Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Avruch

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Avruch

Final (104/35/10); Ended 23:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC) withdrawn by candidate. Dlohcierekim 00:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Avruch (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nomination withdrawn. Thank you, everyone, for both your support and your constructive criticism. I've definitely learned a lot about the expectations and views of a significant portion of the community, and with time I hope to gain your trust by satisfying your concerns. Avruch 23:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional questions from Noroton: I've been looking over your contributions records and found a page you had once set up in your user space that contained the first two questions here, and the first part of the third question (#11), so I'm sure you've thought about them. Please forgive me if you've addressed this elsewhere, but I didn't see it (and in that case, please just refer me to the spot). Please don't feel under a time constraint to answer these questions immediately. I won't be offended by short answers, either. Noroton (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC) (((I just removed the original #10 question because another question covered the same territory (what's now question #11. Sorry if that causes any confusion. Noroton (talk) 22:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC))))

9: If another administrator removes material from an article and cites a BLP concern as the reason - but you believe the material does not violate BLP policy — what do you do?

A.: First clear requirement is to not restore the text. Generally when an admin removes something "per BLP" it'll be for a good reason, and if its not obvious then often it will be as the result of information acquired somewhere else. Whether its a noticeboard, an e-mail, OTRS, etc. its important to first assume that the other individual knows what he or she is doing. So, I'd ask them - perhaps in a discreet way on their talkpage (i.e. without repeating the problematic information) or in an e-mail. In most cases I think we could come to an agreement, and there are few situations I can imagine where it would be vital enough to take beyond that stage even if I continued to disagree. The applicable arbitration case in this situation is the Badlydrawnjeff case.

10: What is your opinion on administrator recall? Will you leave yourself open to some kind of set form of recall as, to name one example, User:SirFozzie has?

A.: I think the system of voluntary recall, with personally set requirements and processes, sucks. Some of those who are in the category (particularly those using the recall terms found at User:Lar/Accountability) have made the best out of a bad system. What I would really like to see is a policy proposal (preferably one championed by ArbCom and perhaps drafted by them) describing a community process for removing poor administrators that could be adopted by the community as the standard for all recalls. I'm aware that there are many potential problems in such a policy, but I don't think a workable one is beyond our capabilities. Having said that... I plan to add myself to the category, should this RfA be successful, using some variation of Lar's processes and with terms that I haven't yet determined.

11: By the end of an AfD discussion, an overwhelming consensus has formed to keep an article, but after you've looked over the discussion, you believe the article is not in conformance with an WP:NPOV guideline. The guideline has come up in discussion and numerous editors have given their opinion on how that policy applies to the article, but having looked at their reasoning, looked back at the policy language and considered its spirit, you don't think the editors' interpretation is a reasonable application of the guideline. What do you do? Would your answer change if there were 200 editors participating in the AfD and the number of Keep votes was overwhelming?

A. First thing to consider is that NPOV is a core policy, and all policies reflect a project consensus that in general terms has precedence over a consensus developed in an AfD discussion. So a discussion consensus that clearly conflicts with policy has little weight. I don't think this is really all that common. The next thing to consider is that my understanding of the policy is not, itself, reflective of consensus. By that I mean - if 200 reasonable people disagree with me, then I'm probably wrong. If it were 5 people, I'd probably relist and add my own comment. At 200 people I imagine I will still add my own comment, and let someone else close the discussion. I wouldn't have a problem closing a discussion with an outcome I disagree with, but if I feel the outcome violates a core policy I'm more apt to say that as a participant and allow one of the many other admins to make the closing decision.

12: Do you believe you have an obligation, if you close a contentious AfD that has a lot of vigorous discussion, to explain your reasoning in your closing comments?

A.: Of course. Wikipedia isn't a democracy, but it isn't a dictatorship of Avruch either. If I failed to provide a cogent rationale I'd expect that decision to be challenged at DRV.

13: You block an editor without warning. That editor points out to you that you did not issue a warning first. You point out to the editor that the situation did not call for a warning. The editor then responds, after the block has expired, in a way that convinces you that in fact the situation did call for a warning. What do yo do now?

A.: Apologize to the editor and perhaps (depending on the circumstances) make a 1 second block entry into the block log acknowledging my mistake so the block isn't held against the editor in the future.

Question section break

14.: Question from Dlohcierekim . Editors have described you as a "BLP nightmare" over concerns about such articles as Giovanni di Stefano. What is your current understanding of BLP? How would you respond today in such a situation? Dlohcierekim 19:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

A.: I think its a complete mischaracterization of my work on that article, for which I am also apparently to be sued. There is a lot of background to that article, not all of it available on the page, and it is a fact that the editors of that page (myself included) have been very careful with respect to BLP. There is no question that a firm line on BLP articles is necessary, in keeping with the principle to not harm article subjects or give prominence to accusations and claims that are untrue or have not received serious scrutiny by reliable sources. There is a balance, though - we have a responsibility also to not whitewash article subjects through the overbroad application of the policy. Wikipedia doesn't change the reality of an individual's background, either by including unreferenced and dubious smears or by excluding legitimate criticism and negative information. I believe all the editors of the GdS page (including Jimbo, its one of the pages he has edited the most) are aware of the potential for legal action, and many have decided that the article should not be edited to meet his (di Stefano's) preferences as a response to that threat. Additionally, its of note that both the article subject and his son have been blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia. My comments on the talkpage show my (and others) frustration with SqueakBox - not because he is trying to hold the line on BLP in the vein of Doc glasgow but because he is trying to extend it much farther than is accepted in the community at the moment by crafting the article to suit the subject. Avruch 19:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Below is a list of the biographies (most BLPs) that I have edited, not including tagging or deleted edits. I submit that I adhered to the BLP policy before I knew it existed, and if you go back far enough on some of these I was making BLP compliance edits even when I was making some very poor (in hindsight) deletion noms. Avruch 20:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

15: In case I was being unfair down at Oppose no. 5 (currently), could you point to articles where you have added new material, as opposed to removing material or reformatting refs? Preferably with diffs, or at least dates. Johnbod (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

A.: I don't think criticism of my edit ratio is necessarily unfair - I haven't created 10 FAs or even close, a large number of my edits are outside article space and of those many are clerical edits at AN and AN/I. Still, I've added and refined content on a good number of articles so far - Melinda Estes, Fletcher Allen Health Care, Mark McClellan, J. Michael Bailey, Hitler's Willing Executioners, Daniel Goldhagen, Norman Finkelstein, Roger Stone, Alfonso Portillo, The Man Who Would Be Queen, Roland Berger, Roman Catholic Diocese of Killala, Abu Sayyaf and Abraham Foxman among a number of others. These are articles where I've specifically added or rewritten content (aside from references, which I note are mostly addittions as opposed to reformating). Adding references and removing content that can't be referenced is critically important - our articles have little weight with absent or poor references, so when I correct that sort of problem (something that often does not take a great deal of time) I'm happy to have done so. Sorry I haven't provided diffs above for my work - the edits are in the article history, and parsing each individual edit would take more time than I have at the moment. Avruch 21:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok - some random diffs seem to be May 30 all? contributions to The Man Who Would Be Queen, May 14 Roman Catholic Diocese of Killala, June 11 all edits to Alfonso Portillo. Johnbod (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

General comments

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

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

---

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

Discussion

• One thing I'd like to point out is that a lot of my edits to AN/I and AN come in the context of adding myself to this list on this proposal. Lots of my edits are adding resolved tags, archiving some discussions with tags, putting sections in collapse boxes (which was later stopped on discussion at WT:AN), etc. Something to be aware of when evaluating the ratio of my edits anyway. Avruch^T * ^ER 15:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Support

