Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Avraham 2

Avraham

Voice your opinion (talk page) (74/17/7); Scheduled to end 04:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

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

This past February, we saw an influx of candidates submitting requests for bureaucratship as a response to a perceived community need for more bureaucrats. As one of the respondents, Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Avraham, I was fortunate enough to receive excellent constructive criticism from the project, and I appreciate all of responses, questions, and suggestions I received—both from those who supported my request as well as from those who opposed.

The overriding point that was clearly stated by the community was their concern as to an apparent lack of recent interaction and vocal participation in the request for adminship process. This brings to mind the words of the great philosopher, George Santayana, who is oft-misquoted but who said: “Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness.…Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” The project is consistent in its requirements, and I had the same basic issue as Redux, one of our bureaucrats.

Taking the project's advice to heart, I have resumed being significantly active opining on both WP:RFA and WT:RFA in line with my general thoughts about requests for administratorship and bureaucratship as encapsulated on my user page as the essay User:Avraham/RfA-B. Further in line with this, I have nominated a successful candidate for adminship, with another soon-to-follow—hopefully. I believe over these past couple of months that I have provided the wikipedia project members a significant body of evidence from which they can judge my approach to RfA…as an editor.

Should I have earned your collective trust enough for you to feel that my services as a bureaucrat for the English Wikipedia would be a benefit to the project, I would not approach closures as an editor. Rather, I believe that requests for bureaucratship are, at their heart, a project-wide referendum on the judgment of the candidate, and whether or not that judgment would be properly used, in accordance with wikipedia policy and guideline, to determine consensus in requests for adminiship, flagging bots, and changing usernames. To serve as a bureaucrat requires a demonstrated understanding of policies and guidelines, especially vis-a-vis sysops, current familiarity with the RfA process, and a demonstrated understanding of consensus. A bureaucrat must be open, willing to discuss difficult issues, and willing to admit to errors in the rare event they occur. Lastly, a bureaucrat must be cordial and civil, as failed RfA's hurt, whether or not adminship is a "big deal".

Specifically regarding RfA's, we do not need bureaucrats an RfA's candidacy is 22% or 98%; we need them for the cases when the statistics are in that 70% to 80% range, when it is the bureaucrat's job not to decide upon the candidate's status, but to carefully peruse the arguments and statements posed, and decide on what the community's consensus is vis-a-vis the candidate in question. The recent statistical discussion on WT:RFA, besides being a lot of fun and a learning experience for me, also demonstrates that no matter how rigorous a system is conceived; there will be times when human judgment is required, and that is the function of bureaucrats—to determine consensus if it does exist and to determine when consensus does not exist.

About me as a wikipedian, I have been a registered wikipedia editor for almost three years, since July of 2005, in which time I have amassed over 23,000 edits. I was fortunate to have earned the community's trust to become a sysop almost two years ago in July of 2006. I have been afforded the trust of the WikiCommons community as a sysop, and I am also a volunteer for the m:OTRS ticket system. I have acted as both a formal and an informal mentor for wikipedians who have requested or required it as well. I have done my best to remain civil, cordial, and polite even during heated discussions, although, of course, I am not perfect.

I appreciate your time in considering my application, I hope that I have earned your trust over the past ~3 years, and I look forward, once again, to any and all constructive criticism that you may have.

Thank you very much.

-- Avi (talk) 04:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Self-nomination -- Avi (talk) 04:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Candidacy template questions

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. My answer to this question is the same as when I first submitted a candidacy. Yes, I have read the discussions. 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 as opposed to bot that can perform long division or the calculation of the incomplete beta function (see here). 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 "tease-out" 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 answer to this question is also the same as when I first submitted a candidacy. My optimal policy would be to be able 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. In those situations there is bound to be those that will argue with whatever decision is reached. When there is an open process and discussion, then at the very least, the final decision is 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 22 months. I have been considered worthy of 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. Also, 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. 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.

4. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA, WP:B/RFA, and/or WP:CHU on a regular basis to attend to those requests?

A. Yes I do, and I shall do my best, as I have tried to demonstrate at WP:RFA and WT:RFA in the months since my last candidacy.

<clarification> Yes, this includes spending considerable time at WP:CHU. Please see response to question #13. I believe it is disingenuous to "demonstrate" showing up over the next few days. If I had been informed that non-crat participation was a community requirement in the prior RfB, I surely would have shown up, but to do so during the RfB, unless specifically asked by those who wish to see a short term demonstration of ability, strikes me as gauche. As mention in questions #13 and #24, I am cognizant of the rules, I know where to look if I were to be uncertain, I have taken improper username action in the past (my block record should have instances), and should I be appropved, you will see me there on a regular basis.</clarification>

Optional questions 5–7

Optional question from Gonzo fan2007:

5. With the increasing controversy with the amount of questions posed at WP:RFAs, what is your opinion on the amount of questions asked, what types of questions should be asked, and whether it is a bureaucrats job to keep an RFA "clean?"

A.Is this an optional question about the appropriateness of optional questions? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? My personal opinion as an editor is that the proliferation of questions has become too pervasive; my own RfA only had one additional question, for example, although that was near two years ago. As an editor I try to judge the candidate less on how they answer one particular question under the "bright lights" of the RfA, and more by looking at their history of, hopefully, thousands of edits over months, if not years. As a candidate for bureaucratship, however, I do not believe it is the bureaucrats' role to "clean" the RfA. Their role is to close it, and to determine the consensus of opinion, should it exist. Thank you for taking the time to participate! -- Avi (talk) 05:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I was hoping the irony wouldn't show in the question :) Thanks for answering and good luck. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 05:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of irony, my apologies for the accidental dis-invertebration and silication of your good self -- Avi (talk) 05:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Haha, its all good :) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 05:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: Avi, just so I check that I'm reading you right - you believe I am overstepping my role in removing frivolous questions from RfAs (as here, here or here)? If you agree that the proliferation of questions is a problem but do not propose to go so far as to remove them, what do you propose to do about this problem were this RfB successful? WjBscribe 10:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• This is why you are one of the wikipedians I respect so much; the ability to cut to the chase without being accusatory :) . I was careful to write that it is my opinion that it is not the role of a bureaucrat, acting as a bureaucrat, to clean RfA's. Bureaucrat's roles are to identify, and act on, community consensus. At this point, based on the many discussions on WT:RFA, I believe it is clear that consensus is currently being discussed, debated, and determined. HOWEVER, in my opinon people need to remember that bureaucrat's are editors too. Wikipedia the project, in general, is a collaborative exercise, not only in article content but also in process and policy. Part of the process working out the consensus on the proliferation of RfA questions includes editor's being bold and acting (within the framework of policy and guideline). I believe that it is WJBscribe the EDITOR who is removing the questions that are beyond the pale. There already is precedent for editors who are neither sysops nor bureaucrats to mark SPA accounts as such, to place the non-vote tags, to strike improper opinions, etc. You, WJBscribe, are a highly respected editor, and people trust your judgment because of your track record and interactions. You also, by being a bureaucrat, have demonstrated a track record of acting in an impartial manner in RfA's, so you are an excellent candidate to make these adjustments, but, currently, in my opinion, not because you are a bureaucrat, but because you are a respected member of the project who has earned the respect of the community. There may be other non-bureaucrat editors who also feel that in order for RfA to move smoothly, they need to make adjustments to an RfA, and the project has, is, and will handle this as each situation arises.
• That being said, should consensus arise to specifically empower bureaucrats to ensure the smooth running of the RfA during the process, that would be a different story. I do not believe that is the current case, though.
• So, in a nutshell, no, you are not overstepping your bounds, as this is your contribution as an editor to the RfA process, as it stands now. Three months from now, if consensus as to questions has become more clear, that may change. -- Avi (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Now to answer your next point.
• As an editor, I am not a fan of the proliferation. As an editor, I believe the RfA process is an ever-evolving one which would allow for the various schools of thought regarding questions to work out their differences and form a consensus over time on these pages, be it via talk pages or (allowable) actions on the project pages. I would not try to address this problem as a bureaucrat, but as an editor, and community/project member, by making my opinions known and engaging others in dialogue, and, perhaps, being bold, as an editor, if I feel the situation requires it. --Avi (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from WJBscribe (talk · contribs)

6. There has recently been a very visible decline in the rate at which people are requesting adminship (the 12 candidates who were successful last month marked the lowest number of new admins in a month in 3 years). What in your opinion has caused this and what could be done to encourage more candidates to step forwards in future?

A. My opinion as an editor, is that I believe the process AND the project has evolved. There are more participants, and thus there is less project-wide recognition. I think this can also be seen in the shift in the intensity of the focus in people's decision process on the questions as opposed to on recognition and/or history. The questions serve, for many, as the primary metric for people's decisions. While this is not a bad thing per se, it does make the process harder to undergo, as everyone who opines will have a different answer to many of the difficult questions--we are all individuals with our own thoughts and opinions. Often, there is no "correct" answer, nor is there a "best" answer.

Another issue, in my opinion, is that due to the growth of the project, adminship is now viewed as a "bigger" deal than it was when the project was young. In my opinion, this is also the reason behind the concept of the self-nom-oppose. If adminship is a bigger deal in people's eyes, then they want to be more careful to protect against wikidrama, which has occurred in the past. Couple the hightened perception of sysops with the reduction in an editor's recognition over the project makes people, in my opinion, somewhat more reluctant to hand out the bit without being more certain.

