all supported despite east's oppose. Is this correct? seresin ( ¡? )  07:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The question as asked was specific to that particular diff of the discussion "(at this point in time)". If you would like to ask another question, by all means, go ahead. As an aside, please note my answer to question 6 below. -- Avi (talk) 07:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Here, Seresin, I'll make it easier for you to decide:

  1. At that point in time, a chat is the best option, in which the points you raise could be discussed by the bureaucrats. As I have said many times in my years here, I am always open to being swayed by suitably convincing logical arguments.
  2. Were I the only bureaucrat available at the time of that diff, I would lean to close as pass (and I agree it is close).
  3. In the time AFTER the diff brought above, if the candidacy was discussion have not been removed, and remained open longer, and the proportion of opposes have risen, then that would have likely indicated a lack of consensus.
  4. As mentioned below, should the natural time of expiry have been accompanied by a distinct shift, the idea of extending the time should be raised in the chat.

  Note, that your question is not a logical extension of the original question, although it is related. -- Avi (talk) 07:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I made no reference to time after the diff provided above; all the opposes I cited were present at the time you were asked to hypothetically close it. And of course it's a logical extension: I asked what bearing a specific oppose had on your closure, you said that it had little, because hundreds of people supported in spite of it, I asked if you thought supports remaining in the support column after ten hours indicates they have all read the allegation and decided it was not enough to oppose over (which I note you still have not answered). If you would like, I can re-ask this question as a totally separate one, so that you will have no confusion as to its logical source. seresin ( ¡? )  08:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  My apologies for not being clear. The original question by Jake Wartenberg made that reference to time, which is how I answered. You asked a question about my response to Jake, wich still had the time element. The numbered list above takes that into account specifically. May I suggest you ask a new question, hypothetical or otherwise, and specifically spell out what you are trying to uncover, so that there will be no confusion? Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Riana's RfB 86%:

  As I opined (Support #91) I could not actually have closed that one. Had I not supported, I would likely have closed as pass. Although, I should add that a chat would be helpful here too due to the number of opposes.

5. One of of the bureaucrats elected in 2004 has yet to use any of the crat tools and others have used them very rarely. Do you think the bureaucrat position should have a minimum level of activity?

A. I think that bureaucrats should use the tools that they are given. I understand peoples lives change at times, and even in shorter time frames, peoples work and family lives may place greater and lesser demands on them. If the bureaucrat makes a good faith effort to use the trust the community has given him, fine. Someone who has not used the tools in 4 years should be approached as to why. A set minimum, however, can be counter-productive. I'd rather see gentle pressure placed on those not using the tools to start helping out. The community's view of bureaucrats has changed a lot since some of the earliest ones were appointed. -- Avi (talk) 02:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6. Of the 3,500+ prior RFAs, only eight have ever had a bureaucrat extend the endtime; of over 100 prior RFBs, only two have ever had a bureaucrat extend the endtime. Under what circumstances and by what process would you extend an RFA in general?

A. I have no set process or algorithm; each editor and discussion is unique. In general, I believe that discussions should not be extended; a week is usually sufficient time. The only situation I can think of as of now that would lend itself to having a discussion extended is if there a noticeable influx of comments near the end of the discussion. As the purpose of these discussions are to help the community reach a consensus, if a major shift is seen near the end time of a discussion, I would consult with the other bureaucrats as to whether or not some extra time would help the community reach a clear(er) consensus. -- Avi (talk) 02:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7. Francs2000, Optim, Eloquence, Danny, Ugen64, and WJBscribe were decratted at their own requests between 2004 and 2008. Of them all, the only controversial decrattings could be considered Ugen64 who resigned after a dispute over the promotion % for RFBs and Francs2000 who resigned after a dispute over tallying RFA results. Danny's remains the unusual case of him resigning both crat and sysop rights and later being re-RFA'd, all in connection with his ceasing employment at the Wikimedia Foundation. Which of these users would you re-crat if they asked at WP:BN and which would you require to re-run RfB?

A.

• Francs2000:
• Optim:
• Eloquence:
• Ugen64:
• Danny:
• WJBscribe:

I think that all would have to stand for reconfirmation except for WJB as he was confirmed relatively recently and resigned in good standing. -- Avi (talk) 02:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions 8-10[edit]

Optional question from Letsdrinktea

8. Is 'JewsDidWTC' a disruptive username?

A: Yes, just as "MuslimsDidWTC" or "ChristiansDidWTC" would be. -- Avi (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from me...

9. How would you have closed this and what are your thoughts both then and now regarding it?---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: I believe that the bureaucrats involved handled it very sensibly. This was right after, almost during, the discussions about lowering the RfB bar and Riana's RfB as well, and my case was not a compelling one for the bar to be dropped all the way to 82/83. While understandably personally disappointed at the time, I think they made the best decision under the circumstances, taking the time to discuss it. -- Avi (talk) 03:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Keepscases

10. For each username listed below, please indicate whether it is acceptable or not acceptable on Wikipedia, with an explanation if you wish.

A: Answers below names.

• Dumb Democrat

  I would clarify if the user meant it disparagingly, or if they meant it as a humorous representation of themselves ("This user is a Dumb Democrat"). As can be seen from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names#FeygeleGoy, self-descriptive names like User:FeygeleGoy and User:Queer Scout have been judged acceptable. The user's editing pattern would shed light on this as well.