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

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

27. Not bother to check the talkpage, contrib history or count Support, as I am going simply by the interactions I have had with the candidate. Will make an excellent sysop. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
28. I thought he was one already so much I asked him to do a (non-controversial) admin action for him last night. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
29. What Majorly said!!!..--Cometstyles 00:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
30. What Cometstyles said!!! —Animum (talk) 00:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
    I humbly apologize for my somewhat impetuous previous support; after pressing my modified “Save page” button, which looks more gray than blue due to my amazing CSS skills, I immediately thought to myself, “This requires more thought.” When I further examined Avruch’s contributions, I found that he made extensive contributions to The Man Who Would Be Queen, while ignoring such high-brow featured articles as Wonderbra, eliciting either a COI with regard to the first – or if he truly were to be queen, perhaps the second as well – or a distaste for popular undergarments.
    As for the ever-present aspect of contribution counting, I must admonish this user on his edit count, for it is truly lamentable that someone as experienced and level-headed as Avruch can overlook the important area of edit count maintenance – the first digit is divisible by the second, but this trend does not hold true for the third and fourth! You should always seek to improve the statistics by which so many newbie editors will inevitably judge you.
    Of course, one cannot overlook some way in which I have interacted with Avruch in the past. This crucial insight will give me a candid look into his past, his future, the present, his behavior, the upcoming Presidential elections, my horoscope, the weather in London, gas prices, the existence of aliens, the Jedi council, penguin mating times, and so many other things. I do believe that once we both did indeed comment on the same discussion thread, albeit not one concerning many of the aforementioned topics.
    In the end, however, the positives marginally outweigh the negatives and tip the scales in favor of supporting this candidate for adminship. Many thanks if you forced yourself to read this far. —Animum (talk) 01:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
31. Support. Calm down, people. — Athaenara ✉ 00:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
32. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 00:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
33. What Giggy said! giggy _(:O) 01:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
34. Whoa, he's not an admin? GlassCobra 01:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
35. Excellent Editor, great answers, will do well. Dusti^SPEAK!! 01:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
36. Support an excellent candidate --Stephen 01:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
37. Support. bibliomaniac15 01:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
38. Support - Assumed he was one already. VegaDark (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

    [Moved to neutral]. Daniel (talk) 07:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

39. Support not only did I think he was an admin already, I actually thought he was a 'crat. Excellent questions to the optional ones. (Note - I re-numbered them so people could refer to them without confusion). xenocidic (talk) 01:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
40. Support, per Athaenara. Although I must admit, I thought you just had an RFB... so who was it I voted for, lol...? · AndonicO ^Engage. 01:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

    Avraham. Don't worry, it happens a lot ;) Avruch^T * ^ER 02:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

41. What CWii said...wait? What did he say? \(0.0)/ CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 03:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
42. Support Indeed! Ecoleetage (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
43. Support Solid nomination statements, very good answers, plenty of experience. Yechiel (Shalom) 03:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
44. Answers do not provide anything I would deem concerning enough to oppose. --Haemo (talk) 04:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
45. Support and thinks... "wait a minute, he's not an admin?" OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
46. Support per nom. Vishnava _talk 05:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
47. Support Maybe this way we'll stop being confused for one another. In all seriousness, Avruch is someone who will not abuse the tools, in my opinion, and can be trusted with the bit. -- Avi (talk) 06:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
48. Support, this user seems to have their head attached correctly. Answers to the optional questions seem to be well-thought and a quick review of this user's history looks good. Shereth 08:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
49. Support StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 09:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
50. Support Saw the user somewhere and that left good impression. --PeaceNT (talk) 10:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
51. Support Everything I've seen suggests a guy with good judgment who wouldn't abuse the tools and would be a benefit to the project. Whenever I've seen him he's been polite and insightful. Having so many great editors on the support side suggests that yeah, he'll make a good admin. --Tombomp (talk/contribs) 11:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

    I also don't find OrangeMarlin's diffs convincing. The first 3 are absolutely completely fine. The second two are a little more eh but they're still fine and resonable. --Tombomp (talk/contribs) 15:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

52. As with PeaceNT. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
53. Per Moreschi. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  12:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
54. Support, although I note the opposes. The answers to Haemo's questions are solid and dispel any concerns I have. Horologium (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
55. Thought he was one support per the previous 50-odd supports. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
56. Support per Gurch. Honestly I don't want to come off as the rest of the supporters but I did in fact think Avruch was an admin. I frequently go to him for answers from time to time before I make certain edits or anytime I need the specifics on a variety of topics. I've found him very knowledgable and completely worthy of adminship. Trustyworhy as well. A fine example of "I thought you were an admin" and a perfect candidate. :) — _Maggot^Syn 13:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
57. Support, nothing out of order here :) Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 14:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
58. Suppoty what User:Juliancolton said :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 15:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

    Switching from Suppoty to Support. Next time I'll make sure my fingers are on the right keys.... :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 15:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

59. I'm not a fan of drama causing admins, and I've opposed a few RfAs simply because the editor tends to stir up too much drama. I don't think Avruch is a drama mongering user at all. Yeah, he does get involved in some intense discussions, but he gives some very thoughtful comments in these discussion. Overall, he often helps to reduce the drama. He knows policy well and I think he'd do a good job as an admin. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

    Going by my many past interactions with this editor, Avruch will be a trustworthy and helpful admin. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

60. Support I've seen Avruch around a lot, and his involvement in dramas that I've seen has been constructive and conciliatory. No reason to think he'd abuse the tools, so, yes. --Rodhullandemu 20:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
61. Support. No problems here. Well, start using the "show preview" button dammit, I hate messy history pages. Tan | 39 21:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
62. Support - seems to be a good candidate for adminship.   jj137 (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
63. Experienced user, unlikely to be abusive. WilyD 21:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
64. Support Keep the opposers' drama concerns in your mind from now on, and you won't have a problem.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 22:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
65. Support. Plenty of experience, communicates, works in the mainspace. Has my support. Useight (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
66. Support Prodego ^talk 00:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
67. Support, easily surpassing my criteria. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
68. Support I first noticed Avruch on the Roger Stone page, where we had a minor conflict over whether a problematic (and unusual) passage should be kept. The result was a better-written, more tightly sourced passage which seemed to meet his objections. (At the time, I mistook Avruch for Avriham and I almost left a note on Avruch's page to say that now I'd twice had my prose edited by someone who had impressed me with the improvements. Since reading this page, I'm happy to find out what we have here is four hands on the keyboards rather than two.) I'm also impressed by Avruch having Lar as a mentor. I looked over Avruch's contributions, and I'm impressed by his cool, helpful comments in discussions. As others have said, he may show up a lot on some of our drama stages, but he's not there to ham it up (I saw a minor exception in one spot, but nobody's perfect; and, frankly, he keeps his cool much better than this non-admin does). He contributed a bit at the Mantanmoreland arb case, and I overall disagreed with what he said, but I can't question his judgment or his tone there. I didn't want to vote before seeing how he'd answer my questions above, and he answered them well, except for Question #11. What I wanted to see in that answer was whether he'd stand up even against a consensus if it went against policy. Even if there are 170 or so editors going one way, it's the closing admin's duty to go the other if that's the only way policy can be interpreted. That disappointment aside, this is clearly an editor knowledgeable about policy and procedures (from quite early on in his contributions, it seems), and one who pretty obviously has the maturity to be an admin. And thanks, Avruch, for quickly answering all those questions. I think you'll be a real asset to WP. Noroton (talk) 03:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
69. Support -Not an admin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinkleheimer (talk • contribs)
70. Support Bwrs (talk) 04:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
71. Of course. SQL^{Query me!} 04:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
72. that was quick :-) --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
73. Support - definitely, although I do admit to confusing him with Avriham every so and then :p Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
74. Support should do well as an adin; seems trustworthy, and has the necessary experience. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
75. Support I have seen him around, and I see no reason to believe he would abuse or misuse the tools. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 13:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
76. Support Yay me! I get arbitrary number 78! It just makes me feel fuzzy inside...I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 18:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
77. Strong Support: I don't think we always agree, but I've been impressed with Avruch's maturity, level-headedness, and dedication to the project's goals. Those are really the most (or only) important qualifications for adminship in my book. I think he'll do good (and well) with the tools. Ordinarily, a 10:1 an excess AN/I to articlespace ratio would alarm me, but Avruch's contributions in projectspace have been drama-reducing, mature, and calm, and that's the sort of presence that Wikipedia always needs more of. I can't penalize him for that when his input has been a clear net positive for the encyclopedia. Good luck. MastCell ^Talk 18:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