What can encourage more people to step forward? Good question. Prior to some suggestions, I have to posit that there may be nothing that can, or should, be done. Social frameworks evolve over time, and it may take a period of low sysop appointment for the project to have its collective gestalt shift away from the more gauntlet-like system it is now. A few suggestions:

1. I believe that with the current need for sysops, there should not be an automatic stigma applied to those who self-nom. This does not mean I believe that those who oppose for this reason are wrong for doing so; rather, that I disagree with them.
2. I believe, as an editor, that there should be fewer questions, combined with less of a stigma for non-answering. As I have said a number of times, I think that a user's long-term history is a better indicator than answers to various questions. This would make people less recalcitrant to run, in my opinion, as it would make the process less adversarial.
3. I believe that WP:SNOW closes should be somewhat less frequent than they are. They should be used as a mercy technique. A 1/6 S to O ratio after 20 minutes may still result in a pass. And even if not, I believe letting the (unsuccessful) candidate having the final say would still give them more of a feeling of control over the process, as opposed to possibly feeling powerless. We need to make the process, including failure, more friendly and less painful. There is no shame in taking constructive criticism from fellow project members and learning how to better help the project. There is a problem when prospective candidates may be made to feel more as objects than as people who volunteered to stand under the spotlight with a desire to help all of us.
4. Following the previous point, I believe that we should be extra careful in enforcing the various civility policies and guidelines during RfX's. Unlike XfD, the main topics of discussion here are people, not articles. Every candidate needs to be treated with respect; even obvious snows should be handled with courtesy and respect. There are many times when poor past interactions between editors manifests itself on RfX's as borderline flame wars. While an editor's past conduct IS a valid reason to support or oppose, it must be done in a manner that, at the very least, remains tepidly civil. The more contentious the process is, the less it is likely that sane people want to undergo the evisceration.

These are some suggestions for starters, but the process of RfX will need to change slowly over time with the consensus of the community behind it. The discussions need to continue, and good arguments made on all sides, so that we can, as a community, move to where we need to. -- Avi (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from Avruch

7. Only two of the current bureaucrats have added themselves to the recently created recall category CAT:BOR. Have you thought about adding yourself if this request is successful (which I hope it will be)?

A. I remember when the original category of AOR was discussed and then created, and I thought long and hard about whether or not I should add myself to the category and request that of other candidates. After a lot of introspection, I decided that I believed that a cost-benefits analysis of what I perceived as important to the smooth functioning of sysops in wikipedia tipped the scale against recall, and I will explain why.

First, let me preface by saying I understand the the desire for such a category; in our past we have had a number of wikidrama cases which included admin tool misuse, and the nature of the RfAR procedure is one of a slower-paced, methodical approach, which may be too slow at times.

That being said, sysops, and especially bureaucrats, are called upon by the community to make decisions when it is obvious and unavoidable that there is going to be contention. When someone has an RfA which is running at 172/4/3, there is really no need for a bureaucrat outside of procedure. Similarly with AfXs. Sysops have to do their best to read the arguments and judge if consensus exists and which way it goes, or close as no consensus. The situations that require that specific judgment are bound to upset one or another party to the discussion, and understandably so. In order for wikipedia to run smoothly, I feel that allowing sysops and bureaucrats the ability to exercise the judgment for which we have selected them without the constant specter of a recall is more important to the project than having a quicker method for removing the bit. This is especially true of sysops, where most any sysop action is reversible by any other sysop action. Regarding bureaucrats, while it is true that their actions have a more profound effect on the project, it is also true that they, as a rule, have been more conservative and also undergo a significantly more thorough vetting procedure.

So to return to your direct question, Avruch, I find it hard to conceive of the perfectly balanced situation between the quicker process of A/BoR, which may result in bureaucratic paralysis due to fear of exogenous, pre-term, and possibly incorrect recalls being placed versus the slower process of RfAR, which allows sysops and bureaucrats a little more freedom to exercise their judgment at the expense of making it harder for truly improper sysops/bureaucrats to be removed.

Given my personal feelings, I have never asked it of another candidate, and I hope you understand why it is unlikely that should I be successful, and I appreciate your support and good wishes, that I would add myself to that category.

However, for what it is worth, and I hope it is worth something to you and all the participants, you have my word that I will approach each situation requiring sysop and bureaucratic judgement, as impartially, fairly, and devoid of preconceived notions as I can. To be open and forthright about how I made a particular decision and why, to be open to constructive crticism, to admit mistakes when I make them, and hopefully be allowed to learn from them, and to be responsive to honest questioning of my actions. I hope that my history on wikipedia gives you the sense of security that I do my best to uphold our policies and guidelines, and keep my word as best as humanly able.

Again, a long answer to a short question, but the question is an important one and deserves the benefit of a full explanation as to my opinion and how it was formed. Thank you for participating and I hope I have appropriately responded to your question. -- Avi (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The category was created originally around the time of the RfB passing % poll and the "crat chat" following the close of Riana's RfB. The idea at the time, at least for me, was that we had a number if inactive bureaucrats and also a few that were unwilling to concede that anything had changed as a result of the poll - even if consensus was achieved (which is debatable), some were set on ignoring the result anyway. I was particularly upset by that, as you can imagine since I began the poll, and the discussions at the time prompted me to create the category. I understand the general objection to recall that many have - that recall proceedings can be a referendum on difficult and controversial decisions that we must allow admins and bureaucrats to make, and that they further allow anyone who has a perceived "harm" to grind an axe by trying to get an admin or bureaucrat recalled. I submit, however, that despite this potential there remains a rational basis for the recall process - particularly in bureaucrats, since controversial actions are quite unusual and can easily be preceeded by a "crat chat" of some sort to avoid personal blame. I don't think that you, as an individual, will ever warrant recall - I doubt it. But by joining you encourage others to join - and the higher the proportion of bureaucrats in the category the more difficult it will be for new crats to avoid joining. Given the potential factors contributing to recall - long term inactivity, decisions at odds with evolving consensus, a failure to observe changes approved by the community, etc. - would you reconsider your decision? Avruch ^T 18:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions 8–13

Optional question from User:PeaceNT

8.What is your opinion of reconfirmation RfAs? Do you think other standards should be set for reconfirmation RfAs? If yes, to what degree do you treat reconfirmation RfAs differently from other RfAs?

A. May I ask for a clarification? When you are discussing "reconfirmation RfA's" I presume you are referring to people who have lost or resigned the bit under circumstances that require a new run, as opposed to voluntary resignations which may be reinstated by a bureaucrat without further process?

I assumed it was both. Al Tally (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Per Arbcom:

"Users who give up their sysop (or other) powers and later return and request them back may have them back automatically, provided they did not leave under controversial circumstances. User who do leave under controversial circumstances must go through the normal channels to get them back. Determining whether a user left under controversial circumstances is, in most cases, to be left up to bureaucrats' discretion."

— Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano/Proposed_decision#Return_of_access_levels

Therefore, reinstatement of voluntarily retired sysops, in general, is not subject to an RfA per ArbCom. Rather, they post on WP:BN and they receive the bit. As for sysops who lost the bit under controversial circumstances, they must undergo re-affirmation by the community. Now, as for my personal opinion, as an editor, as to the latter group, I believe there should be no difference between such a reconfirmation (of a sysop who lost the bit under "controversial circumstances") and any other RfA. There should be no extra "leeway" since they were once an admin, nor should there be an extra "burden" because they were once relieved of adminship. I try to judge each candidate by their history and by my opinioin of that history as to how well or not they would function as a sysop. Of course, being and admin and losing the bit are both part of the history, but people can change and learn from previous errors, and if a person's recent history (over more than a small range of time) is sufficiently indicative to me that I believe whatever situation(s) that caused the original bit removal are no longer apparent, I have no problem supporting. On the other hand, if recent experience demonstrates in my opinion that the editor still displays the character traits that in my opinion led to past wikidrama, then as an editor I would feel bound to oppose in the best interests of the project. However, speaking from a bureaucratic perspective, I have seen nothing in the policies and guidelines that would indicate that reconfirmations should be treated any differently than regular RfAs. -- Avi (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

9.Could you give example(s) of previously closed RfAs where you disagree with the final decision? Please explain how you would have closed those RfAs and why?

A.

Non optional questions from Al Tally:

10. What does the word "consensus" mean to you?

A.In what context? Consensus for building an article is not necessarily the same as that in an RfA, is not the same as an RfB. Consensus as it applies to wikipedia may almost, in semi-jest, be approached the way Potter Stewart approached pornography: I know it when I see it. Consensus as is required to be determined by a bureaucrat, in my understanding, is having the discussion in question reach a certain level of conviction towards one side or the other—with those levels of conviction having precedent to be different based on the area or item being discussed, which leads into your next question. -- Avi (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

11. How can "consensus" be two different percentages, as in an RfA or RfB? Does this mean RfAs are really a vote?

A.Because consensus is specifically not solely a vote, but having the ebb and flow of a discussion reach a certain ctitical level of "certainty" or "conviction". Currently, while possibly not enshrined in writing anywhere, it has been both understood and accepted by wikipedians that different discussions require greater or lesser degrees of certainty. One of the methods used to determine this, of course, is analyzing the absolute number of respondents and where they fall; this is often the simplest method, and where the breakdown of supports and opposes (of relatively equivalent merits) are drastically different, it is the easiest to cte and defend, as the overall consensus is somewhat obvious. But this is not the sole criterion, otherwise, we should just break out the "DragonsFlightBot" and all go to sleep. Where it is difficult to determine consensus from just the number of respondents, bureaucrats are supposed to use their judgment to determine the the wishes of the community, and if that is impossible, close as no consensus.