• ABCDEFG

  Acceptable. See WP:CHUU#Mr Senseless → 2

• UsinTheToilet

• I would approach this first by asking for a voluntary rename, and if that doesn't work, taking it to WP:RFCN. I do not think it is blatantly disruptive/offensive, but it is getting close.

• End Racism!

  While I agree wholeheartedly with the principle, this one already indicates a propensity to engage in WP:SOAPboxing, and can be considered disruptive.

• GodSucks

  This username also is unacceptable as it is offensive to a large group of people and will make harmonious editing difficult to impossible.

• Phallus

  This would fall under offensive/disruptive. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Block/Phallus.

• Bob Hitler

  This would fall under offensive/disruptive.

• Jeffffffrey

  Depends. Is this a sock of a known vandal, or is this someone else? The former is blocked on site. A real, contributing editor who wants that name should have no problem using it.

• Mr. Abortion

  This would fall under offensive/disruptive.

-- Avi (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions 11+[edit]

Optional questions from User:Hipocrite

11. Apologies for the upcoming Kobayashi Maru multipart question, but I feel it is relevant, timely and important.

No problems. May I reprogram the computer to attack itself? Answers are interspersed with the questions in italics. -- Avi (talk) 06:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are a checkuser. Will you checkuser all candidates before promoting them? No Why or why not? No need. If not, if a candidate for adminship somehow reminded you of a previous, unrelated checkuser result, would it be appropriate to checkuser the candidate? Perhaps Why or why not? It depends on whom the person reminded me of. If it is one of our recidivist sockpuppeteers (some of whom are outright dangerous) I would first check the log and see IF the candidate OR the target was checked and by whom, and inform THAT checkuser of my concerns. If there is none, I may ask another uninvolved checkuser for their opinion. If not, if a candidate was directly impeached by a previous checkuser result, but this was not disclosed to the public, how would you deal with this? Inform ArbCom.

1. If you were to run a checkuser, and the results of your checkuser were suspicious in some way, how would you address this? Depends on the some way. If slightly suspicious, I may ask another experienced checkuser to confirm/refute the conclusions. If very suspicious, I would inform ArbCom. If the results of your checkuser indicated that a user well beyond the threshold of "pass" was fundamentally unsuitable as an administrator, in your judgement, what would you do? I would inform ArbCom.

2. If you were not to run a checkuser on any given user, how do you justify promoting administrators who may very well significantly damage the encyclopedia? (Malicious and clueful administrators can cause substantial non-obvious damage if they chose to.) How does any non-CU bureaucrat close an RfA as pass according to that statement? We rely on good faith and the collective wisdom and perception of the community, who, as a whole, have been pretty d@rn good about picking their admins. Yes, an Archtransit can slip through, but in the main the admin corps have not been the issue. Wikipedia as it is currently formulated has a very strong culture of protecting privacy; only those people privy to privileged information have to identify to the foundation. Calling for a CU for every RfA/B/X runs very much counter to the current culture. The combined efforts of all editors, admins, CUs, and ArbCom have, so far, worked well together protecting the project from those who try to harm it. -- Avi (talk) 06:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies again, for the multipart and ambiguous question. Thank you for taking your time to answer it. Good luck. Hipocrite (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from seresin

12.You are a bureaucrat. There is an RfA ready to be closed at this point in time. You look it over and make a decision as to how to address it (you stated above that you "likely would have closed as pass"). You stated above that oppose #74 has no special relevance to your decision, since the supporters all knew of the allegation and supported despite it. Do you think it is appropriate to close an RfA as successful with such an allegation (which was true, mind) sitting unresolved on the table? Do you, also, believe that in those ten hours, all the supports learned of the allegation and decided to support anyway?

A:This is a very difficult case. In a perfect world, the bureaucrats would have discussed this, and the points that you and others raise would be tossed back and forth, and likely the decision would have been to close as no consensus, as what actually happened. At the time mentioned, the allegation was still that, an allegation. The fact that it was later proved true would have required a prophetic revelation at the time, and alas, I am no prophet, just a human being whose judgment can and will be called into question. At that time, DHMO had not had the opportunity to respond, and allegations of that nature should not be assumed as fact unless proven (as this was, but hindsight is not foresight). As for the time element, we have a set time for rfA/B's - 1 week. Further, involved people have the RfB page in which they are interested watchlisted (just look at the history here). Unless someone is on vacation, or has a religious reason as to why they cannot access the page, ten hours, while not an eternity, is a long amount of time internet-wise, and a large proportion of people may be assumed to have seen it. This is especially true with "shocking" information that will spread via talkpage, IRC, and, as much as we don't like it vis-a-vis canvassing, external e-mail. The fact that a number of people switched to oppose is very relevant, but there is the matter of a self-selecting group as well. There is no record for those who decided to stay supporting, unless they actually posted to that effect.