    10:1! It can't be that high... Avruch^T * ^ER 19:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

    I'm sorry, that was careless of me. I was basing it on Johnbod's oppose below. The actual ratio is more like 1.5:1 Wikipedia-space vs. article space. In any case, my point was only that I do see you participating actively in projectspace (perhaps more actively than in articlespace), but I don't view this as a problem or a negative regarding adminship, since your input has been consistently constructive. I always prefer a known quantity. I apologize for the careless math on my part, and again, good luck. MastCell ^Talk 19:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

78. Strong support. Clearly meets my standards. Reasonable even when we do not agree. Bearian (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
79. Support You're not already? Hmm... Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 19:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
80. support Seems like a good candidate. Presence on ANI is not necessarily the same as drama-mongering (I am willing to change my opinion on this if opposers can link to specific difs that they think are problematic). JoshuaZ (talk) 21:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
81. Support - I srsly, not even kidding, for real thought you were already an admin... You are clearly qualified. LaraLove|Talk 23:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
82. Support, he looks like he would be a dedicated administrator who is able to do whatever is asked of him. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
83. Support I am not so sure about the co-nominator, but I think the candidate is reliable. Jehochman ^Talk 00:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
84. Support Absolutely, yes! Bstone (talk) 00:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
85. Support, no indication candidate would abuse or misuse the tools. --Rory096 05:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
86. Support - a nod towards JayHenry's comments below, but nothing severe enough for neutral or oppose, IMO. Should be okay - Alison ^❤ 08:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
87. Support an experienced candidate whose adminship would be a net positive to the project. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
88. Support. A candidate who has a clear understanding of what an admin needs to do. BlueQ99 (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
89. Support Good responses to the questions. Opposition below makes a lot of claims about drama seeking but fails to tie that back to the admin tools. --Gmaxwell (talk) 14:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
90. Support Orangemarlin's diffs are not convincing. EJF (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
91. "What are the steps in evaluating of a userbox is appropriate or inappropriate? What questions should be asked of any userbox (or for that matter, content on any userpage)? This can only be evaluated in the context of the goal of Wikipedia: The development of a resource that contains the useful knowledge of the human race.Since this is such a broad and ambitious goal, there are many different elements that can contribute to its achievement. Among those elements is the identification of editors and their interests and points of view. Some might make the argument that the encyclopedia is supposed to have a neutral point of view, and thus the specific perspective of any given editor is irrelevant. I disagree with that presumption - the content of the encylopedia is supposed to be neutral, but editors themselves can never be neutral. Awareness of the interests and biases of yourself and other editors is crucial in counteracting it, as biases may unconsciously affect editing. So if I accept that understanding and identifying editors is helpful to the task of developing an encyclopedia, then I must also accept that userboxes are a simple and straightforward method of accomplishing this task. Therefore, userboxes themselves cannot be verboten. What I can do, however, is evaluate individual userboxes against the criteria of usefully describing an individual editor - keeping in mind that the description is useful only as long as it supports the goals of the encyclopedia. That leads me to a question, though: Can userboxes actually detract from the encyclopedia, or do some userboxes simply not contribute either way? Phrased differently, is some self-description actually a net negative for collaboration? The answer, I believe, lies in the fact that a userbox is descriptive only - a userbox describing me as a Nazi does not make me a Nazi anymore than the lack of one means I am not, it merely identifies something that exists independently of the box." That is what is located at User:Avruch/About userboxes. I am, I must admit, very much impressed by this view. Avruch is clearly able and willing to understand those who may have differing viewpoints from others in the vicinity, and being able to be compassionate whilst having the 'effectability', so to speak, to perform extra tasks for this is a great plus (example: being able to perform protections in times of edit warring etc.) However, I do have to take into consideration the points that the opposition make, some of which are valid, others maybe not so. I do appreciate that refactoring (or in any way modifying a comment) is very much inappropriate, however I see rare occasions where this has occured, secondly I see that there are concerns expressed that Avruch may be to 'prone to drama', which I initially had too, however, on deep reflection of the candidate against a wide variety of areas he has been active in and the humbled and both encouraging responses given to the questions above, means on the contrary there is sufficient reason why I should support this candidate. Rudget (logs) 15:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
92. Down with crimethink! It doesn't correlate that an interest in drama means he's going to cause it. I see no risk to the project in promoting. Mackensen (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC) When did this become Wikipedia:Mindless sheep for adminship? At the risk of channelling Harry Frankfurt, I suspect the opposers don't even know what they mean by "too much drama," except they think that it is bad, and by extension Avruch is bad. The veracity of the statement can't be established; I suppose we can stand Wikipedia:Assume good faith on its head and presume the sincerity of the user, but the lack of specificity and falsifiability precludes any possibility of engagement on the question. Surely a substantive oppose isn't all that hard? Mackensen (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

    I was thinking the same thing and I would encourage, nay expect, the closing bureaucrat to disregard "oppose" comments without a specific rationale included, without diffs or at least concrete examples of why the candidate is, in their opinion, unsuitable for the tools included. The default is support in a discussion like this, folks, and opposes need to be argued, not just stated. Having said that, one or two of the opposers do make some valid points. Many, however, do not, which is a shame. --John (talk) 23:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

    Thanks for proving that at least the final parenthetical of my oppose had merit. It's comforting to know that I got at least one thing correct, even if the rest of my opinion lacks "falsifiability". Mackensen, surely a comment like yours or the suggestion to bureaucrats to disregard the opposes does significantly less to foster engagement than anything anyone in the oppose section said. I'm perfectly willing to discuss but not if you're the sort who thinks calling my statements Orwellian bullshit is a starting point for dialog? --JayHenry (t) 04:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

    Didn't have you in mind when I wrote my comment. Mackensen (talk) 11:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

    My mistake for assuming I was among the intended targets of the comment. The point still stands: labeling the statements of those with whom you disagree as Orwellian bullshit does less to foster engagement than anything coming from the oppose section. --JayHenry (t) 00:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

93. Support Experience in nearly all of the admin areas (although I would've liked to see more than 15 AIV reports in over a year of experience). Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 00:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
94. Support From what I've seen, Avruch is thoughtful and responsible. No question. --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 00:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
95. Support per OrangeMarlin. Although I suspect I was supposed to draw different conclusions, I've looked through his diffs, I've looked at the original disputes behind them...and I'm seeing things entirely differently. I'd much rather see an admin like Avruch out there than OM. --InkSplotch (talk) 02:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
96. Strong Support. Support, per SqueakBox. Per Lar, too. I think this editor is a good guy and wants to further the project, I just hope he will soften his beliefs on fair-use. This project works best when reasonable compromises can be had. --Dragon695 (talk) 04:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

    His answer to Question 14 was spot on! Changed to strong support. --Dragon695 (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

97. Support, per the user's workings on the Giovanni di Stefano article; he treats BLP as they should, not as some super-special case where V gets thrown out the window in the name of "keeping bad stuff out". We needs more admins like this. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
98. Support - I think the reasons given for opposing this excellent candidate are basically nonsense. Neıl 龱 10:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
99. Support - I approached Avruch not 2 weeks ago, to see if he felt nomination for adminship was appropriate, based on his consistent and well thought out contribution to the wiki. I examined his involvement in ANI and cases cited below, cases and satisfied myself that he is "a good editor who tries to help calmly in difficult places" rather than any other reason. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
100. Support Despite the drama concerns, I can't recall ever seeing anything too negative coming from Avruch that would justify a refusal to granting him the tools. Also, opposed by SqueakBox, which is usually an indication that the candidate is doing a real good job somewhere. Húsönd 12:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
101. Support - per the opposes, they are uncompelling. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