12. Why do you think RfBs are nearly impossible to pass?

A.This also follows from the above questions. Because flipping the sysop bit is one of the actions with the most far reaching ramifications in wikiepdia, the community has evolved an unwritten higher standard for trust in those people who will be doing the flipping, and at times, making the final decision as to what the community's wishes are. Even though this too is reversible via RfAR, since that process is more time consuming and difficult than a DRV, a deletion, or an unblock, the project has, rightfully in my opinion, made it more difficult to pass. It may be that it is currently too difficult, as seen by the dearth of bureaucrats promoted in the past couple of years, but as social frameworks go through ebbs and flows, hopefully, any current overdifficulty will self correct over time. -- Avi (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

13. The Rambling Man was promoted in March, but has not performed a single rename, perhaps bureaucrats' most backlogged area. As we can see, the RfA page has basically no RfAs on it, so not exactly a backlog there. Would you be willing to use the tools the community is granting you? We have far too many inactive bureaucrats, and I would not like to support unless I know for sure you will be active and useful. Thanks.

A. Absolutely. I have not been as active on those discussion pages for a variety of reasons, but mainly because they are basically working. As a sysop for around two years now, I can block, and have blocked, directly for improper usernames, so I do not need to go through the WP:UAA process. As for actual name changes, there is not much I can do as a non-bureaucrat in most of the cases which are relatively straightforward. Yes, I could have, and probably should have, clerked more at Wikipedia:Changing username, but as I said, I am not perfect; I just try to be the best I can :). My role model as a bureaucrat is WJBscribe, who is one of the more active bureaucrats in the username arena, an area I hope I can make a contribution to as well. -- Avi (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions 14–17

Optional question from User:MBisanz

14.Some One of of the crats elected in 2004 has yet to use any of the crat tools and others have used them very rarely. Do you think the crat position should have a minimum level of activity? Would you trust a crat who hasn't looked at RFA in four years to close one?

Just a comment here, only one has never used bureaucrat tools, Cprompt. Others have made maybe one rename/promotion. Al Tally (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I made it more accurate. MBisanz ^talk 19:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

A. Should they have a minimum level of activity? Well, yes, of course. Can it be demanded of them? The same issue, to an extent, occurs with sysops too. Firstly, we need to remember that all of us are people (well, maybe not Bishzilla, but I would not even dream to contradict her). We have lives outside of wikipedia, and our lives change. Many wikipedians are students who eventually leave school and get jobs. Others, such as myself, are older and established, but even so, our lives are governed by our work loads, our families, and other exogenous factors. As such, it must be expected that people will go through periods of waxing and waning with their wikipedia exposure. So while we, as wikipedians, would prefer a constant presence by our bureaucrats and sysops, we need to be understanding of outside influences.

As for your second question, let me answer your question with a question of my own, if I may. When you are opining on a RfA or RfB, what is it that you are doing? Are you making a statement about the candidates trustworthiness, their judgment, their ability to help the wiki, their commitment, their good looks and choice in hair products? As an editor, I have tried to consistently approach RfXs as making the decision based as much on the understanding of the candidate's character as their familiarity with the rules. As such, for someone who has been absent from RfA for four years, I would expect that they do not jump into an RfA with the remotest possibility of ambiguity. Rather, I suggest that they start monitoring, and as I have learned from the community in my first RfB, I would suggest that they start vocally opining on RfAs to re-measure and re-gauge the project's current feelings as to RfA's, and perhaps to start closing the "no-brainer" RfAs to demonstrate to the project that they are back, and beginning to re-engage. However, I do believe that absent any serious examples of abuse of trust, which should be post-haste sent to an RfAR, they should still be considered as trustworthy individuals.

I agree that a continuity of appearance at RfA, Wikipedia:Changing username, and the appropriate Bot pages (which itself is in flux now) is the best policy for bureaucrats, and I would hope bureaucrats with significant absences would "build-up" a familiarity with the processes before resuming their duties, but I also would hope that the community as a whole understands that peoples' lives may change, sometimes shorter term and sometimes for the longer term, and that does not necessarily make them less trustworthy or less helpful. Thank you for taking the time to supply detailed and thought provoking questions! -- Avi (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

15.Recently the first Bot-RFC was filed. How do you reconcile this process with the WT:BRFA process? How would you as a crat interpret a Bot-RFC in deciding whether or not to involuntarily deflag a bot?

A.This is a first, as you said, so we are lacking in case precedent. Until this point, the decision to deflag a bot seems to have been made by a discussion amongst the BAG who would then ask a bureaucrat to implement their consensus. This mirrors the process that was used for granting the flag in the first place. I am uncertain as to whether or not an RfC can force a bot deflagging. RfCs, when filed regarding user conduct, in general, are vehicles used in the dispute resolution process, and most often do not result in any actions. The RfC is closed either due to inactivity, the dispute being forwarded to ArbCom, or some other action being taken outside the RfC (banning for sockpuppetry for example). With this in mind, I am uncertain whether or not a bot can be delflagged due to an RfC without the express consent of the BAG. I would hope that the BAG would take part in any such bot-RfC (such as the one in question), and that the resolutions of the RfC are supported by the BAG who advise the bureaucrat on whether to deflag or not. Of course, as this is really brand-new wiki territory, we will have to watch and see how the process evolves. Have I mentioned Nomic yet? :-D -- Avi (talk) 05:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: VoABot II is not currently flagged because the bot shouldn't be hiding its edits, and because the bot has not yet been updated to use the new feature in MediaWiki where bots can dictate whether or not to hide the edit. (Very few bots have been updated. The only one that comes to mind is ClueBot.) -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 11:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

16.Since your last run, the WP:BOT process has been re-written to include WP:RBAG. Do you feel that crats should close RBAGs on the RFA mainpage? What about on the WT:BAG subpage?

A.Yes, WP:BOT has been re-written ,but I believe that it is safe to say that the process is still in flux. Under the former system, either an uninvolved member of the BAG or a bureaucrat could close the discussion, so I see no reason why bureaucrats should not continue to be able to close discussions. The question the BAG needs to ask itself is, if the process is going to become a subprocess of RfA as opposed to the wikiproject-like system that was in force before, ddoes this mean that uninvolved BAG members can no longer close the discussions? I think that having two separate pages for BAG approval is confusing. I think that it is in the community's best interest that the BAG approval system is worked out in a clear and consistent fashion. -- Avi (talk) 23:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

17. Currently, no editor has ever passed RfB with a % less than 85%. At the same time, four of the six Arbcommers elected in December 2007 had support %s below 80%. Do you see any potential role for crats, with their high level of community trust, in the Dispute Resolution processes? Would you accept or feel it appropriate to ask the crats as a group to assist in DR?

A.I think that the comparison between bureaucrats and arbitrators is not exact. The arbitrator elections have much more penetration throughout wikispace than do RfBs. While the percentages may be lower, there are many more respondents to the Arbcom elections than to RfBs. For example, while Deskana received only somewhat under 73%, that included almost 300 supports (out of 403 responses). This raises a similar question to what we were discussing on WT:RFA last week about how certain one can be based on the observed percentages and the number of respondents. It may well be that 73% of 400 is a stronger indication of 90% of 50.

Another issue is that what is being judged in RfB is a different skill set: "Do I trust user X to be able to gauge consensus for RfAs, understand and apply the rename provisions properly, and flip the bot flag". For ArbCom, the skill set is more along the lines of "Do I trust this user to apply wikipedia policy and guidelines vis-a-vis editor behavior in a fair and just manner"? It is not the same thing. While there may be overlap (in terms of trust of judgment) I do not believe it is directly comparable. Thank you for the question and your commitment to the RfB process! - Avi (talk) 20:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

See response to Ral's oppose below for clarification. -- Avi (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions 18–21

Optional questions from seresin

18. Say an administrator voluntarily resigns his flag. A month later, he decides he wants it back. For whatever reason, he feels the compulsion to go through a so-called "reconfirmation RfA", although it is agreed that as per the ArbCom ruling, he should be able to get them back by asking because he did not relinquish them "under a cloud", as it were. For whatever reason, during the course of the RfA, he withdraws it early. He trots back over to WP:BN, and asks for his flag back. Do you believe that he should be able to get them back if the RfA was clearly going to pass? If it might have passed? If there was very little chance he would pass? Also, after deciding to discuss with your fellow bureaucrats, you find that the collective bureaucracy is split on the issue. Who determines consensus among bureaucrats?

A.See #19

I wonder if Seresin could have phrased this question in a less insulting way. It's quite obviously referring to me, and I find it kind of rude. Al Tally (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What about question 13? EJF (talk) 17:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I stated it in a matter of fact tone: "He hasn't performed a single rename". Seresin uses phrases such as "feels the compulsion", "so-called "reconfirmation RfA"", "trots over to WP:BN" which makes me feel he's pretty pissed off with me being an admin again, despite clear consensus for me to be one. I won't discuss it anymore here, but if Seresin has issues with me, he can bring them up on my talk page. I have no issues with the Rambling Man, in fact I respect him greatly, but I simply pointed out a very true fact he hasn't been particularly active as a bcrat. Al Tally (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a note to set the record straight, I've been the fourth most "active" 'crat since my promotion. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Not particularly active in renames which I have said several times. Al Tally (talk) 10:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"...a very true fact he hasn't been particularly active as a bcrat...." is what you said just above, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in the context of renames. I never mentioned promotions, an area which you are active in. Al Tally (talk) 10:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well since all renames bar ten since I was promoted were conducted by just three 'crats, and since you lost the context because this remark is nowhere near the comment about renaming, you can see why you pissed me off. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

19. Similar to the above, and may seem an obvious answer but you never know with those tricky ArbCom rulings. An editor who was previously an administrator decides to have another RfA; it fails. However, he did not resign "under a cloud." Can he get his +sysop back by asking? Or must he then have a successful RfA to get it back?

A.I get to use one of my favorite latin phrases twice in one meta-discussion: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?. Of course, for someone who professed that they prefer fewer optional questions, this is becoming a deluge of antediluvian proportions. But as an RfB, it should. OK, as to your question; let me preface my answer by saying that in general, I have an issue with "what-if" questions. Real life is always more complicated, and always has more information associated with it, than thought questions. I will answer this to the best of my ability, but I would leave the caveat that should a real such situation arise, the actual specifics of the case may indicate a different, or perhaps non, answer.