However, I will state the following. I believe I erred in not answering the questions with the same level of investigation that I would have given had this been real. If you check the edit summary there is reference to a "partial answer," (the reason for which is irrelevant but I can let you know offline later if you want). After thinking this over, including analyzing the responses of the 4 hours post East, the 4 hours after that, and the remaining time until Keeper's edit, I think that the shift in thought, combined with the fact that DHMO still had not responses, would have made this one of those very rare exceptions where the time should have been extended. I do not think a no-consensus close there would have been appropriate, for if DHMO came back with a good reason, and people accepted that, the consensus would have been to pass. DHMO's actual response (withdrawal) would support the unsuccessful close. If the east information was posted on day one, there is a strong argument for a consensus to pass. It is the timing and the lack of response which leads me to think that an extension to clarify whether or not the previous apparent consensus would change based on the recent shock evidence would be appropriate, and this would likely be raised in bureaucratic chat which is the default in these cases, in my opinion. A close as no consensus, in my opinion, would be going against the apparent consensus to pass, IF the recent shock evidence was answered appropriately. There have been times where such accusations were shown to be misunderstandings or misrepresentations, and at the time at which you are asking there was no evidence; only one respected contributor's word against another respected contributor's (implied) word.

I'm not infallible, and nor do I claim to be. You have to decide whether or not my years and decisions here in wikipedia render me trustworthy, overall, to handle these situations or not. I appreciate your taking the time to investigate. -- Avi (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Jennavecia

13. In question 10, you were asked if the username Bob Hitler was acceptable. You deemed it disruptive. Considering the surname Hitler is still found across the world today, albeit in small numbers (50 listed in the United States according to this site), do you believe it is inappropriate for users to register with their real name if that name carries negative connotations? Would you also disallow Sayid Hussein, Jose Stalin, or John Satan?

A: Before I answered regarding "Bob Hitler", I ran a check on google and there was really no reference to a real name, which is why I would view it as disruptive. If the person claims that this is a real name, I would try and convince them to pick another name, explaining that such a name would be offensive to many, many people here. If they are choosing "Bob" instead of Robert, can't they pick "BobH"? The next step would be a discussion at WP:RFCN. The same would apply to "Jose Stalin". "John Satan" may be Czech (note the URL, the people at Yahoo have a sense of humor :) ). "Hussein" is so ubiquitous a last name that there should be no issues with it at all. -- Avi (talk) 03:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

• Links for Avraham: Avraham (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)

Just to clarify, and without prejudice to your suitability as bureaucrat (an area of the project I do not get involved in), Avi, bureaucrats should not be renaming sensitive accounts. It compounds the problem, since you'll still need an oversighter to clean the rename logs, and probably the move, protection, or deletion logs for the userspace, whereas an oversighter can do all of this with a single click from the block interface. Dominic·t 02:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there have been specific instances where post-revision hiding the usernames needed changing as well. You have access to the mailing list, you know which case(s) came up very recently 8-). There are only a handful of bureaucrats who also have access to the general functionaries mailing list (former/current arbs, OS, and CU) and there is a need for more. There also is a need for more bureaucrats in general, and Kingturtle mentioned on WT:RFA. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 03:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From my reading of the mailing list, all of the calls for bureaucrats seem to be based on mixing up the ability to hide revisions individually with the ability to suppress an account entirely. What exactly is it that you think a bureaucrat can accomplish that isn't done better by actually using hideuser? I don't understand why a bureaucrat would ever need to be part of the process at all now, since RevisionDelete. Dominic·t 03:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Due to privacy concerns, I will answer you via e-mail. -- Avi (talk) 03:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

Discussion[edit]

• Editing and admin stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

1. Gave my reasoning last time, and nothing's changed since. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Same as Deacon. Avruch ^T 23:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support - We need more bureaucrats, and Avraham seems like an excellent choice. I see no reason to deny him bureaucratship. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support. Absolutely. Synergy 23:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support For sure. We need more 'crats- and Avraham will make a great one. PerfectProposal 23:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support Best of luck in your new role. ^_^ Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 00:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support Sure! Jake Wartenberg :  Chat  00:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support clear net positive - there is a need at the moment definitely. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support. Avi is bright, experienced and hard working. He will make a good 'crat. Majoreditor (talk) 00:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support - Per my rationale last time around. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support - per Juliancolton and Majoreditor. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support Great thinker, very trusted. — JoJo • Talk • 01:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support Has been around since July 2005 and after reviewing contributions,Protects and Blocks clearly find a outstanding user and feel the project will only gain with the user becoming a crat.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support Highly respect him, sound judgment and integrity, which is what we want in a crat. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support No hesitation here, deserving editor will fill a need.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support, more bcrats with checkuser are sorely needed. Wizardman :  Chat  02:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Daniel (talk) 02:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support MBisanz ^talk 02:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support, although with the same minor reservations as before. Joe 03:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Strongly support — Avraham arguably should have been a 'crat long ago; he is sane, sensible, and highly competent, as evidenced by his outstanding administrator and checkuser work. I'm glad to give my strongest endorsement to Avi for bureaucratship. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support the 'crats are few. DougsTech (talk) 05:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, so now this is an automatic Support from DougsTech because there aren't enough? Valley2city^‽ 05:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you a bot? DougsTech (talk) 06:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You're the one posting the same thing over and over. Majorly talk 13:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That makes me a bot, right? DougsTech (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