     While I'm concerned by JayHenry's rationale, I really don't find it too concerning - in my few interactions with Avruch, he didn't seem to purposely seek out drama. OrangeMarlin's oppose, however, doesn't concern me in the least; especially for a purportedly "very strong oppose," the rationale is extremely weak to the point of nonexistence. Adding a rationale to a support for a so-called "obviously flawed candidate" (since when has there been a candidate with no flaws?) is now a bad thing? I added a rationale - I would have thought that those not adding a rationale for such a controversial RFA would be frowned upon, not extolled. The so-called "attack" on SwatJester was a fully justifiable defense of LaraLove - the anti-Semitic accusation is highly, highly debatable. The next one is fairly ridiculous, the most of all - since when is one penalized simply for being wrong in predicting a future event? I won't consider the last one, as even Orange admits it's minor - but the penultimate comment seems fairly reasonable to me. He wasn't giving unfettered support - just saying that such a thing didn't warrant a desysopping. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 18:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

102. Support A thoughtful, civil editor who doesn't merely deserve adminship, but who would benefit Wikipedia with her/his adminship. With regard to the accusation that Avruch seeks drama... this is an unfair characterisation. Avruch has worked on controversial subjects, and conflict at such articles is inevitable. Anyone who spends time at Norman Finkelstein, et al, is bound to become drawn in to arguments (as I know, myself), and my experience is that Avruch has approached discussions - heated an calm - with fairness and equanimity. If that's drama-seeking, I'm all for it. Pinkville (talk) 23:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

     Seems intelligent and balanced and well able to wield a mop. Maybe Avruch is somewhat drawn to drama. I don't know or much care. The question is of what he does when he arrives at drama, and what he does seems to be positive. I've looked at a number of the complaints in the "oppose" camp and am underwhelmed: at worst, the diffs adduced seem merely compatible with various charges made against him. -- Hoary (talk) 01:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC) deleting, in view of issues newly presented Hoary (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

103. Support Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
104. Oui —  scetoaux (T|C) 20:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I'm sorry, but I continue to believe that editors who are here primarily for the drama are a net negative. Even if they tend to make reasonable points (whether or not Avruch does is immaterial to my view, although for the record I don't think he always does), this preference is something that needs to be much more strongly discouraged. I just fervently believe that we don't need a professional drama corps that's only tangentially here to build an encyclopedia. Avruch has 800 edits to the dramaboards and a scant 1400 edits to the actual encyclopedia (and I'll note that this number appears to only be so high because of an aversion to the Show Preview button). With appropriate use of the show preview button, he'd likely have much less than 800 mainspace edits. It's not about edit count, however—it's about priorities and outlook, about the direct correlation between misplaced priorities and misjudgment and misunderstanding of our goals here, and how poor judgment and misunderstanding inevitably extend to misuse of tools. Not just correlation: causation. Having made these observations long ago, and expressed them for well over a year now, I do recognize that this is an unpopular school of thought among the RFA regulars (and by all means, don't let this stop the usual allegations of bad faith, grudge holding, etc. I'm quite used to all that as well :), yet I continue to see more and more evidence to support this view. --JayHenry (t) 02:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

   JayHenry, I think you're spot on with your observations in general, and that there is a problem that needs tackling in this regard. But I think Avruch is here for the project, not just for the drama. John and I probed into that during our coaching, because we were concerned about the edit count ratios as well. I concluded, as I think John did as well, that while Avruch gets involved with things, it's not merely for the drama or to be obstructionist, it's because he cares and wants to help, wants to see things made better. I hope you find that helpful. And I would say to anyone who wants to find fault with JayHenry's views... don't!!!. He's right. We do need people who are primarily here for the project. It's just that we all contribute in different ways. I would never have nominated him if I didn't think he could add value... I'm not in it for racking up successful noms or whatever. ++Lar: t/c 17:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

   I agree with Lar - Jay is entitled to his opinion, and more importantly its valid criticism. While I don't think my specific contributions are immaterial, I do agree with the general point that we do sometimes have difficulty with editors and admins who throw themselves head first into intense and controversial situations. (I also have opposed an RfA in the past on that basis). I wouldn't describe myself that way, and I hope most people wouldn't, but its a subjective evaluation that Jay is free to make. As for the need to improve my use of the preview button... can't argue with that. Sometimes I break edits up on some articles to make it easier for editors to revert individual changes they disagree with, but aside from that I do need to use preview more often. Avruch^T * ^ER 17:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose per JayHenry. Avruch is a bit too prone to enter drama. dorftrottel (talk) 03:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose I concur with JayHenry. I also see few vandalism reversions (aside from reverting some bot messups) or other indicators that tools are needed.--MONGO 05:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

   RfA is not about whether somebody needs the tools. It's about trust. I really wish this argument would vanish. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

   Actually, he does state a need for the tools. That he won't be spending hours at a time sifting AIV, CSD, and AFD for people to block and articles to delete is fine. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 12:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

   Had a change of heart? --Rory096 17:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

   I didn't oppose because the user didn't need the tools. I opposed because the candidate made a pointy RfA and flat out said they would not participate in any administrator activities. The latter reinforced the former, hence why I did not, and do not, trust them to wield the tools properly. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

   Please don't continue this dispute here. Avruch^T * ^ER 17:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

4. Oppose I thought the candidate already became an admin per his/her activities in Wikipedia space. Recently at ANI, he or she promised to meditate or listen to some dispute related to me, but just went off unlike his promise. I had been waiting for his/her return to the subject, but meanwhile s/he seemed to be very busy preparing this RFC. I guess the candidate could have enough time to show up here for his election campaign but could not afford his/her time to needed problems. If he/or she did not intervene the matter, I would not have any expectation from the user, but just give me a disappointment. I had a good impression on him/her before, but with the case, no. I don't trust people who make a hollow promise.--Caspian blue (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

   Just to clarify - what I did was archive a part of a thread, and ask the two people arguing on AN/I to restate their dispute briefly so that it could be evaluated more easily. The edit is linked above in a nomination statement, actually. My edits related to your dispute didn't require admin tools or imply that I had them already. I'm sorry you feel as though I dropped your issue midstream - I'm not sure what solution AN/I can offer you, except to refer you to avenues of dispute resolution - in particular RfC and third opinion. My advice would be to try to get some distance from this problem by taking a break or editing in another area, so you can return to it with a perspective proportional to the stakes. Avruch^T * ^ER 17:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

   You should've talked the above to me or others at the place at that time, not made me waiting for you forever. You clearly said you will be back to the thread, but just disappeared. The following mistrust and disappointment are all consequence of your conducts. Administrators are supported for their credible behaviors, and you failed to show me in the case. That's all.--Caspian blue (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

   I'm sorry you feel that way. I've made a comment in the thread, and hopefully you two can use my advice and the dispute resolution process (if necessary) to come to a resolution of your disagreement. Avruch^T * ^ER 17:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

5. Oppose per those above; I also thought he was an admin until I looked on his page one day, as he's always around ANI & similar pages. Rather too attracted to drama, & perhaps not enough to helping people with simple problems. As an editor he is unimpressive, hardly ever using edit summaries, even when removing material, which apart from reformatting references seems to be his main activity (no doubt much of it deserves to go, but edit summaries should be used to highlight this). Most of his article editing seems very recent too, and his edits to ANI (670) are exactly 10 times as many as those (67) to his most-edited article, Norman Finkelstein.Johnbod (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose No I cannot support - as I agree (through personal experience) that Avruch is far too inclined to seek drama. I also agree with Johnbod's comments about Avruch's poor edit summary record (which can only be seen by looking at a list of his actual contributions which clearly show that he very often does not add to the pre-existing sub-heading in a thread thus not giving any idea what his specific edit is about). To my mind this is a failing for most editors and certainly a more serious one for prospective admins. --VS ^talk 22:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

   Avruch has come to my talk page to politely ask for further detail of my personal experience. I post my response here so as to maintain the thread of my thought. My experience of his inclination to seek drama revolves around a series of posts by him at the deletion review for Klondike Kalamity in March. Whilst he has every right to post his opinion at that review - it will be noted that (a) he initially made his argument (with a little added friendliness) based on an error of establishing the consensus, (b) and after being informed that he was incorrect in that consensus count, he admitted a basic math error on his part, but still (c) IMO added to the drama by firstly adding a series references (not the place to do that a DRV and probably showed his lack of understanding of that process at that time) and secondly continued to endorse the drama of the overturn request by sticking to his initial mathematical error.--VS ^talk 23:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