Questions 18 and 19 may actually depend on the same understanding of the Arbcom ruling, and so I will answer them simultaneously, with #19 first.

In my understanding, there are two ways the ArbCom ruling can be explained:

1. That a sysop who undergoes voluntary, uncontroversial de-adminning actually remains a sysop, with the bit flipped off.
2. A sysop who undergoes voluntary, uncontroversial de-adminning is a regular editor who does not need to undergo RfA and is assumed trustworthy.

If you understand the ruling as the latter, if the RfA itself shows that the community perception and consensus about this individual has changed and it would be more likely that the bit should not be auto-returned. If you understand the ruling as the former, the case could be made that the bit should be returned despite the RfA. Should this situation occur on my watch I would request clarification from ArbCom as to their intent first. Knowing that it is likely that a hard-and-fast ruling will not be supplied, I would endeavor to discuss this with the other, more experienced bureaucrats. I am certain that I do not have all the answers, and would want to both make my own arguments and hear other arguments. Currently, without the ability to discuss this with more experienced bureaucrats who may have a better understanding of case precedent, my leaning is to be loathe to restore the bit to someone who has flat-out failed an RfA, even if the bit was relinquished under non-controversial circumstances. Should all the bureaucrats fail to come to a consensus, I can still forsee a bureaucrat being bold and restoring the bit under ArbCom interpretation #1, and I would respect someone's decision to do so, but without delving into the past, looking to see all cases where this, or similar, has happened, talking with other bureaucrats, and possibly getting ArbCom clarification, I personally do not think I would be the one who flipped this bit. I reserve the right to change my mind should I be suitably convinced by the strength and persuasiveness of other arguments.

As for question 18, I see less of a problem flipping the bit, as regardless of how the ArbCom ruling is interpreted, the project has not indicated that this person is no longer trustworthy. Withdrawing a non-obvious failing RfA should result, in my opinion, in the same situation as had it never been started, which would allow them to request the bit on WP:BN.

Difficult and thought provoking questions that do not have clear-cut answers! Thank you for taking the time to participate. -- Avi (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

As noted by Lar in another RfB where I asked this question (#1), it is similar to a specific incident. Do you know which incident this is? What are your opinions on it? seresin ( ¡? ) 01:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe you meant this. As I said above, if I were the sole bureaucrat on the case, I am unsure that I would have re-flipped the bit; I definitely would have wanted to engage the other bureaucrats in discussion, but I understand the closing bureaucrats reasoning and respect his decision. I'm sorry I cannot be more vociferous and forceful in my answer, there are way too many variables and uncertainties, in my opinion, to make a sweeping statement. For example, one difference in the closer's favor in this situation was that there was a majority supporting the restoration. This was not the same as had the supports and opposes been reversed. There are other elements that may be factored in. Which is why I said above each real case will need to be handled individually at that time. -- Avi (talk) 01:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

After a recent post to this request, t is possible that you meant this. -- Avi (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

20. You see a contentious RfA, and one where there are likely to be problems regardless of how it is closed. We can use the <70% RfAs, if you'd like. There is not cut and dried consensus. You decide that you want to get other bureaucrats' opinions on this RfA before closing. On BN, or on a /crat chat page, you have both bureaucrat and non-crat opinions. Do the non-RfB passers' opinions matter in determining whether or not there is consensus?

A.Yes, but I would believe that people who would take the time and effort to post on WP:BN are those who would have made passionate defenses of their opinions on the actual RfX page itself, so their opinions would ipso facto be considered. The bureaucrat's role is to determine, using their best judgment, what the wishes of the community are. Any suggestions need to be considered, but WP:BN should not be views as RfA, the sequel. Good arguments are always welcome, but the preponderance of comments on WP:Bn is not a metric to be used—the data to be analyzed is the RfX page. Excellent question again; thank you. -- Avi (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

21. In light of the recent discussions, (on Riana's bureaucrat chat, the various discussions and polls, and the current section about the RfB bar in the adminship poll page) what do you believe the pass percentage is for an RfB?

A.What do I believe it is, what do I believe it should be, or what do I want applied to this RfB? For the last point, I'd say a percentage of greater than 4.7% support would indicate overwhelming approval for me . In all seriousness, the first two points are very different. What do I believe it is? I do not believe there is one. What do I believe it should be? I do not believe there should be a hard-and-fast percentage. I was very vocal in the discussion after Riana's RfB (and my own first one) and my thoughts may be best encapsulated by the following: While anything along the lines of a 9:1 support:oppose ratio (90%) may be a near-certain pass, and anything below a 4:1 support ratio may be a near-certain fail, anything above (and equal to) a 4:1 ratio should no longer be the sure fail it was. So if I had to pick a number, the best number may be 80%, but a better definition is that once there is a 4:1 supermajority, bureaucrats should begin to consider that there may well be community consensus. -- Avi (talk) 00:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions 22–24

22. What role do bureaucrats have in governing the RfA page? Specifically other nominations — checkuser and BAG. Do bureaucrats have a duty/authority to remove/govern/etc. these?

A.Govern? What do you mean by govern? Checkuser is a foundation-controlled tool. On enwiki its distribution is authorized solely by ArbCom. Bureaucrats have nothing to do with checkuser, and they cannot even give it out, as that requires a steward. As for BAG, as we speak, BAG authorization is in flux. Until a few weeks ago, BAG was more similar to a wikiproject. Now there is the pilot program to have more wiki-wide input. As relates bureaucrats, the role of the bureaucrat now is still relegated to flip the bot switch. Even if there is distinct and clear community consensus and resolve to reform BAG into a RfBAG, the bit-flipping ability of the bureaucrat is still unnecessary, but I could understand that if there is clear and convincing community consensus that BAG membership needs community approval, then in cases of ambiguous results, the community may request of its bureaucrats that they render a decision, as they are the ones who are trusted and vetted by the community to measure consensus. -- Avi (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

23. What is your opinion on a bureaucrat violating a long-standing convention on renames? How much authority do bureaucrats, qua bureaucrats, have over the rename pages and procedures? What is your opinion on a bureaucrat violating a long-standing convention on renames?

A.Can you give me a specific example or what-if? With the institution of single-user logins, certain long-standing conventions may need to be re-addressed. In general, for every rule, exceptions may exist, and each case needs to be judged on its own merits. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

24. How familiar are you with the rename processes? Can you, for instance, tell me what the guidelines for a usurpation request are without checking?

A.The basics of what I remember is that the account needs to have no edits that require GFDL attributions. Without looking I cannot give you the specifics, but I would not act on it without looking. To this day, even after being a sysop for around 2 years, I will still often reference policy pages before an action if in my mind there is some doubt as to the application of a particular policy or guideline. As Deskana wisely points out below, it is more important to know where to look, and this is doubly true on a wiki, where policy itself may be somewhat malleable due to the ever-shifting nature of the project, its members, and its running. I've often thought that wikipedia is a living example of Nomic in this regard . So, in a nutshell, yes i am familiar with the process, but I would not perform any actions without double-checking myself until such point as I became extremely familiar with the process, and even so, I would require myself to regularly refresh my memory due to the combination of human forgetfulness and the shifting nature of the wikipedia project. -- Avi (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I've always thought that it's not the mark of a good administrator to know everything, but it is the mark of a good administrator to know where to look anything up. The same is true of bureaucrats, I think. I doubt whether I could remember all the usurpation guidelines, but I certainly know where to look if I have doubts. People should bear that in mind when reading Avraham's answer to this question. --Deskana (talk) 10:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions 25–27

Mandatory question

25. Why are there so many f***ing questions? -- Gurch (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

A.Why is this RfB different from all other RfBs? -- Avi (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point.

Follow-up question

26. Why is it that on all other nights we dine either sitting upright or reclining, but on this night we all recline? -- Gurch (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

A. Avadim Hayinu L'Par'oh B'Mitzrayim -- Avi (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up question

27. Properly speaking, shouldn't it be a deluge of diluvian proportions? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 03:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

A.Properly speaking, you are correct, although it changes the meaning of the sentence from a chronological comparison to a tautological statement . I have struck out the prefix :) -- Avi (talk) 04:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Optional question 28–29

28. Unlike the above, this is serious. I realise some people will consider this question inappropriate, but it has to be asked. (Obviously you have a right to refuse to answer, but don't expect my support if you choose to exercise that right). Would you, or would you not, have promoted ^demon after his recent reconfirmation RfA? Walton^One 14:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

A. I actually addressed this already in the second response to seresin in the give-and-take in question 19. The wikilink to the first "this" is the ^demon promotion. My response above was that I personally do not think I would have flipped that bit, but based on the analysis I provided in questions 18 and 19, I can see a justification for it, so I would respect the decision of the bureaucrat who would have (and did) flip it. Please read my analysis of the alternative explanations as to how to understand the arbcom decision, and I hope you realize that even though you or I may not have made the same decision, there does exist justification, in my opinion, for someone who would, and did. Thank you for taking the time to consider this request, and I hope that this answer clarifies your decision, whichever way it may go. -- Avi (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough (sorry for making you repeat yourself; I didn't quite have the energy to trawl through the mass of answers above). I can't support, since I'm not comfortable with the fact that you say you "understand the closing bureaucrats reasoning and respect his decision" (I, for one, neither understand nor respect it); however, since you say you wouldn't personally have promoted, I won't oppose either. Thanks for your swift response. Walton^One 17:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

29. Would you or would you not have promoted this RfA? T^heDJA^tC^lubR^ock :-) ^(T/C) 13:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