22. Support Trustworthy. rootology (C)(T) 05:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support I thought you were a 'crat, already. Well, anyway, he does great things on here, and if things go as they are now, it looks like the evening of April 8th you will have something extra to celebrate besides freedom from slavery. Valley2city^‽ 05:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support -per every other support here. Couldn't say it better myself. Until It Sleeps 05:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. Without question. Despite my previous opposition, my interactions with Avi over the last few months leave me without reservation when I support this candidacy. Has the experience and the aptitude – and the judgement. Will make a fantastic addition to the team. Best of luck! —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. Per Casliber and any number of other editors. Glad I was paying more attention this time around. Risker (talk) 07:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support. I trust Avraham's judgment and he has shown himself to be a constructive and helpful communicator and contributor over the last few years. I feel he would make an excellent bureaucrat. Rje (talk) 07:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support. I reluctantly abstained from Avi's RfB#2, as I thought it was premature. A pleasure to support now, as the reasons for my earlier support still apply. NSH001 (talk) 08:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support, as last time. No misgivings at all. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 10:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support - trustworthy admin. PhilKnight (talk) 13:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. Oppose - Too many bureaucrats currently. FlyingToaster 13:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There aren't enough 'crats, actually. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, dress me up and call me Sally. FlyingToaster 16:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

32. Support. I continue my support. :) I believe Avi is diligent, intelligent and motivated and will use any tools he is granted wisely and where they are needed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support I trust him. IronDuke 13:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support And Giggy should have passed. No concerns as far as I can see. Majorly talk 13:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support - Screw my neutral, there's no need to abstain over something like that. The real question here is whether Avi would make a good 'crat, and I see nothing to indicate not. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 14:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support - Fine admin, need more 'crats with checkuser. Paxse (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
37. Anonymous Dissident says it best. This candidate (while still overusing smileys :) ) has become one of the people I most trust to do the right thing here... my previous opposition has become a strong support. Avi's many helpful and sage comments on the functionaries mailing list show that he is definitely ready for this role and then some, and his hard work shows he has the time to devote to do a great job. Also, we need crats with checkuser. Absolutely yes. ++Lar: t/c 15:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
38. Avi's comments have always seemed fair and clueful, all over the wiki. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support no reason to oppose. GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 16:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support Per the 39 above.--Res2216firestar 16:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support Keepscases (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support Absolutely. Thingg^⊕⊗ 17:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support I'll trust his as a 'crat. hmwithτ 18:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support This looks like an easy one. Fair and calm, excellent attributes in a bureaucrat. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 18:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support Fine worker, moderate views, should work out just fine. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support--Giants27 ^T/C 19:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support - would be a good bureaucrat. DVD 19:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support - Great editor and admin, answers to questions are good. Unquestionably has the temperament and perception to be a good crat. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support - no reservations, excellent editor, soon-to-be great bureaucrat. John Carter (talk) 19:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support, same as the last two. Hard to believe it's already been a year since the last one... GlassCobra 20:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support without any reservation. shirulashem (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support. The candidate is fully qualified for bureaucrat status under the traditional criteria, and his answers to the questions are satisfactory. In addition, I can attest that the rationale for selecting one or more checkuser- or oversight-enabled bureaucrats to deal with certain types of vandalism-related emergencies, as set forth in the self-nomination statement, is compelling. I have reviewed the opposer's rationale and find it wholly unpersuasive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support - No concerns with his record, we need more bureaucrats, the bureaucrat tools are not very dangerous, and having a checkuser-enabled bureaucrat would be helpful. EdJohnston (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
54. Repeat Support Agathoclea (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support Of course. -download | sign! 22:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support faithless (^speak) 22:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support. Avi is a well-respected, sensible and competent administrator and checkuser. He is clearly trustworthy and is fully aware of the responsibilities and functions that go along with becoming a bureaucrat - I have no concerns about his suitability at all. ~ mazca ^t|c 22:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
58. Strong support I have full faith in Avraham. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
59. 'Support'ДСФАРГЕГ --ДСФАРГЕГ (talk) 22:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)— ДСФАРГЕГ (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
60. Support Interaction with this user at MedCab makes me believe that he is competent and civil. Jd027 (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support. Avi has shown bureaucratly patience by waiting a year and bureaucratly sensitivity to community needs by lopping a month off that year. Supporting per my support last time and per His Adminship Faithlessthewonderboy's rationale.^[2] ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Also based on the support by Moonriddengirl, Lar and Newyorkbrad, users whose opinions I particularly value; especially Lar's rationale. 13:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC). I, too, was impressed by Avi's answer to Q12.[reply]
62. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 01:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
63. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 01:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support - I thought I did this earlier. Xclamation point 02:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
65. I supported Avraham's last two RfBs, and I support this one too. Acalamari 02:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support - per, well, everything above. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support per above - Fastily (talk) 04:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support and I am baffled how anyone could oppose based on a proposed closure of the DHMO RfA, which had strong arguments on both sides for how it should be closed. I personally would have asked for an extension rather than close it at that point in time, but I would not argue with anyone who would choose to promote. Avraham's other qualifications are good enough for me. He's jumped through enough hoops for this and I am anxious to see how he would perform as a bureaucrat. Sincerely, Enigma^msg 05:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support Looks fine, and answered the questions well, showing the considerations necessary, even if the outcomes may have been different to mine. --GedUK  10:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support I trust this user not to violate the communities trust. Hipocrite (talk) 13:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
71. I see no problems. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support I trust him and find him to be someone you can deal with. Yossiea ^(talk) 17:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support. Experienced, sensible, and a good understanding of policies and guidelines. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
74. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support I have no reason not to. America69 (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support Dedicated and trustworthy. Good answers to questions. Steven Walling (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
77. Would you expect otherwise? A pleasure to support. Pedro :  Chat  20:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support A pleasure to see a desire to seek consensus on borderline cases. — Lomn 20:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support I am impressed by the thoughtful way Avi answered the "historical" RfA/B questions - I may have not agreed with each of the responses, but 'Crats have passed many Requests where there was considerable community support which later turns out was for a poor candidate. 'Crats will make mistakes in promoting just as the community will in !voting, but as long as judgment is exercised it cannot be a reason to oppose. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support lar. Prodego ^talk 21:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support --Stephen 01:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support -Dureo (talk) 01:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support - Knowledge of policies, and trustworthy. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support He seems to know what he's doing. Very helpful too, and understands policies well. Antivenin 09:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support - good administrator and seems to understand the RfA/RfB process as well as any admin. Good answers to questions. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
86. I was impressed by DHMO's answer to question 12, and I believe he is both trustworthy and intelligent enough for the role. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 12:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You might want to clarify. :P Enigma^msg 09:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