   Wow. I see absolutely nothing wrong with Avruch's participation there. None of his additions were even remotely "drama". In fact, your response to his math "error" (he really didn't admit to a math error, now did he) was "I like it - made me smile." He then "continued the drama" by deciding to do some deeper research, and changed his mind? What part of this isn't allowed in a DRV? Please, correct me if I'm wrong here, I might very well be, because as it is, VS's oppose is (to me) absurd. Tan | 39 23:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

   I see that I was wrong about the count there, and that consensus was against my opinion at the time that your closure should be overturned, but I'm not sure how it relates to drama. I think I understood then as I do now that DRV is not AfD round 2, but I still think that pointing out new references can be useful in a DRV for a couple of reasons other than arguing that the close was incorrect. I should have revised my "overturn" lower in the page with the bit about unclear consensus, I'm not sure why I didn't - perhaps it was clear the close was going to be endorsed and it didn't seem necessary (I truly don't remember at all). Still, not sure I see the connection to drama. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'd just like to understand. Thanks, Avruch^T * ^ER 00:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

   [EC] Thank you for your thoughts Tan. However as you may not have had the time to read completely through the edits related to this link, and so as to correct the most obvious error in your response - Avruch did not change his mind, but continued with his thoughts based on the math error (which in fact he does admit) and that is part of the main point - for if he was not into drama he would have reconsidered his overturn or at the very least struck out the part that stated that his overturn was based (at least partly) on his math error regarding consensus. Also just to reiterate DRV is not IMHO the place for new research as to notability or verifiability but is the place to consider the accuracy of the deletion based on the responses that were initially given at the AfD. If this were not the case the process for AfD by admins including yourself would be almost impossible to navigate through. Best wishes to you and to Avruch.--VS ^talk 00:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

   Ah! I needed to read that four times, including the AfD twice, to finally follow everything. My apologies VS; I knew there was something I was missing (and thus my get-out-of-jail-free-card-disclaimer at the end). I still don't think this is anywhere near a dramatic event, let alone an opposable one, but YMMV; at least I've figured out my comprehension skills need work. Again, my apologies, VS. Tan | 39 01:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

   Your apology is accepted Tan (even though I was not offended by your comments at all). I appreciate your point of view and I have nothing personal against Avruch - this is just my view and (as I explained to him at the request for further comment thread he placed at my talk page) the wishes of the whole community will prevail - as it always does. Thank you.--VS ^talk 01:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

   VS, you say just above, DRV is not IMHO the place for new research as to notability or verifiability. My understanding of Wikipedia:Deletion review#What is this page for? #3 is that Avruch was following one of the intended purposes of WP:DRV by presenting new information (Deletion Review also is to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article.). Am I reading that incorrectly? Perhaps this would make no difference in your !vote, but just in case, I thought I'd bring it up. Also, is it possible that Avruch, in not changing his DRV !vote, may have been simply fallible rather than purposefully dramatic? Finally, if Avruch were to promise to reform his behavior with edit summaries from this point forward, would that change your mind? Noroton (talk) 05:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

   Hi Noroton - thank you for notice of this set of questions at my talk page. I will be as brief as possible because I do not want to labour the point any more than to state the following. Firstly - as will be noted in my direct comments to Avruch above and at my talk page - I have nothing but best wishes towards him. He is an editing "friend" on wikipedia, but that does not mean that I should not speak to him of concerns. Towards that point of view IMHO, whatever we think of the process of RfA - opposing comments, when they are based on valid argument and opinion - are of enormous benefit (certainly more than supports if you can understand from where I am coming) to the candidate because they are the actual thoughts that are most likely to influence future behaviour. Towards that perspective I can agree with the general thrust of your questions - but like all things the devil is in the detail. Thus whilst I can see the logic in the overall bow that you draw in relation to your first question, IMO Avruch was not attending to the posting of his opinion at that DRV as a way of bringing (as you posit at your link above) new information to the table which had come to light since the deletion and from the perspective that the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article. Please note I only comment here on this point again because of your question - it is not a massive deal but it does lead me to not supporting. In relation to your second question, I have no difficulty in Avruch being fallible (we all are) but (as Tan above suggests) my mileage varies and I formed the view that I did - which is when I was confronted by the complete context of the situation, and the to and fro comments, that this was not simply a case of fallibility. In relation to your third question - I am already sure that Avruch will adjust his edit summary usage in the future - whether or not he passes this RfA - and if that and his not being so inclined towards drama is the result of the valid opposes here - then with respect that is a very good result coming as a result of this RfA. Again my best wishes and thank you for your follow up question.--VS ^talk 06:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

7. Oppose per JayHenry. Keepscases (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Strong oppose per OrangeMarlin. I do not trust this person as an administrator. Keepscases (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose per JayHenry and my own observations of the user's behavior. I do not trust any drama monger with access to the tools. SashaNein (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

   Are you indicating that Avruch is a drama monger because he frequently comments on AN/I? I ask because I've seen his input consistently have a drama-reducing effect. MastCell ^Talk 19:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

   See OrangeMarlin's oppose for examples you seek. Thanks SashaNein (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

   Also see Avruch's blatant drama mongering here. SashaNein (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

   Oppose → neutral. I'm rather repulsed by Avruch's inclination to archive, remove, move, or otherwise refactor discussions (or parts thereof). Sometimes such actions are helpful, but the user seems rather oblivious to the confusion and negative feelings that often ensue (especially when there is a perceived COI). This behavior tends to escalate (for whatever reason) when editors are granted adminship. The user's response to question 6 also strikes me as strong to the point of unwholesomeness. I generally try to ignore such editorial views in RfAs, but unfortunately our NFCC leave an abundance of room for administrative interpretation, and I fear that Avruch's adminship would likely result in perfectly good images being lost (which seems to concern him only minimally). I do like the rest of the Q&A, particularly the answers to Q#10-13. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 23:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

   Honestly, I have no intention of ever deleting images. I've proposed a small number (less than 5) for eventual deletion, but I don't see myself ever patrolling image deletion categories. I gather you're referring to the AfD linked above, regarding the moves/archives etc.? Avruch^T * ^ER 23:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

9. Oppose spends much more time in bureaucracy than editing. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose per my sig. per JayHenry, too. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
11. Strongest possible oppose Purveyor of wikidrama over and over again. Gets involved in drama that has nothing to with him, and from all that I saw made it worse. Not good for an admin. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

    Comments My reasoning for being strongly opposed to this RfA follow.

    Giggy RfA. Avruch refactored his support to even more strong support an obviously flawed candidate, one who has continued an uncivil and personal attacking accusation of several good editors as being part of some cabal. I cannot personally trust someone who even peripherally involved themselves in supporting this huge continuing and annoying personal attacks on good editors.

    Attacking SwatJester. This alone causes me to oppose Avruch strongly and passionately.

    A relate issue. I think events have proven Avruch dead wrong on his comments.

    This is a fundamental point. Admins must be better in heated situations. Good admins can foster compromise not cause dissensions. The undertow issue has blown up from a minor reversion of one article to a huge war between so-called groups on Wikipedia. Should Avruch predicted the future, I'm not saying that. But Avruch should have identified the problems with the undertow, and instead of giving unfettered support to him, and more or less attacking viewpoints of many other editors, there might (and of course I can't know this for sure) have been a different conclusion.

    In this one case, it's probably not a reason for anyone but me to be strong opposed, but he is dead dead dead wrong. There is no way in a thousand essays of a thousand words could I be convinced that Avruch's opinion is anything less than enabling an editor that, of course, was eventually indefinitely blocked.