A. Well, technically I could not have, as I opined (Weak Support #58), and it is highly preferable that bureaucrats recuse themselves from discussions requiring judgment if they have a predisposition. . What I would have done were I an uninvolved bureaucrat requires me to go back an analyze that entire debate, and so it may be a while before I give you a more complete answer. -- Avi (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

General comments

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

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

Discussion

Support

1. Proud to. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 05:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
2. Easiest decision tonight « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 05:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
3. Support as last time. This user has exceptional judgment, and there is a clear need for more 'crats at the moment. GlassCobra 05:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
4. Support - I find everything this editor says at WP:RFA and WT:RFA to be insightful and thought provoking. I can trust him to make proper judgment calls involving consensus for hair-splitting situations. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

   Support I know Avraham from RfA and WT:RfA, so it surprised me that those were the areas that killed his last RfB. I've reviewed his last RfB and some of his other edits, and concluded that I have to support.Balloonman (talk) 05:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Switching to neutral.Balloonman (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

5. Support. Yes! Anthøny 08:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
6. Support. Avi has all the qualities needed to make an excellent bureaucrat. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 09:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
7. Support - After reviewing his contributions and talk pages I think he'll make a fine bureaucrat, even though it does seem a little soon since his last RfB. --CapitalR (talk) 09:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
8. As a regular over here at Wikipedia, I get to know many characters, and for that I am grateful since I would not have met such a great team of online volunteers. Avraham is an especially capable editor who is socially and morally involved in the workings of Wikipedia, with involvement at a diverse number of areas, and is one of the very few who nominate people for adminship, something I always respect since if it fails, at least they and the candidate have had a joint experience and are a both facing challenging times, helping them both through and hopefully nominating that candidate again within the a reasonable future. To serve as a bureaucrat there are many community standards (and the optional answers) you must fill, making sure that you use the correct and necessary discretionary actions, flag bots when there is consensus to do so and rename users whilst meriting their credentials (and request) against the rename policy. Avraham fills all of these and I have had the pleasure to discuss, resolve and embrace Avi's relenting attitude which is only here for the betterment of the project. Rudget (Help?) 10:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
9. Support - Supported before, and I will support again. Very thoughtful and familiar with RFA/B which will make him an excellent bureaucrat. I have reviewed his talk page and contributions and found no problems. Camaron | Chris (talk) 10:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

   —Dark ^talk 11:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

10. Concerns at the last RFB by many, including myself, where centred on the lack of RFA participation. Avi has clearly worked hard to address these concerns, bringing real value to the table. In light of the fact that you clearly listened to the community and worked towards their "request" I see no reason not to support. That is, after all, what 'crats are supposed to do. Pedro :  Chat  11:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
11. Support — Avi's recent comments in WP:RFA and WT:RFA have shown his immense understanding of the RfA process. Despite a few editors' concerns in his previous RfB, I'm confident that he will judge consensus competently and impartially, and I believe that he will take all decisions as a bureaucrat with the same care and attention that he currently does. His judgement is second to none, and he is a merit to the project. EJF (talk) 11:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
12. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 12:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
13. Support. I'm confident in the candidate's ability to serve with distinction as a bureaucrat. As noted above, this one is an easy call. Best of luck, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
14. Support. I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of commitment to the project and the position, which requires significant time and dedication. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 14:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
15. Support per my support on the prior RfB. Avruch ^T 14:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
16. Support Will use the new tools wisely. Húsönd 14:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
17. Support Outstanding editor; detailed, thoughtful answers to questions and optional questions, too. κaτaʟaveno^T_C 15:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
18. Avraham has clearly demonstrated his knowledge of the RfA process in the time since his last RfB: I supported that RfB, but I strongly support this one. Acalamari 15:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
19. Support Excellent editor, good admin, and I am confident he will do well as a 'crat. Good judgment and understands the process. Enigma ^message 15:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
20. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
21. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
22. Support. No problem. Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
23. Strong Support, like last time. Since last time, I've been privileged to get to know you a bit, as you've been more meta-active than before, and I've much appreciated your thoughtfulness (even with your statistical brain and rampant smiley.png's) Always pleasant, always fair, always thorough, always balanced. Your answers to Gonzo fan and WBJscribe are spot on examples of your character and thoroughness. In that regard, I have no hesitation in supporting you towards 'cratship. Best of luck, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
24. Absoulutely. Per my support of your last RfB, and, per the above. SQL^{Query me!} 18:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
25. Support - absolutely. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 18:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
26. Support most definitely. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
27. Strong Support No doubt in my mind about this guy. I've never really talked to him, but I've seen a fair number of his comments on various pages and have always been very impressed with his cool head and awesome (don't know if that's the right word to use) judgment. His superb answers to the questions only make me more confident in this !vote. Good luck! Thingg^⊕⊗ 20:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
28. Support. I have never really talked to this editor myself, but I have seen him around and I have always been struck by his good judgment and just plain good 'ol common sense. Trusilver 21:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
29. Support - In my opinion, we do need more 'crats. —  scetoaux (T|C) 21:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
30. Support two words: hell yes. You're the spitting image of what a crat should be like in my eyes. Answers to questions 5-7 (among other things) prove that.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 22:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
31. Support: fantastic, good judgement (which I judge by intelligent comments made). Definitely deserves +crat —Alex.Muller 22:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
32. Strong support blah blah blah. Bearian (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
33. I supported last time; I'll support this time. Avi hasn't gotten wrose. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 23:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
34. Actually, why not let bygones be bygones? I dislike grudge-holding as much as anybody and the responses to the deluge of questions are, whilst a bit on the wordy side, quite acceptable. -- Naerii 00:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    I am humbled by your decision and I hope that I can return your your trust. -- Avi (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

35. Support A trustworthy candidate in a time when we need more bureaucrats. Editorofthewiki^{review my edits here!} 00:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
36. Support Would like another 'crat LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 00:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
37. Strongly. Daniel (alt) 01:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
38. Support - Merzbow (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
39. Support - Levelheaded candidate. Soxred93 (u t) 03:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
40. Strong support, I have no hesitancy trusting Avraham, he has always demonstrated he has the project's best interest at heart, and acts with good jugdment; I'm also impressed that he humbly and wisely responded with wholehearted enthusiasm to meet earlier concerns. --MPerel 03:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
41. Support happily. krimpet✽ 03:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
42. Support. Avi is a smart, hard-working sysop who understands policy. I opposed his last RfB due to lack of participation in RfAs. Since then he has been a very constructive contributor to RfA discussions. I think he can be a superior quality 'crat. While I may disagree with him on certain aspects of Middle Eastern affairs, I trust him to make good calls as a 'crat and to consult with other 'crats when he encounters tricky situations. Majoreditor (talk) 03:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
43. dvdrw 04:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
44. Yes please! -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 06:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
45. Support. Sceptre ^(talk) 07:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
46. Support. Rami R 11:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
47. Per my reasoning in his last RfB. --barneca (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
48. Support All around well qualified candidate for this position. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
49. Strong support The answers to the questions posed on this page show that you have a definite understanding of how the bureaucratic tools work and how they are used, as well as that you have a clear understanding of all the policies and guidelines applicable. They also show that you won't rush headlong into decisions and will instead give each and every problem that you face incredible thought. They also show that you have all the makings of a bureaucrat and you've already proven your worth based upon how well that you've performed your administrive services over the past 22 months. I would be thrilled to have you as a bureaucrat! Razorflame 14:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
50. Support Well considered answers, good response to suggestions from last RfB. I take him at his word that he'll help in a meaningful way to reduce the rename backlog. Xymmax (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
51. Support -trustworthy admin. PhilKnight (talk) 15:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
52. Support more enthusiastically than last time. I can't think of a quality desirable in a bureaucrat that Avraham doesn't have. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
53. Support Yes, give him the tools already!  :) ArcAngel (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
54. Support What I have read on this page tells me that the bureaucrat's toolkit will be used sensibly and intelligently. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
55. Was weighing this up based on what I could find out here and elsewhere. Then I saw 'My philosophy in Wikipedia is "No data is better than garbage data".', which got me a little irrational and swayed me to Support. Oh how great it would be if that was actually widely enforced. It shows good judgment and gives me hope that the extra gravitas gained by Avraham will help prevent good knowledgeable editors wasting their time acquiring carpal tunnel because they have to spend several hours typing away each time an anon or red link inserts trash into a wiki article. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
56. Strong Support. The ideal Wikipedian - civil, smart, humourous, knowledgeable, and of course, always editing to the WP:NPOV. Is overly-capabale and overly-trustworthy for bureaucrat responsibilities. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
57. Support without hesitation. Avi's trustworthy, smart, good-humoured, and has excellent judgement, so I can't think of a good reason not to support. Jakew (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
58. Support - partly to outweigh the opposition numbers, but mostly because I think Avi has the good Common Sense, skill and experience to do a good job of being a Bureaucrat. Very committed, helpful and trustworthy, there's no reason to say no. Good luck, and thanks for serving Wikipedia! Al Tally (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
59. Support. People opposed before because of not enough participation in RFA, now people oppose when the "RFA regulars" recognize him and support... This user definitely has a clue, which is good enough for me. Mr.Z-man.sock (talk) 21:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
60. Support. Good answers to the questions. We need more bureaucrats, in my opinion. Bureaucrats' additional powers over sysops are not enough of a difference to be greatly worried about. EdJohnston (talk) 22:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
61. Support - I'm impressed by this editor's contributions and his thorough answers to the questions. Lara❤Love 00:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
62. Support No need to wait for the answer to my question. The earlier answers have convinced me that Avi will be able to do a good job. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 03:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
63. Support Well I did put you through your paces with those questions. And while I wish you were a bit more power hungry to go after dispute resolution, you fit the bill of what I expect in a crat otherwise. So I'm going to support since you obviously won't abuse the tools. :) MBisanz ^talk 05:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
64. Support, we need more bureaucrats. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
65. Support. I supported emphatically last time, and I still know why. Avi is a highly intelligent guy and has the balanced personality for the job. And the RfA participation he was 'asked for' in the last RfB has been outstanding throughout. ... up until his nomination of Coppertwig, which in turn was a slip of several magnitudes. Dorftrottel (bait) 14:57, May 7, 2008
66. Support Yep. -- Agathoclea (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
67. Support Per the need for more bureacrats! Good luck! --Cameron (t|p|c) 19:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
68. Support Obviously well-thought-out answers to the questions; has positions and sticks to them. King Pickle (talk) 02:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
69. Seems a bit too soon since the last one, but he'll be right. I frankly find myself in agreement with many of Anonymous Dissident's points in the opposing section, but my heart tells me Avi won't do horribly bad things with the bit, which is all that matters. ~ Riana ⁂ 04:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
70. His answers to the questions demonstrate a solid understanding of RfA and the role of bureaucrats, plus an abundance of thoughtfulness. No question about trusting him. the wub "?!" 19:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
71. Support. Again. MrPrada (talk) 00:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
72. Support: Of course. Well reasoned and placed answers. seicer | talk | contribs 03:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
73. Support, per his intelligent, well-reasoned answers to questions. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