87. Support Erik9 (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support I see no good reasons to oppose this candidate. FunPika 16:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support; I have confidence in Avi's judgement. AGK 17:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
90. I don't know what kind of support this is. Does it matter? Avraham has expanded on his response about DHMO's RfA. I think he understands the concerns about it. I doubt he would make any mistakes in the future about it. Although I wish he would say more about canvassing and how that negatively impacts RfA (especially with such a high turnout that most likely stemmed from that), he showed that he is at least concerned by the many nuanced issues. But really, I am supporting mostly because of Lar. I have a strong faith in his judgment and if he is willing to trust someone then that goes a long way. It is not like my support will really matter, but my oppose probably didn't matter either. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support as I am convinced that having Avi as a bureaucrat w/ CU will be a benefit to the project. Fraud ^{talk to me} 21:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
92. - filelakeshoe 23:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support He has the right skills for the job, I have great confidence in his judgment.--Shmaltz (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
94. Support for reasons well outlined by AD and Lar. لennavecia 03:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support. No major concerns. Candidate has my full trust. — Σxplicit 07:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support. Dwr12 (talk) 07:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
97. Support - This is the third time now I have supported you at RfB. Trusted and well committed, you should make a great bureaucrat. Camaron | Chris (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
98. Support Why not. ∗ \ / (⁂) 13:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
99. Support.--Anatoliy (Talk) 14:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
100. Clearly unplanned WP:100 support :D  iMatthew :  Chat  15:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
101. Yup; everything looks good here; I have every confidence in his judgement. Antandrus (talk) 15:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
102. Avi has a good head on him - he'll do well. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
103. I can't believe I didn't already vote. Oh well, here you have it.  GARDEN  21:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
104. Support; no issues and there can only good coming from more active holders of the 'crat flag. — Coren ^(talk) 00:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
105. Support You bet! LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 ^review! 00:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
106. Support. Excellent candidate. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
107. Support. Do I need to state a reason? Per everyone above. Jehochman ^Talk 03:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
108. Support A candidate who has earned the respect of many experienced editors...Modernist (talk) 04:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
109. Support a thoughtful Wikipedian with unusually good judgement. Jakew (talk) 08:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
110. Support Good candidate, no problems —LetsdrinkTea 15:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
111. support There may be a reason for some general concerns about the concentration of rights, but in this case at least it is justified. DGG (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
112. Support. I've been hearing only good things about Avraham. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 21:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
113. Support per all the above Xavexgoem (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
114. Yeah, without a doubt. Steve Crossin ^Talk/₂₄ 23:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
115. Support Will make an excellent bureaucrat. gidonb (talk) 07:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
116. Support Looks good to me. Like the answers. Good Luck! Nathan Laing (talk) 10:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
117. Secret ^account 12:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
118. Support. No brainer. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
119. Support Good judgment. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
120. Support. About time. Khoikhoi 19:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
121. Support Good Candidate --Mardetanha ^talk 20:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
122. Support, excellent candidate, good answers to the questions, knowledgable and trustworthy. Will make a fine bureaucrat. Dreadstar † 21:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
123. Support. I think Avi will make a good bureaucrat. I confess the answer to Q4 re:DHMO gave me pause but I am reassured by the answer to Q12. I recommend that Avi give some further thought to the issue of evidence presented late in community discussions and the need to ensure that consensus is still present before "positive action" (i.e. granting extra rights) is taken, as I still think the answer leans the wrong way - it is not for bureaucrats to assess the validity or significance of matters that can be left to the community to consider. That said, there is more than one way to skin a cat and I certainly do not intend to oppose those who might make decisions I would not. Avi has the necessary experience, the necessary integrity and knows when to listen to advice (whether he ultimately chooses to follow it or not). He will do fine IMO... WJBscribe (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
124. Support, moved from oppose. Q12 was enough to sway me, as was Will's support just above. --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 00:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
125. Support - Have observed Avi around and have a favorable impression. Some of the questions are hard (no surprise) and there aren't necessarily right and wrong answers in every case. On balance, I like what I have seen in the past and what I see in the answers above, even if not every answer is perfect. A definite plus.  Frank  |  talk  00:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
126. 'support Slight concerns over the Giggy matter but nothing major. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
127. Support We need crats with checkuser and he is a good choice for the work. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
128. Support Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 02:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
129. Support Certainly. Checkuser crat seems a good idea to me, and i see no alarms
130. Strong support One of our best admins. Has my complete confidence. — Aitias // discussion 09:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
131.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
132. Support Good admin job -Altruism^{T a l k - Contribs.} 12:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
133. Support fully meets my standards at User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RfB_standards. Bearian (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
134. Support. Avi is an excellent candidate for the role. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
135. Support per answers and the fact that this is one of the users that I would most trust with 'crat buttons. youngamerican (wtf?) 19:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