    All of these are recent events of either supporting, enabling, or continuing wiki-drama that is frankly getting tiresome. Attacking SwatJester is something I cannot understand, excusing obvious anti-Semitism by GSTS is offensive to me (and frankly confusing), and supporting the undertow's actions are all activities that I cannot support. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

    Isn't calling Giggy "an obviously flawed candidate" uncivil and likely to lead to Wikidrama in itself? Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

    Giggy isn't the point here. Not going to engage in your baiting. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

    I agree with some of the points you brought up, and I am thinking about changing my support to a neutral pending further investigation, but I don't think complaining about uninvolved editors is going to help any. Cheers, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

    Yes, the DHMO episode is complex, and there is a bit of "you shoulda known" attitude from me about the episode. The reason I call the editor flawed is that he released private information about another editor to an admin--but that is certainly not anything to do with Avruch. His involvement in the Giggy RfA is more an issue of the huge drama that surrounded it that was started by the undertow situation. Everything above is interlinked in one huge drama. There is no attack on Giggy (not that it's relevant), it is a description of what that editor has done subsequently. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

    Fair enough. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

    Part of the problem with citing diffs to AN/I discussions is that, particularly in the case of the_undertow, a lot of the context is on other pages. I criticized the_undertow for his comments, which I did not agree with, and my criticism is actually linked in one of the nom statements. My interjection in the thread (whilst others were calling for immediate desysopping) was to slow things down and push people to consider other options than the absolutely most dramatic one. I think the rest of that thread bears out my concerns there, and while the situation clearly developed beyond the thread about that one comment you are correct that I can't predict the future. At no time did I take responsibility for the_undertow or his actions. I strongly believe, however, that Swatjester's behavior around the RfAr and in that thread (particularly his comments to LaraLove found here) were inappropriately inflammatory. As for excusing anti-Semitism... I think that is probably the first time in my life as a Jewish guy that I've been accused of that. My general opinion is that few things on Wikipedia require emergent action, and there is usually little to lose in waiting through a brief period for a user like GSTS to provide complete proof that he is not right for this community. As for DHMO -- 300 people agreed with me. That doesn't make me right, but its something. Avruch^T * ^ER 15:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

    Well, you and I strongly disagree on SwatJester. He uncovered something that even I didn't know. He should have gotten our full-throated support, which he did from a number of editors. As for "excusing anti-Semitism", history is littered with Jews who have done that. However, I have no clue as to whether or not you're Jewish (I assumed so, but there are lot of fundamentalist christian types like messianic "Jews" who populate these pages)--my point was giving assistance to GSTS was disgusting. Setting aside the anti-Semitic "Jew" statement, he made similar racist comments (I believe he called African Americans "negroes"). You and others spend an inordinate amount of time "saving" editors, rather than supporting good editors. Do you know how much happier I'd be, if I didn't have to deal with anonymous trolls, socks, and other individuals who are trying to drive their POV? I look at you as someone who will give so much tolerance to a wide range of individuals who do not deserve to be here--those individuals make this project "mediocre" to quote something written about me, then the project at an attack site. I'm afraid that you will block me and others like me just because we can't stand the POV thrown into articles, and our tolerance is minimal. GSTS didn't deserve your assistance--I question your judgement that you gave it to him, even in the small way you did. Giggy's RfA was going to die with or without my support or oppose. But I believe he would have eventually imploded, much as undertow has. You're more scary to me in that you won't implode, so we're stuck with you as an admin, despite your choosing "civility" and "AGF" as the great moral code of Wikipedia, rather than infinitely more important ones like NPOV, RS, FRINGE, and WEIGHT. You'd rather be "nice" than take a stand. That's sad. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

    One reason Avruch has my support is because I believe he's thoughtful and think he'll learn a lot from Orangemarlin's strong reminders. Thanks so much Orangemarlin, for making them. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

12. Oppose per Blnguyen and JayHenry. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
13. Strong oppose, per his apparent support for banning users who are perceived to hold a particular opinion or sexuality, regardless of whether they are pushing for it.[1] [2] In the links cited, Avruch defends the block of User:VigilancePrime, who had created userboxes that said variations of "This [male/female] Wikipedian loves [girls/boys], as opposed to loving [boys/girls]" (e.g. User:VigilancePrime/Templates/Girllover). Girls was piped to young women, and boys to young men. Our Arbitration Committee seems to believe that loving young women is paedophilia, and so, even though VP hadn't applied the box to himself, had over 7000 edits and a history of nonpartisanship when involved in paedophilia-related disputes, and had in fact opined that paedophiles "need help,"[3] he was blocked indefinitely without a "fair trial" or even a chance at discussion. (Indefinitely is emphasized because in every other case, the Arbitration Committee applies blocks of one year.) Failing to protest this appalling action, let alone supporting it, is evidence enough that Avruch does not have the judgment to be trusted with a license to block. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
14. I don't mind the person, but too much drama plus the admin tools is a bad thing. John Reaves 22:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
15. Oppose way too much drama. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 22:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
16. Strong oppose As an editor Avruch is a BLP nightmare, especially on the Giovanni di Stefanio article,a nd this si the kind of user who should never be trusted with the admin tools. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

    He seems rather real to me, so I rather doubt he's a nightmare. Could you explain concretely how Avruch's approach bodes ill? Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

    Well I speak from my experience. I suggest you check the Giovanni di Stefano history for details and the talk history, but he seemed very antagonistic on one of our most sensitive BLP articles, not sure what that has to do with "being real" but he struck me as irresponsible in such a sensitive article. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

    Squeakbox, I really hope this doesn't come across as badgering you, but I wonder if you could be more specific, per my comment at Mackensen's support above. Both for the honest progress of this process, and for the personal growth of the candidate, I wonder if you can clarify what exactly your problem was with Avruch's behavior there. I re-reviewed the talk page history back to December 2007 and I don't see it. I see him engaging in dialog about improving the article, I see him being a bit snippy or arch a couple of times, I see him disagreeing with you a couple of times (you seem to take a harsher view on BLP than he does), I see Jimbo making a few comments (he seems to favor Avruch's take on BLP in this instance at least); but I don't see anything there that would plausibly give someone cause to doubt his fitness for adminship. Please, if you can, narrow this criticism down to a specific behavior, backed up if possible with diffs. Thanks, and sorry if I've misunderstood or missed something significant from the history, which is perfectly possible. --John (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

    There are no "sensitive articles", only sensitive people. — CharlotteWebb

    Try this, John, as an example. As an editor this kind of edit on a very sensitive BLP is par for the course but I cannot support someone for admin who makes edits like this, esp given the debate re BLP enforcement etc going on right now. And hey, John, I am very hap[py to debate this or be pulled up over it etc. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

    I've looked at this link, and I'm not seeing what you are. It seems you and two other editors disputed over the verifiability of an source, which at the time was only referenced to a print article. Now, putting aside I found the article via google in only a few minutes, I see there was a discussion on the talk page the doesn't seem to have totally gone anywhere. I guess I'm saying, I don't understand your BLP concerns on this particular source...the article seems pretty thorough, and is in (what I understand to be) a reputable newspaper. --InkSplotch (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

    Just ignore him, he's being his usual cantankerous self. He'll oppose anyone who doesn't take DocGlasgow's BLP stance. Next thing you'll know, he'll be accusing the candidate of supporting PPAs. --Dragon695 (talk) 05:01, 18 June 2008 UTC)

    That is a pretty off comment but you are right that I will oppose anyone for adminship who opposes Doc Glasgow's stand, whether in practice or in spirit, absolutely. As for supporting PPAs, what utter tripe, see Another Sollipsist comment above, I certainly have no issues with Avruch re pedophilia or outside BLP. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

    Comment 498 deleted edits! Ack!! Is there something there that would help understand the context of the oppose? Dlohcierekim 13:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

    That link does not show a BLP concern. BLP does not mean no negative material. It just means negative material needs to be reliably sourced and that there must be balance in article. Certainly, given some of the tripe and filth that some try to introduce into the encyclopedia, this pales by comparison. Dlohcierekim 18:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