:No, and I'm sure you know why, the misrepresenting what I said as some admission of canvassing in multiple talk pages (talk pages I didn't have watchlisted too, which makes it kinda difficult to defend your ridiculous claims). I trust you about as far as I can throw you. -- Naerii 18:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for speaking your mind. For the record, IIRC, I said that you admitted to being canvassed off-wiki, by finding out about the Ouze Merham AfD from WR, not that you yourself canvassed others. Oh, and since I need to lose weight, I'd suggest not even trying to lift me up, let alone throw me -- Avi (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm also going to support because of Avi's demeanor. Seriously, your humor is a credit to you as well. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

1. I'm sorry Avi to do this, but I'm going to oppose. I respect your thought comments at WT:RFA, but that's not the only area for brureaucrats to work on. In fact, RfA is very rarely a bureaucrat backlog area and certainly isn't an area where we need new ones. I see little in your statement or answers that you will work on renames or flagging bots which I view as the prime area for new bureaucrats to work on. To support a bureaucrat candidate, I would like to see some recent editing in areas such as WT:U, WT:CHU, WP:CHU/U or WP:UAA to show that you will actively work on username issues. Unfortunately I see very little and it seems you've concentrated too much on WT:RFA in order to gain the extra flag. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

   Approximately an hour after your oppose, Avi wrote: "My role model as a bureaucrat is WJBscribe, who is one of the more active bureaucrats in the username arena, an area I hope I can make a contribution to as well." I'm surprised to see you oppose, given your own RfB attempt and your clear opinion that more bureaucrats are needed - an opinion that was, if I recall, publicized most during a time when the focus was on 'crats available to discuss controversial RfAs. Avruch ^T 00:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   Of course I believe bureaucrats are needed, but I'd like to see a candidate having a clear interest in doing renames, which is the only bureaucrat area which is almost always backlogged. To show this, I would have to see substantial edits to username areas within the last few months because it seems to be the trend that bureaucrats ignore this area. More voices in controversial RfAs is a plus, but we don't get many of them at all and I believe a candidate should show understanding of, and be willing to work in the username areas. I'm sorry but I don't see this evidence in your contributions. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   Just to be clear, I'm not Avi and this isn't my RfB or my contribs ;-) Avruch ^T 00:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   Bloody hell, silly me - I always get you two mixed up! Still, take the comments in the same way as it gives a further insight. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   We have been confused on en-wiki-l too . While some of my responses to the questions above directly deal with your concerns (specifically #13), and I believe you do not have a great need to be concerned, I appreciate your candor and your desire to have people that you feel are the best for the project in these positions. I also appreciate the polite way in which you phrased your oppose. Of course, I hope you reconsider, but whatever happens, thank you for taking the time to express your concerns and your input. -- Avi (talk) 00:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   I may well reconsider as this moves forward, I'll certainly keep on looking back at everyones thoughts. I do want to make it clear that this has nothing to do with your editing on Wikipedia - I find that to be first class, but I just really like to have evidence that a candidate will lend a hand in the username change areas, because I think that's the most important area at the minute. I do have full trust in your ability to close RfAs but there's just more to this. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   Oppose, sorry, but I see many of the usual RfA fan club signing up to support here, and that worries me, because the trend lately at RfA is towards cliqueish supports and little analysis; plus in all my editing time, I only recall encountering you once, when you and a small group of editors were canvassed by a later-proven sockpuppet (Republitarian (talk · contribs)) for input at Talk:Israel-Venezuela relations. Of course, it's not your fault that a group of pro-Israel Jewish editors were canvassed by a sock (and complied with a singular pov), but I wonder why that particular sock chose to canvass that particular group of editors, and I wonder why the editors opining there didn't disclose that they had been invited to that discussion (trustworthy editors usually disclose when they've been invited to comment somewhere). Although I was a very new editor at the time, looking back now with more experience, the way that article evolved makes me uncomfortable. I need to have a much higher confidence level on candidates for RfB, and I just don't have that gut feel here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   And, now aware that this RfB wasn't listed at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RfA and RfB Report for the first 24 hours, possibly explaining why so much of the early support appeared to be from "RFA regulars"; the rest of us didn't know about the RfB. Now fixed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   Just out of curiousity, because I think I am missing something, why would the RFA regulars automatically support Avi? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 03:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   The question is, why were only RfA regulars weighing in. The answer is because they are more likely to have the page watchlisted. And, the latest trend in RfA regulars is support for everyone without analysis, so overwhelming support is expected. Nothing to do with Avi. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   Oh, ok I understand, thanks for explaining. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 03:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   I beleive I resent that. :-( --Koji†Dude ^(C) 03:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   Could it possibly signify that the RfA regulars (which I suppose I am a "member" of....sigh...WP:CABAL) are lending their support for a candidate they are highly familiar with..at..you know..RfA? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   Also, Sandy, please pardon my WP:SARCASM. I was merely attempting to state what I felt was the obvious. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   So you are basing your entire opinion not on anything to do with the candidate, but rather because too many people are rushing to support him? You are aware that this RfB is about the candidate and not those who agree that he should be a Bureaucrat...right? Trusilver 07:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   Please do actually read my oppose to save everyone time and space. (Is the joking about a serious oppose on an important nomination another of our new trends from the current RFA crowd?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   I'm assuming you were not addressing me...? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   No, I'm not addressing you. Trusilver 15:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   Moved my comments and Sandy's response to the talkpage. Please see the talkpage for a further discussion on this oppose and the circumstances Sandy described within it. Avruch ^T 22:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   This is one of the most bad faith opposes I've ever seen. Sandy says she's not an RfA "regular". Perhaps that's for the best? Al Tally (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   It's hardly bad faith when there is evidence that it has occured before: for example there is this post talking about how Avraham was canvassed by this email. Avraham did edit the article heavily that day without disclosing that he had been canvassed. -- Naerii 20:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   I'm referring to her name calling "RfA fan club" and accusing people of attempting to skew the result by not informing her. I am not condoning Avi's actions. Al Tally (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   This is the strangest RfB when it comes to basic reading; where did I accuse anyone of "attempting to skew the result by not informing [me]"? This is the 3rd time on this RfB I've had to ask that people read what I actually wrote; please read what I wrote, not what you imagine. Also, I wasn't aware of the posts Naerii added, which indicates that my example wasn't the only time it happened. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

   Sandy, see this where you quite clearly say the results are skewed, and you only knew because someone told you on your talk page. Al Tally (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

   Thank you for providing further evidence that you misread, misunderstood or twisted my words. I rest my case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

   Because of the sideshow and distractions that were created over the bot error/confusion, other editors misstating my oppose, and other editor intervention/confusion wrt my oppose, at my request, Avraham and I discussed my oppose via e-mail. I am satisfied with his answers, we all made mistakes in our newbie days, the bot error created a misimpression, and I'm striking my oppose. I don't know Avi well enough to Support (nothing personal, I very rarely support candidates at RfA or RfB), but I wish him well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

   Sandy, I very much appreciate the effort you took to discuss your concerns with me, and I thank you for the time and efforts. Of course, I am extra appreciative that it resulted in striking your oppose, but I am more grateful for the time you took and the open mind you displayed that allowed for the discussion to begin with. Thank you again. -- Avi (talk) 03:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose per Ryan Postlethwaite's comments, and it's only two months since the last nomination. Epbr123 (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   Thank you for weighing in. If it eases your mind at all, there is precedent for a shorter time-interval between RfB requests if the primary issue is a specific one (which in this case too is RfA exposure). Please see Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Redux 3. Thank you for taking the time to comment and make your opinion known. -- Avi (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose. I am unsatisfied with Avi's handling of disputes spanning years in circumcision and related articles, in which his unwavering support or vehement and aggressive opposition of edits (and editors) seems entirely guided by an appraisal of their support or opposition to circumcision. The most troublesome case I'm aware of is Avi's failure to satisfactorily address a bitter case of anti-Semitism accusations in article Talk, ugly accusations which were, incredibly, supported vocally by another senior administrator, and implicitly supported by Avi first through his inaction and then by his unwavering support of the other administrator. Blackworm (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   Thank you for taking the time to comment and opine, Blackworm. I also appreciate that you wikilinked the incidents in question, as I believe that the edits themselves show that you mistook the statement for an accusation, which I said then, and will say now, were it to be true, would have been an "an egregious breach of decorum." However, I believe that then, as well as now, you misunderstood his comments. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 19:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   Hello Blackworm. I just wanted to comment here because I really fail to see how Avi's editing here will make him a bureaucrat. A bureaucrats responsibilities involve guaging consensus, doing renames and flagging bots. Having a difference of opinion regarding an article has nothing to do with how Avi would make a good bureaucrat. What you've summed up in primarily a content dispute, something we all get into. I don't think it's fair opposing Avi for this matter when it has nothing to do with him functioning as a crat. I'd also add that this happened in August last year, which seems like an awful long time to hold something against him. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