Sorry, but yeah The DHMO should not be passed in any regards and the lack of a strong enough rational in both your original vote and here is enough for me not to trust your closing judgment. Sorry. Letting one really bad pass to go through is too risky. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to make sure we're clear; the question was whether to pass DMHO/Giggy when he was at 79%, when there were a few concerns about article reviewing and drama. I'm not challenging your oppose, of course, and even if it's a protest vote, it's legitimate, but I want to make sure we're all talking about the same thing, not about what happened later in that RFA. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

79% is an imaginary number. There was major off site canvassing. At least 100 of the supports were uncredible. The Crats at the time knew it. It states as much at the top of the RfA. It should have been immediately closed as not passed and restarted later. If it happened again, he should have been community banned from RfA in general. There were many message board forums that were calling random people out of the woodwork to vote in support of him. That goes against most of our core beliefs here. To support that RfA as passing is to attack what keeps Wikipedia strong. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Immediately closing like that is not the way that RfA works. Only for SNOW and NOTNOW closures does it last less than a week. And what would community banning him do to help? You realize Giggly wasn't the source of more, if not all canvassing? Xclamation point 16:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw enough to convince me that Giggy was not ignorant of it going on nor completely uninvolved. Canvassing in such a massive level during an RfA is a complete violation of RfA, Consensus, and the rest. It would have to be closed just like Aitias's attempt to desysop a user via RfA. It is a complete breach of protocol and many people should be blocked in response. It is a major disruption to not only the individual process but to the sanctity of the encyclopedia as a whole. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indenting and switching to support. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Switched to Neutral.Oppose - I don't want to bring out the worst in me but anybody who gives a look at my talk page can see Avis constant harassment and intimidation: [3] - [4] - [5] - [6] - [7] - [8] - [9] - [10] -[11]- [12] - [13] - [14]. He has opened 3 separate ANI cases [15] - [16] crying to his sysop friends to block me only once did he susceed[17] for 24 hours and i came back committed to forgive but not to entrust him with any power. [I cannot see how a free and open community should entrust him with any power.] His abuse of powewr is troubling: 1. He has declared opnely that he may block a user with wihich he is in edit war. 2. He has deleted all history of a user who was - ["his" - in alot of debates he and Avi were on the same page and that user also tried to block me[18].) sock-puppet. And i warned him at the time only to ignore me [19]. I am confident he has hurt many more who left and r gone I speak for them: Please don't let this power hungry user get rid of users like me; I may be to most of u a problematic user, and thus a bad advocate for the silent victims, but silence isn't an option. Thanks--YY (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Constant harassment" is a rather strong claim; could you please provide some evidence? Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has cited their talk page as evidence. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 21:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but I see no harassment on Yidisheryid's talk page, and I was wondering if there's an archive or a diff I'm unaware of. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong, but I think he (or she) is referring to the comments by Avi on the talk page. Whether they constitute harassment is, of course, open to interpretation. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 21:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on that talk page are utterly baffling. Nowhere in the section did he attack you, and as for the blocks, I highly doubt that they were unjustified. Opposing over a personal vendetta you have against him is inappropriate. —Dark ^talk 06:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to Dark: I dont know this Avi persanal and i do not beleave his itimidation and haresments should be called "atacks" - all i say this user isnt at all the man i would like to see with any higer power then others. Please do not make it into a persnal vandate. Thanks--YY (talk) 13:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucratship, akin to adminship, is not a power in any way, shape, or form. It simply allows access to a few extra features. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to Juliancolton: If Avi has used certen tools that others dont have at all and cannot use it, which I demonstrated he did, - It is indeed a higher power--YY (talk) 13:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've made less than 25 edits over the past 4+ months and all of them were on this RfB, save for one talk page edit about this RfB. Disappointing and troubling. Enigma^msg 16:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to Engimaman: Thanks so much for feeling for me i was indeed intimidated and haresed by Avi but it did not hurt so much to stop contribiuting, rest asured i am still active in wikipedia in so much more ways and in so much difrent ways if u need the evidence i am more glad to show it to u in private email. thanks again--YY (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At no point has Enigma implied that he thinks that you were 'intimidated and harassed', so please don't say that he did. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 16:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to Neurolysis: At no point did imply anyhting in other users i thanked him/she for being troubled. and i consoled her/him not to be troubled.--YY (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this was a misunderstanding due to a lack of punctuation in your reply to Enigma, I read it as "Thanks so much for feeling for me i was indeed intimidated and haresed by Avi | but it did not hurt so much to stop contribiuting", now I think it was intended to be "Thanks so much for feeling for me | i was indeed intimidated and haresed by Avi but it did not hurt so much to stop contribiuting". Sorry. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 17:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thanks for understanding, after all i have stoped intermidiately to edit but in the long run i was stronger than Avi, this is precisely why i beleave not all new users r as strong as me and i do indeed know that they were gone thanks to Avi. I may provide email exchanges prooving this BTW i have never ever recieved from Avi a reply to my constent emails asking him and beging him to talk to me - he went ahead and used it to shame me!--YY (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose: Riana's RFB would be successful while Krimpet's RFA would not be? There's a direct contradiction there that makes me incredibly uncomfortable. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Can you please explain a bit further why you believe there is a contradiction between the RfA and the RfB? It seems fairly reasonable to me, though I might be missing something. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 03:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm not seeing the issue here either. More generally, truly borderline RfA's or RfB's come along about four or five times a year; I'm not sure that an isolated disagreement about how one might have closed one or another of them is the best means of evaluating a candidate for 'cratship, particularly one who has explained that much of his focus as a bureaucrat may lie elsewhere. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Apologies, I thought that this vote was obvious, but clearly I was mistaken.