    I know what BLP is and that discretion is also needed. This is a case where a litigant lawyer is threatening to sue those editing the article (I have been editing it for a year myself) and the edit, while sourced, bordered on slander and violated NPOV. Avruch edit warred to re-insert this material in a way that IMO was making a suing of other editors more likely (which he knew) and this is not the behaviour I look for in an admin, especially in the current climate. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

    "This is a case where a litigant lawyer is threatening . . ." thanks. Wish you'd said that sooner. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 19:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

    As one of the people threatened, this shouldn't alter our mainspace material one iota. Indeed, it has become quite clear in the Di Stefano case that all the "problematic" material was well-sourced and that Di Stefano simply didn't like that. The notion that something is more of a BLP issue simply because the individual in question is a litigous lawyer is a serious violation of NPOV. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

    IMO we should treat all BLPs as if they were or could easily afford litigious lawyers. Maybe being sued does not bother you, Josh, perhaps it does not bother Avruch either. If I had no wealth and did not care about any of my fellow editors who did I might feel the same but neither one nor the other is the case, and I would oppose Joshua at an rfa (no idea of his status) for the same reasons as I oppose Avruch in this forum. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

    No. At many different levels. People sue over non-libelous things all the time. They lose. We don't need to remove well-sourced content simply because they threaten. And if you personally are worried about being sued you should avoid those content areas. But don't remove good content to try in get in the good graces of someone threatening to sue and then get annoyed that Avruch correctly opposed that. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

17. Oppose Based on the mainspace edits this candidate seems borderline to me, however based on the editing ratio I also do not think this editor is ready yet...per Johnbod (talk), Modernist (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
18. Oppose too many poor AfD nominations; [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]
    Also some very poor CSD tagging [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]
    They may all have been a while ago but these days you seldom frequent these areas, spending the bulk of your time on various talk pages or noticeboards. So I can't really tell if your judgement has improved or not. RMHED (talk) 20:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

    As far as I can tell Avruch has not indicated that he will be spending time closing AfDs or deleting CSD candidates. In fact, he specifically said that he'd be valuable at the noticeboards in his answer to question 1. And, as you said, these examples were a while ago. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

    Indeed but has his judgement in these matters improved? I can't tell from his recent contributions. Whether or not he intends to be active in these areas isn't relevant as there would be nothing stopping him from doing so. To me, the above diffs are indicative of poor judgement and poor policy knowledge. RMHED (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

    Fair enough, but would you WP:AGF if he were to promise to stay away from said areas for a bit, working slowly to learn how to make less dodgy requests/!votes? Would that alleviate your concerns? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

    Such a promise would be largely unenforceable, and my concerns go beyond just that. Having spent a few hours going through Avruch's entire contributions I can't help but draw the conclusion that he is magnetically drawn to the controversial and high profile areas of Wikipedia. Now whilst this is somewhat understandable, human nature being what it is, the degree to which Avruch involves himself in these areas is worrisome. To me Avruch isn't so much a Wikipedia editor as a Wikipedia politician, and I've always had an aversion to politicians. RMHED (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

19. I just don't have full confidence in the candidate to be an administrator. The already–mentioned concerns about his presence in drama cause me pause. I don't really trust his abilities. You will almost certainly pass, and I wish you the best of luck as an administrator, but I can't support. seresin (public computer) 02:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

    JayHenry's oppose specifically excludes my actual contributions, and is based solely on the distribution of my edits and what he thinks this generally portends in an administrator. What a distribution-focused review misses is that many of my edits to "drama" were actually clerking edits at AN/I, and also it misses that in the last few months I've found a different balance in my editing with far less of a presence on the noticeboards. Avruch 10:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

20. Oppose per per JayHenry. Too much drama around the candidate, to the point of being a net negative. Majoreditor (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
21. Oppose per JayHenry, OrangeMarlin and Squeakbox. I'm sorry but I don't feel I can trust the candidate's judgment regarding administrative manners. Aunt Entropy (talk) 04:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
22. Oppose: Based on edits, editor cannot be trusted to use the tools to de-escalate the wikidrama - in fact there is a subtle wiff that tools will be used for escalation instead. So opposing to avoid bothering ArbCom in a few months time. --Shot info (talk) 04:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
23. Oppose per JayHenry.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 06:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
24. Oppose per JayHenry and OrangeMarlin. Several comments by Avruch have made me seriously question this editor's judgement and tact. --Pixelface (talk) 07:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
25. Oppose - I went over the Anti-semitism issue and while it's not as bad as it could have been, it's been enough to make me question this editor being overly protective of problematic conduct. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

    He'd made a reference to a "Jew comedian" instead of a "Jewish comedian" and edited articles about the KKK (without folks pointing out serious POV violations in that editing at that point, if I remember). He hung himself later on, and my point was that we could wait for that to happen without jumping the gun. At other times, including two editors blocked for pedophilia advocacy, one editor blocked for Holocaust denial and another editor blocked for more general anti-Semitism I argued in favor of the block and of not allowing someone with clearly offensive and disruptive views to continue to edit. Perhaps our idea of clear evidence is different, but there is no justification for viewing me as tolerant of anti-Semitism or other similarly bigoted views. I don't have the inclination to prove my heritage to you or OrangeMarlin, but enough members of my family have lost their lives through hatred of Jewish people that I have a great deal of difficulty accepting comments that seem to suggest I myself am anti-Semitic. I'd appreciate it if you could refactor your oppose to make it clear that I am not accused of being anti-Semitic. Avruch 17:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

    I have no idea on why you're suggesting a need to prove your heritage and I'd appreciate it if you refactor that part of your comment since it suggests that I called you anti-semite, which I most certainly did not.
    On topic: I left a note on your page that if you add some diffs which show that my reasoning for my !vote were incorrect I'd be willing to reconsider my decision.
    With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

    Yes, really. I mean, you could accuse Avruch of erring on the side of extending too much good faith to that particular user, but that's a difference of opinion on how to handle a problem editor, not evidence of some sort of bigotry on his part. Let's try to maintain some sort of perspective here. MastCell ^Talk 18:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

    No evidence of bigotry on his part? Did you miss the sentence in that comment where he actually advocates banning others for holding views he considers "offensive"? That's the very definition of bigotry. I'm surprised so many would trust these tools with someone who has explicitly stated he favours blocking individuals who have "offensive" opinions. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

    We have different defintions of "bigotry", apparently. This is a collaborative website. An editor who promotes racism, Holocaust denial, or pedophilia here is not being "offensive"-in-scare-quotes. They're being offensive, and as with any community project, they can and should be asked to leave if they're overly disruptive. I'll go a bit further: editors who use Wikipedia to promote racism, anti-Semitism, or pedophilia should be banned. At one time I would have been surprised that this is a controversial statement in any way, but experience here has been an eye-opener. Feel free to request that I be desysopped for bigotry. MastCell ^Talk 23:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

26. Oppose. I would say that such balance of edits between spaces suggests that user is here for all the wrong reasons. But here we do not have to "suggest" anything since the user is notorious enough. He is clearly seeking drama and escalating it rather than merely commenting on all the drama boards. The most blatant example is here where his action started a new major turn of drama which was very uncalled for and provoked a huge escalation of a conflict that already started winding down. (Of course the drama-banner was eagerly picked by some other usual drama proliferators.) --Irpen 17:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
27. Strong oppose Administrators are here for one thing: to keep the place tidy, free from trolls/vandals, and running smoothly so that the rest of us can build an encyclopaedia undisturbed. Avruch's contributions to the article space do not show any significant experience of article-building, and s/he has few or insubstantial contributions to images, portals, templates, categories, stubs, help or ref desks. This shows that s/he lacks the requisite experience to understand the conditions under which content-building thrives, and thus presumably lacks the ability to facilitate it. Now this is not in itself damning, as there are many unobtrusive vandal-fighting administrators who do not venture far from the uncontroversial admin tasks. But Avruch appears to spend much of his/her time at administrators noticeboards (I assume good faith that correlation with drama is not causation), requests for comment/arbitration, deletion and policy pages; this is someone who is shaping the culture of the encyclopedia without having meaningfully contributed to it (I don't mean any offence by this, your contributions are certainly valued). Any wavering doubts on this score are put to rest by his/her despicable behaviour towards the ephebophile editor, his/her belief that it is justifiable to block people for their beliefs (as if a particular epistemological stance towards the Holocaust was punishable on principle), and the thoughtless unresearched book-burning highlighted by RAHMED above, and it becomes crystal clear to me that this is someone who at this point in time needs to be kept far, far away from any position of power, control or influence. I sincerely recommend you take a break from the Wikipedia space, pick five topics and create a non-stub article on them, try and work a poor article into a GA or better, pick an unpopular or marginal viewpoint and try and correct the mainstream bias by writing from a neutral point of view on it, add some quality free images or useful templates, and see how your experience with vandals, editors of different POVs, overzealous copyright police, and trigger-happy patrollers shapes your beliefs on the proper role of administrators. Thank you for all you have done for the project so far, and I hope I will see you back here in a few months with a fresh perspective. Sincerely, Skomorokh 18:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
28. The link by Irpen is very troubling - combined with JayHenry's concerns, it's enough to make me oppose. Sorry. OrangeMarlin's diffs, however, still don't interest me in the least. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 18:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