4. Dubious. SandyGeorgia makes some good points. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Too soon since last attempt. Not satisfied. Bstone (talk) 21:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   Hi Bstone - I'm not sure it is too soon. Avi has made some really constructive comments at WT:RFA and as a candidate, has really shown dedication and clue in this area of bureaucrat tasks. I think if he reapplied after a month, it might be too soon, but I really don't think two months is that bad. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

6. Sorry. Currently, we could use another bureaucrat at the rename boards. After TRM's lack of any activity at all in that area, I am loath to support an RfB without strong evidence that the candidate will devote time there. I do not believe you have ever participated in any significant manner at the boards; therefore, I have no evidence that you are familiar with the procedures, or that you are willing to keep doing the less glamorous and more boring work of a bureaucrat. We do not need any more bureaucrats to close RfAs — I don't think we have had the need any time recently, and with the recent marked decrease in new administrators, I think the need is virtually non-existent. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   No need to apologize; I appreciate that you are acting in good faith and with the best intentions for the wikipedia project in mind. I do hope that I obtain the opportunity to make good on my commitment in question #13 and demonstrate that your fears, while well intentioned, are misplaced when it comes to me. Thank you for opining, and thank you for taking the time to consider and craft your series of questions; well thought out and thought provoking! -- Avi (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

7. Oppose, user is an elitist. Monobi (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose strongly per SandyGeorgia. --Irpen 04:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
9. I am very sorry to be amongst the opposition. Avi has been, in my experience, a friendly person and a skillful admin and editor. But, too many factors add up to me feeling a little uneasy here. Your quickness to go fro a second RfB, your obvious gunning towards being a bureaucrat and your resulting over-participation in RFA to achieve this, all leaves me a little dubious as to whether I'd feel comfortable having you as a crat. Ryan makes good points as well. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
10. Weak Oppose - I have to agree with Ryan and Anonymous Dissident decent in this case, something I am sorry to have to do. I feel that RfA's are a small part of 'crat duties, and your lack of quality answers in relation to WP:U and just an overall lack of experience in areas like WT:CHU, WP:UAA, and WP:CHU. While I agree that adminship is no big deal, I think bureaucratship is, and if I am going to hand over the tools I must feel 100% confident that they will be used properly and overall, used. While I see much improvement at WP:RFA, I almost fell like the only reason for the improvement was simply so that the candidate could run again in a RfA, I guess it feels like over-preparation. Just too soon, sorry. Tiptoety ^talk 15:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

    Hi Tip. Some questions if I may. About your statement "lack of quality answers in relation to WP:U…" Quality answers implies questions. Are you referring specifically to questions 4 and 13, or something else? Also, many of the prior oppositions, including your own, specifically mentioned RfA participation. And as I said then, while I was always a participant in RfA, most of the time, I used the "silent neutral". When the community clearly stated that in order to better gauge my ability to be a bureaucrat they needed more vocal participation, I complied. Now it seems I am being opposed specifically for this compliance, even though, as Pedro has stated above, this ipso facto represents an understanding and implementation of the project members' wishes, which is what a bureaucrat is supposed to do. As for the time differential, Ryan himself stated that he did not think it too short, and there is case precedent for resubmitting an RfB after two months if the issue was RfA participation. See Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Redux 3. And yes, I think I can be a definitive asset to the project as a bureaucrat. I can assure you, this is no ego trip; having ones every edit and every post scrutinized, even for posts over 20 months old; having to answer a larger list of questions than any other RfX besided RedirectBot, and being the object of dicussion among many wikipedians whom one respects, is not fun , but it is something to which I have been willing to subject myself in the interests of helping out, specifically in the areas which do have backlog. Regardless, I respect your, and all those who opposed for similar reasons, decision, and your concern for the project. I do hope I have the opportunity to collectively show you that your worries were misplaced, and even should this RfB fail, I hope these responses help the next candidate to better guage what the community needs. Lastly, on a personal note, thank you for the kind way you phrased your opposition. -- Avi (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

    Excellent response might I add, a response very becoming of a potential 'crat, and for that reason I have moved to weak oppose. Now in response to your question regarding "lack of quality answers in relation to WP:U…" I am most specifically responding to question number 4 where you do not indicate anywhere that you plan on working with usernames at all. As for my comment about "over preparation" in regards to RfA's, I do not want our 'crats to bow down to the communities wishes, but instead do what they feel is best for the project as a whole (a 'crat is there for their good judgment correct?) and that simply participating in RfA's because the community wants you to and not because you want to is not exactly what I look for in a 'crat. I hope you do not interpret my oppose as calling you power hungry, as anyone who puts themselves up the be a 'crat is down right crazy and I respect your desire to want to serve wikipedia further. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 16:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

    This is one of the things that makes this community so varied and rich, but makes achieving a high level of consensus so difficult. On the one hand, MBisanz supportsm but wishes I was more powerhungry (vis-a-vis question #17) on the other, people are opposing because they see evidence of too much power hunger. . Not only can't you please all of the people all of the time, ya cant even please some of the people some of the time (with apologies to Abe Lincoln, PT Barnum, and tp whomever else those quotes are ascribed). Thanks for your clarification, Tip, I appreciate it, and as I said, I hope to be able to have you all look back at this RfB and smile and say "he lived up to what he said he would do" :). -- Avi (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

11. Oppose Per Ryan Postlethwaite and Tiptoety. You're an excellent contributor for the most part, but I just don't feel I can trust you 100% with the extra responsibilities of a bureaucrat. VanTucky 20:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

    Hi, VanTucky. I'd like some clarification, please. Is it specifically a matter of "trust"? As I think neither Ryan nor Tip are opposing due to lack of trust; rather, that they prefer to support someone who was active vis-a-vis usernames prior to an RfB. Perhaps they can both comment here, but I did not get the feeling they think I would abuse the tools, but that they could not be certain that I would use them as frequently as they would want. Thanks -- Avi (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

    Avi, you are correct - my oppose is nothing about trust, I have no doubts that you would use the tools wisely. My concern is that with respect to bureaucratship, I view work at CHU and CHU/U as the most important role, in the respect that's the only area that gets big backlogs on. I'd like some evidence of appreciation of the username policy and working in areas such as WP:UAA, WT:U or helping to clerk at the username change pages shows that interest and understanding of the area. It's all good and well a candidate being competant in the RfA process, but that's not really the area we need new bureaucrats, except for the one or two controversial cases a year that require more than one 'crats input. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

    My comments didn't mean, "oppose on trust grounds, like so-and so". It was "oppose on these prior grounds, and I don't trust you enough". Sorry for the confusion. VanTucky 22:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

    (ec)I agree with Ryan here to an extent. What I was saying was that I would like to see more participation in areas (more specifically usernames) that relate to the use of the tools. I in no means feel that he would "abuse" the tools, but question maybe if he would misues them just do to lack of evidence to support otherwise, and even then I feel he would tread carefully in areas he is unaware about. I guess overall I would just like to see more username experience. Tiptoety ^talk 22:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

12. Oppose Obviously this will seem like a massive case of sour grapes, but IMO the rationale behind Avi's oppose !vote in my RfA ("The issues raised here lead me to feel that at this point, that trust should not be extended") showed pretty poor judgement. Most of the "issues" raised in my RfA were brought by two sets of POV warriors (pro-Israel and Irish) who I had pissed off through trying to implement NPOV in various areas, as well as involving a pretty blatant WP:CANVASsing case. That Avi apparently failed to see through that leads me to doubt that he would be able to see through similar situations in the future, and that he might end up closing RfAs on the basis of the weight of votes from disruptive users. However, if Avi can show that he has done so in another (more recent) case, I'll remove my opposition. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

    I'm uncertain what you mean by "see through". VanTucky, who opposed directly above you, was in the opposition on your RfA as well. I apologize if you feel personally insulted, but as an editor I do my best to opine on the merits of each individual case, taking into account the candidate's history, answers to questions, issues raised by others involved in the discussion, and then render my own decision. As for my recent RfA history, Iyou are more than welcome to peruse various support rationales such as Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Philosopher, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/VanTucky 2 or oppose rationales such as Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MONGO 2 (where, you might notice, I went against what has been called the Pro-Israel cabal). It is your call, and I respect your decision regardless. Thank you for taking the time to explain your position. -- Avi (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

    Sorry, I wasn't accusing you of being part of a pro-Israel cabal (btw, I don't see the pro-Israel lot (Tewfik, GHcool etc) in the MONGO RfA). Plus you are right about VanTucky - his oppose was one of the justified ones. I'll have a bit more of a look through your contributions tomorrow (off to bed now) and review my !vote. Cheers for the calm/rational response (and you didn't have to apologise - I didn't feel insulted, just hard done by :) ). пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

13. Not at this time. ++Lar: t/c 02:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

    I was asked to clarify this by Avraham on my talk. So here is an elaboration. I think (based on my experience in the role on Meta and Commons, and on observation of things here and in other online communities over the last 25 years) a successful 'crat needs to be good at discerning consensus, at listening to points of view, and at responding politely, clearly and succinctly, in a calm, reasoned and non flashy manner, to all concerns and points of view raised. Further, the communication style needs to be self effacing rather than challenging or argumentative. A crat should not be a "look at me, I've got something important to say, and oh by the way I know better than you" sort of person, but rather a "I'm listening, and I'm here to serve as the community dictates, tell me what's on your mind" sort. My previous interactions with Avraham do not lead me to believe that Avraham has that approach and temperament at this time. Perhaps he/she actually does but the communication style hides it from me. Perhaps he/she doesn't, but will later. Perhaps he/she never will. But I cannot in good conscience support this candidacy at this time, and in fact, feel compelled to speak in opposition. I hope that clarifies matters. ++Lar: t/c 12:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

    This is the first oppose which disappoints me, not with you, Lar, but in myself, and let me explain. Although human and imperfect, I have always attempted to be polite, civil, and respectful. To be told that I come across as an egoistical, self-important, preening panjandrum is personally disappointing. I would ask you for specific examples that lead you to believe such, but I'm actually too embarrassed to do do so in public.