   There are some bureaucrats who base promotions purely on numbers; that is, if it falls between X and Y, the candidate is promoted, if not, the candidate is not promoted. There are others who are willing to weigh each request and will occasionally bend the guidelines a bit in order for a candidate to pass who would otherwise normally fail. In this case, Avi indicates that he's trying to a member of both groups, something that doesn't sit well with me because it's unfair to the candidates. If you want to be a bureaucrat who uses strict percentages, that's an acceptable position to take. If you want a bureaucrat who doesn't, there are equally-valid arguments for doing so. But what we have here is a person who's trying to take a middle ground that I don't believe exists.

   While it's very true that requests like these are the exception and not the rule, how a bureaucrat would have closed them does give quite a bit of insight into their views more generally.

   As for the points brought up above regarding renaming and user names, I find all of that discussion to be entirely silly. There's simply no reason admins do not have the renameuser right (other than tradition). That's something that should certainly be addressed, but it is not a reason to make more bureaucrats.

   --MZMcBride (talk) 04:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   (This can be moved to the talkpage if it is considered digressive.)

   I don't think you have nearly enough information to conclude that the contradiction you are positing exists. Avraham has said that he would likely have closed an RfA at 67% as unsuccessful, but an RfB at 86% as successful. You infer that he is trying to have it both ways in the perennial debate about whether RfX closes should be purely numerical, or discretionary. But there are several alternative explanations that are equally likely (and therefore to be preferred in the first instance, per WP:AGF), and in fact in my mind are substantially more likely. (I emphasize that these are hypothetical possibilities; I've not discussed them with the candidate, and no one has asked him.) One of several possibilities that Avraham may have had in mind is that a 'crat might consider that for RfA, 75%+ is pretty much a guaranteed pass and 70%-75% is the discretionary range; and that for RfB, 90%+ is the guaranteed pass and 85%-90% is the discretionary range. Those figures are not universally agreed upon, by any means, but they are certainly reasonable, and they yield the conclusion that the Krimpet RfA did not attain consensus but that the Riana RfB might have.

   With regard to distribution of the renaming function, I too have previously suggested that the rename right need not be limited to a small subset of administrators. The conventional response is that renames place a high load on the servers, sometimes slowing the interface for all users for a period of minutes, and therefore only a relative small handful of folks should have this capability. You (MZMcBride) are more qualified than I to comment on this rationale, but the fact is that the limitation of renames to 'crats is the current situation, and that for the reasons I discussed in my response to Tiptoety's neutral, there is a present issue in this regard requiring attention. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I personally find that a poor reasoning, since admins can do many other intensive things (deletion, for example, or restoring a very large page). I don't see why admins couldn't have renameuser, but it can be disruptive to change users names. Then again, so can many other things admins can do... I am fairly neutral on that issue. Prodego ^talk

   Renames are not easy to reverse, which I suppose is the main reason why that permission was assigned to bureaucrats when it was introduced, though there are also a few things an administrator can do that cannot be undone easily. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 15:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   (outdent) Just confirming that I didn't vote and run away here. I read NYB's comments several days ago and contemplated changing my vote to neutral, but I can't bring myself to do it. Ultimately, the bureaucrat position is fairly trivial (that's why they get such a menial job title, after all). Renames are bot-assisted, most Requests for adminship have clear results, and nearly all bot flaggings are uncontroversial and pre-approved by BAG. So when evaluating a candidate for bureaucratship, to me at least, how they would vote in those few corner cases is the most important aspect. I believe that the project was served by promoting Krimpet to adminship, even though she fell below the typical 70%. But the community has always held bureaucrat candidates to a much higher standard, cf. this comment from Cecropia. This vote will likely mean little as the request will almost surely pass; perhaps that simply means that I'm wrong and the community knows best. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Strong Oppose due to answer regarding Giggy's RfA. At that point, east718's oppose had already been written, which outlined Giggy's revenge tactics. Even remotely considering closing as successful at that point shows a terrible lack in judgment. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Bureaucrats do not decide if a user should be an admin. They judge the community's consensus. Prodego ^talk 21:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose. Avraham has continued to demonstrate weakness in evaluating community consensus in the most trivially evident ways, notably regarding a change referred to in this discussion. Bureaucrats must evaluate the wishes of the community, not stand opposed to them and claim an opposite consensus, as Avraham has demonstrated. Blackworm (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Strong Oppose. We have too many super users. Not convinced about judgment to begin with, but it's the hat-collecting that concerns me most. Q11 seems to say that he's willing to act simultaneously as both checkuser and bureaucrat. When Deskana torpedoed Enigmaman's RFA by carelessly performing both roles we should have learned the lesson to keep our CUs and our 'crats separate. --JayHenry (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   General comment: I understand and appreciate the concern. I obviously agree that more people interfering with RfAs via checkuser would be a bad idea, but I trust Avraham's judgment to act appropriately in such a situation. I think the bureaucrats in general would probably not repeat the mistake in question, given the brouhaha that resulted. Enigma^msg 03:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   A bureaucrat is not by any means a "super user". In fact, we need more of them. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   First, what are you talking about? I completely disagree that we need more of them. Second, he is already a CheckUser, an OTRS clerk, and a commons admin, which is what I refer to when I say "super user". He has enough jobs and can be very proud of the ones he's already doing. Stick to them. Let somebody else be a 'crat if we truly need more of them to handle the crushing load of 'crat work. --JayHenry (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   In that case, it appears I misunderstood. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Reluctant, but strong oppose - I respect Avraham as a great admin, checkuser, CHU clerk, and OTRS clerk, but I'm not exactly happy with how he would pass the RfA of a user who would purposefully compromise another user's privacy. Sorry, Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 12:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   With the benefit of hindsight, to pass that RfA could be seen as passing the RfA of a user who would do something like that (which could always happen anyway if such evidence were not revealed until after the RfA). But apparently Avi would not have promoted the candidate in that situation. He said he would go to crat chat, and that the idea of extending the time would be raised there. As things actually turned out, these actions would have tended to lead to not promoting the candidate.