    Yeah... That page looks like I am trying to stir things up and bring the Giano drama back to ArbCom. In reality, the edit I cited was on a high profile talkpage that many, many people would inevitably see and react to. My thought at the time was that the most likely outcome is that it would end up being discussed on IRC and some action prior to on-wiki discussion would be taken. My expectation (proven by events) was that cooler heads would prevail at WP:AE (including the normal AE admins and Arbitrators), heading off an IRC-related disaster that would renew the underlying dispute. I apologize for issuing an explanation for practically every oppose, and I grant that it looks like my actions have enjoyed far less clarity than I usually imagine. Something to work on at the completion of this request. Avruch 18:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

29. Oppose. Sorry, but I'm going to have to agree with JayHenry on this one. Not enough edits to the mainspace and too much wikidrama. Khoikhoi 19:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
30. Oppose - I've read through diff's and links presented and the Drama like attitude,keeps me worried. I think it could be easily avoided by drinking some tea and taking a time to cool down.--Lokyz (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
31. Implacable Oppose: I thought he was already an Admin. It restores my faith in Wikipedia that he is not. Avruch is completely unsuited to adminship. We are here to write an encyclopedia not give our opinions on how others should be writing it. I don't see the point of Avruch, or why he is here. He has yet to prove his worth. No need for him to be an admin at all. It is nominations such as this, which cause Wikipedia's rot to set in. If Avruch wants to be wiki-famous, he should try the hard way - writing a few pages or at least having a useful presence. He has, to date, achieved neither. Giano (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
32. Oppose Whilst Giano is rather brusque in his assessment, the underying message is one that I wholeheartedly agree with. We are here to write an encyclopedia and recently, wikidrama, which has in part been fuelled by Avruch, is detrimental to the encyclopedia. I see adminship as tools to help content creators to help build the encyclopedia. I don't believe that Avruch is suited to that added responsibility, as frankly, I don't see many substantive mainspace edits that could be enhanced with admin tools. I simply don't have the feeling that Avruch being an administrator would have a positive effect on wikipedia. Woody (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
33. Oppose per the way Avruch stokes the flames and stirs the FT2/Giano pot here, cited by SachaNein above, and also by Irpen. I don't want to see this editor wielding a block button; we have enough admin provocateurs as it is. Avruch's explanation of this diff at Oppose 28 above is strangely uncompelling to me, in fact I have trouble understanding it. Avruch, I don't care too much if the edit you cite "ends up being discussed on IRC"; I care about the way you express yourself, say here ("choosing to be upset"? Lovely!). If that was "in reality" intended to "head off an IRC-related disaster", I have to agree with your own insight that your action is woefully short of clarity. I'm prepared to believe in your good intentions, but you don't seem very good at getting them on to the screen. If "cooler heads" did prevail, it sure wasn't because of your inflammatory wording. Oh, and per Rocksanddirt (support 101), too, very much. Bishonen | talk 22:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC).
34. Oppose - not enough experience with the mainspace and no demonstrated ability to extinguish drama as opposed to inflaming it Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
35. Oppose per Giano and Bishonen. An otherwise unemployable admin provoking superior editors just for the fun of it - this is the last thing we need here in Wikipedia. --Ghirla^-трёп- 23:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. What Gurch said -- Gurch (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

   I want to support Avruch per past personal experience, but JayHenry does bring up some good points. This needs a little more time before I could support or oppose. Rudget (logs) 13:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC) Changed to another section. Rudget (logs) 15:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

2. I also want to support but I cannot support users who are prone to drama. Jack?! 15:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Switching to neutral, per candidate's response. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 11:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
4. (nngrh, nneghr, nnnggrh) Sound of struggling to get off fence but patently unable to - sigh. Sorry, I do see JayHenry's point. I also see the huge negative effects of some of the quagmires going on at the moment, in which uninvolved people's input (probably occasionally including mine) results in absolute reams of opinion that takes hours to sift through. I would love to see some article writing, even if this does get through (which it probably will) I would be happy to help you write a GA or more. I sincerely believe article writing is essential to being here. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Registering ongoing concern with adminship-mill. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC) To oppose. Rudget's support links to User:Avruch/About userboxes, which says in part "a userbox describing me as a Nazi does not make me a Nazi anymore than the lack of one means I am not, it merely identifies something that exists independently of the box." No, it dosen't do any of that. A userbox describing a user as a Nazi is trolling, pure and simple, much like what God Save the South was doing. No more blind eyes. PouponOnToast (talk) 17:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Neutral without further comment. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

   Could you elaborate on that? If it's about coaching, the coaching John and I do is far from assembly line like. Not all candidates make it through our coaching by a long shot. If it's about something else, please give us a bit more to go on, thanks. ++Lar: t/c 20:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

   Certainly. In addition to your coaching, the user also engaged in an editor review just two weeks ago. I do not find check-the-box behavior to be comforting. Like I said on my talk page, I believe that "coaching" and "reviews" and the like can do two things - teach someone who we should trust how to convince the RFA disaster to trust them or teach someone who we should not trust the same thing. Whilst I agree that the hoop-jumping required here is stupid, the way to solve that is for people who do trust to not engage in hoop-jumping. As it stands now, I do not trust any of the promoted adminstrators - they all have vandalism reverts, acceptable amounts of "delete" voting at AFD (but not too much!), avoid being on the "loosing" side of drama and strive to not offend the AFD/IRC/RFA/ANI regulars. I'm not going to pointly oppose people I do not have any reason to distrust, but I'll note my discomfort. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

   Nod, I'm no fan of check the box behaviour either and I've opposed over it. As it happens, I myself have never put myself through an editor review... never saw the point, but in looking through some of them, there sometimes is value, not just backslapping. Just to be clear, when you say "I do not trust any of the promoted adminstrators" do you mean all 1500 of us, that is, that there isn't a one among all of them that you do trust? ++Lar: t/c 22:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

   Recently promoted. PouponOnToast (talk) 05:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

   Apologies, I believe an undisclosed conflict of interest that I would prefer not to disclose makes it inapropriate for me to oppose. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

6. Overall there are reasons for both sides. While I think Avruch would make good use of the extra tools, I am also strongly against the amount of Wikidrama that we've been having, and with due respect Avruch contributes too much to it for me to support. Stifle (talk) 09:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
7. Neutral - Want to support, but can't quite cross the line. I think Casliber put it very well, above. --Dweller (talk) 10:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
8. Neutral per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Master Shake (how a main character in a notable TV show, film, video game, etc. is not notable is beyond me), but good argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quinton Hoover and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leo J. Meyer (2nd nomination). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
9. [Moved from support] Per developments above. Daniel (talk) 07:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
10. Moved from support. Going by my own experiences with Avruch I have found him trustworthy and helpful but I was unaware of these other issues. I think Avruch could learn a lot by spending much more time building articles. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

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