    Regarding my literary style, yes, in general, I have the ability to write at length on topics. Especially when it comes to discussions like this, I am willing to sacrifice compendiousness for clarity. See Ral's oppose below for a prime example where spending a few extra words may have forestalled misunderstanding.

    Regardless, although personally disappointing, I respect your opinion, and your concern for the project that compelled you to speak out. On a personal level, I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this with you further, as the RfB is much less important to me than is my comportment and how I both relate to and treat other. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 14:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

    I think you are way off here Lar, Avi is by far one of the most polite, civil, non-argumentative admins we have here (and I really mean that). I think that if you (Lar) look back over this RfB and carefully read all of Avi's responses to the constructive criticism he is receiving here you will find exactly what you are looking for. I would be interested to see specific situations (or diffs) in which you feel Avi has been "poorly tempered" or just unwilling to communicate. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 16:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

    You certainly may think that, and who knows, perhaps I am. I am not sure that dragging out specific diffs here and now would be constructive or kind to Avraham, he and I have agreed to discuss this matter offline. Suffice it to say that's my impression, and leave it at that. ++Lar: t/c 22:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

14. The answer to question 17 worries me greatly. I'm strongly of the opinion that numbers have very little to do with consensus, but by the same token, when it comes to RfA, where it is assumed that the participants are a fair sampling of Wikipedia, 73% of 400 is never a stronger indication than 90% of 50. I'm worried that Avraham would see a controversial nomination (for example, the 73% of 400 suggestion he made), and promote not on the arguments made for and against the candidate, but because 292 users supported that nomination (granted, that's a significant fact). The latter view ignores the also-significant fact that 108 users opposed that nomination. Ral315 (talk) 04:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

    Hi, Ral. I was trying to make the point that even if a bureaucrat candidate may have a higher percentage than an ArbCom electee, that does not mean that bureaucrats should begin to have ArbCom-type responsibilities, mainly because the criteria are different, but also because ArBCom elections have much more wiki-wide penetration than do bureaucrat elections. Have you seen the discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Did someone say stats?. Dragons flight's tables are most enlightening. As Malleus pointed out in that discussion (if you read the end of it), despite my penchant for long-winded answers, I can be too short at times. Similar to my over-condensation there, what I meant to say in #17 that 73% of 403 may be a greater indication of being over 70% of the population than 90% of 50 is of being over 85% of the population. Now, this morning I actually ran the numbers and, unless I am mistaken and I hope Dragon Flight corrects me, getting 294 out of 403 votes may occur around 9.3% of the time if the population threshold is BELOW 70% whereas getting 45 out of 50 votes may occur around 12.3% of the time if the population threshold is below 85%. That was my point. As I said in my nom statement, for RfA's 73% would fall right into the category where bureaucrat judgment IS required, and there would be no way I would promote on 73% SOLELY for numerical reasons. The example in #17 was to explain to MBisanz that I did notthink there should be a direct jump between bureaucrats and ArbCom. I hope this mollifies your concerns. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 11:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

    No, no, no, no, no. You are completely mistaken. RFA, RFB, ArbCom are clear examples of nonprobability sampling. Any inferences to a general population are completely invalid. It would be a disturbing mistake to apply incorrect math like this to your decision making. --JayHenry (talk) 04:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

    I know that they fail for various reasons (non-random sample, contagion, etc.) OK, it was a bad way to make the point. Note to self: Make one mathematical over generalization on a wiki RfB, and the entire world has to show up and (rightly) point out that you're a complete dumbbell . I still think that crats should not be ArbCom light, though. The skill set being voted on is different. -- Avi (talk) 04:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

    Ahem, Avraham, you apparently forgot to change my userpage when you performed the gender reassignment surgery. For the 80th time, its MBisanz, not Ms. Bisanz, Mr. Mbisanz, or any other combination, its Matthew G. Bisanz! MBisanz ^talk 05:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

    Oh gosh, I'm sorry, that's the last time I perform surgery while under the influence of wiki substances. Ouch! -- Avi (talk) 05:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

15. I still have several issues here. The last attempt closed on March 8; 2 months ago. I don't feel that concerns raised then could be resolved in such a short period of time...even if the direction he's headed since is nothing but good (which it certainly seems to be). Perhaps I'm too conservative about promoting B-crats but I don't think there's any hurry here. B-crats should be the most trusted members of the community, with a reasonably long track record in the areas B-crats are active in as well as a proven record of good judgment. I'm also not crazy about the 80% bureaucrat passing percentage he talks about. I wish he had waited a little, I'd rather bureaucrats be picked from members of the community with the most trust rather from those that want it the most. RxS (talk) 04:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
16. A number of points raised above concern me enough to vote here. Time since the last RfB & the apparent urge to be a 'crat would be amongst them. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

    I am not sure how wanting to serve the community further is an issue. I would rather have a 'crat who wants to be one, opposed to one who does not. Tiptoety ^talk 16:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

    It is said that the best leaders are those that have to be implored to lead, and those that lead by following their people rather than by dictating. 'crats are both leaders, and not leaders, in fact, and the following bit is especially important, while we also ask them to be thought leaders, to be among the very best admins we have... And in our odd system, we cannot pressgang our leaders, they have to stand for election. Further, by some odd tradition I have never fathomed, we frown on other than self noms for 'crats while at the same time there are those who frown on self noms for admins. So it's twisted. But all that said, anyone who is TOO eager, too anxious to get the bits handed to him makes some folk nervous. I'm casting stones while living in a glass house, since I stood for steward, failed, and then stood again. But I think Herby taps into something in our collective psyche that has some validity. ++Lar: t/c 22:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

    Hi, Lar. My selection of the time differential between my first RfB and this one was based on the precedent of Redux's third RfB, where he submitted that request two months after the second RfB, where the primary issue was one of a lack a showing at RfA; exactly the issue the community told me I needed to address. All three of his RfB's were self-nominations, and you saw fit to opine on the third nomination as a "strong support" (#54). Now I understand that was two years ago, and since then your experience here in wikipedia may have contributed to changing your perspective on these issues, and I respect that. I know mine have changed on varius issues too, and the fact that there has been no shortage of wikidrama in the past two years may make anyone more reluctant to support if they believe the possibility exists. Thank you for taking the time to clarify your position. -- Avi (talk) 23:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

17. Oppose per my objections in the last RfB, and specifically the type of response I received then. I would like to have put more time into reviewing Avraham's contributions more closely, and ask questions this time, but there are more than enough questions already. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral, leaning towards support. I believe that Avraham would be a good crat, but I think that the points SG and RP brought up are too strong to ignore. Nevertheless, I don't think an oppose would be doing him justice, which is why I'm here. I may change to support later, so I ask that people not bug me with why I should support or anything. bibliomaniac15 Do I have your trust? 02:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
2. 

   
   LOL WUT -- Gurch (talk) 02:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   That's terrifying, Gurch. That's almost as bad as those "shocked" Wikipe-tan's people used to put on the RFA talk page. bibliomaniac15 Do I have your trust? 03:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

3. Neutral. Ryan's opinion weighs heavily for me. Oh the other hand, I know that we often promote admins based on trust who go on to learn and use tools that they were uninvolved with previously. It'd be nice to see more involvement with bureaucratty work, but I can't bring myself to oppose because I don't really distrust the user. I'll ponder this further and might change my mind. --Dweller (talk) 10:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
4. Neutral for now. Seems like a decent, level-headed guy, and I don't want to attack him. However, I am very worried that he described WJBscribe as his bureaucrat "role model", considering that WJBscribe took the utterly, totally wrong decision to promote ^demon with only 60% community support. Those of us who opposed ^demon, on solid grounds, should not have been simply disregarded as if our opinions were worthless; and ^demon should not be an administrator now, given that so many members of the community brought up valid concerns about his use of the tools. I realise this reads like a rant, and I am not well-known for my level-headedness where RfB is concerned. But I was very disappointed in WJBscribe and would go so far as to say that he no longer has my trust. I may change to support depending on the answer to my question #28 above. Walton^One 14:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

   Staying neutral in light of #28. I won't support anyone who isn't willing to condemn the ridiculous decision made on that RfA, but since he says he wouldn't personally have promoted, I won't oppose either. Walton^One 17:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

5. Neutral per this edit, which provides no actual explanation of argument and I believe elaborating on rationales or stances is important to consensus discussions. Not enough to oppose, but a slight concern. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

   A diff from an AfD, from August 2007? Egads, Roi, that makes my support even stronger that you had to go back 10 months to find a diff not to your liking from an AfD. August 2007. And he did cite WP:WING, not like he just said "delete". Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

   The concern there was that an essay, not policy or guideline, was being cited as a reason for deletion of an article that was ultimately kept without really saying how the article did not meet that essay's standards. I have not really had much else experience beyond that particular discussion, but he did leave an explanation on my talk page that is making me reconsider my stance, i.e. possibly leaning toward weak support. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

6. Neutral lean support some of the opposes are of concern... would have to dig deeper into candidate to support fully.Balloonman (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
7. Neutral, leaning support. Opposers make some good points, but I appreciate the thoughtful responses to questions. KrakatoaKatie 03:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)