   Avi is showing clarity of thinking by examining the situation not as we know it now, but as it looked at that time. Then, it was not established that it was "the RfA of a user who would purposefully compromise another user's privacy." Avi makes a very good point, that the candidate had not yet responded to the allegation. If it had been based on a misunderstanding that would soon be cleared up, it would not necessarily be the right choice to refuse to promote a candidate based on incomplete information in the last few hours of the RfA. The last few votes, based on that incomplete information, are not necessarily an indication of the community's considered consensus; that is something that could be considered carefully in a crat chat.

   Overall, I was very impressed by Avi's answer to question 12. He had considered aspects of the situation I hadn't thought of, and while I wouldn't necessarily follow the same reasoning myself in every detail, I think he shows a very good understanding of the overall situation, a sense of balance, and humility, and this answer has solidified my confidence in his abilities as a bureaucrat. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I agree. At the time, those issues were not known. Think Ecoleetage (talk · contribs). Let's pretend that his RfA had no trouble any criticism was gracefully accepted by him (instead of what actually happened). How would anyone, including 'crats, have known of the issues that he had? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 14:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Indenting and moving to support. --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 00:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5. Oppose This is clearly going to pass and the user seems quite worthy of trust. But I believe in the distribution of rights rather than putting all the eggs in one basket. At the very least, when wearing more than one hat, one should keep the roles separate. So oppose per answers to Q11. Hobit (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose per Q11, though this is going to pass. --Neskaya ^kanetsv? 16:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral[edit]

Slightly shaken that he would have passed Giggy. I have no problem with people who take a different stance than my own, but that RfA certainly should not have passed under any way shape or form. Neutralling due to positives. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 13:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to support. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 14:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Avi seems like a fine candidate and a fine administrator and checkuser. However, I disliked his answer to DHMO 3 quite a lot. Even if he pretended he was closing it at the 7-day mark, East's oppose was far too recent to ignore. That evidence is quite stunning, and I believe enough for an RfA extension at the minimum. Closing as a "pass" at 299/85/17, which had quickly been trending downwards merits at the minimum an extension; a no consensus close would not have been bad either. The answer to question five I also disliked, but I will not oppose over it. NuclearWarfare :  Chat  19:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Q12 was enough to persuade me to remove myself from the neutral category. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 12:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indenting as not to indicate a duplicate vote. --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 13:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - I just don't know yet. I'm still in the process of looking over multiple things about the candidate. Also, the DMHO problem isn't large, but it's something.  iMatthew :  Chat  19:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say Tiptoety summed up my thoughts. I'm still sitting on it.  iMatthew :  Chat  02:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral - I have thought about this for a little bit now, and have come to the conclusion that I just can't make up my mind. Avraham is a very trustworthy editor who has served the community in a variety of different ways, and I do not feel he would misuse the 'crat tools in anyway. That said, the main reason for this RfB is to assist with renaming bad usernames. While that is all fine and dandy, RevisionDelete has recently been implemented allowing for oversighter's to simply hide accounts making renaming of abusive names almost obsolete. On top of that, I feel that giving one user too many hats only adds to backlogs. In addition, I personally feel that we do not have a need for more 'crats, and really the only area that could use a few more is around bots which is something that Avi does not have a lot of experience in. Tiptoety ^talk 01:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Off-topic discussion moved to talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Neutral I agree w/ Jay that we have too many users who have too many hats. This is a condition which has actually caused problems in the past and I am made hesitant to support an otherwise excellent editor because of it. I'm less concerned about the answer to Q11 than Jay is, though I would prefer some literal separation of tools from roles which they are not needed in (as technically infeasible as that may be). Protonk (talk) 02:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral - Because of past problems I cant endorse but Avi is a dedicated and trusthworthy Wikipedian, and overall we will benefit greatly by his work.--YY (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.