Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/August 2009 election/Oversight/Avraham

Avraham
I am standing in this election for oversight, as I can attest from personal experience that there is a need for more people with the tool. As someone who has been dealing with oversight, and oversighters, for a long time, I am volunteering to assume that workload as well. As someone who can monitor e-mail for the majority of the day, I can respond quickly to new requests, helping to lower the response time. Moreover, it is extremely complementary to the maintenance work I already do. In recap, as someone to whom protecting the privacy of our editors is important, who has been dealing with these issues in various capacities for years, and whose volunteer work now requires access to oversight and oversighters on a very frequent basis, having the tool would allow the maintenance work I do to be completed more efficiently and in a more timely manner. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 02:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As a checkuser, there have been numerous times when I have uncovered completely disgusting usernames, or usernames that "out" individuals real names, telephone numbers, addresses, and the like. Often, these usernames will edit with said personal information in the edit summary or the edit itself. As quickly removing these names, edits, and summaries from circulation is critical to protect the project, having the oversight tool would obviate the need for me, or other checkusers, from having to hunt down oversighters via list, e-mail, or IRC, or, in times of desperation, flagging a steward.
 * As an OTRS volunteer, I have worked with multiple individuals seeking to remove personal information-revealing edits performed by others. There have been times in the past where the removal of the edit has taken days, with multiple prodding to the list. The response time has been better over the past year, but it still can, and should, improve.
 * As a bureaucrat and OTRS volunteer, I have dealt with multiple anonymization requests over OTRS and WP:CHU. The hideuser tool would complement the rename tool in that users who need anonymization (often usernames created by others to disparage the individual) who have no GFDL/CC-BY-SA edits requiring attribution should preferably be hidden as opposed to renamed.

Comments and questions for Avraham

 * Question from Aitias (added 00:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)): Obviously, you would not have nominated yourself if you did not believe that there is a realistic chance to be elected. Why do you feel that you of all people should be one of those which will be elected? Do you, for example, reckon that you are better qualified than the other candidates?
 * I think I would serve the project well as someone who has access to the oversight tool as it fits very well with the maintenance work I already do. I am online for most of the day and can respond quickly and efficiently to the requests. In my other volunteer activities as a checkuser, OTRS respondent, and a bureaucrat, I am very often involved in situations that require oversight. I am one of the more active checkusers which means that I come across names, edits, and edit summaries requiring the various levels of suppression more often than most other people, and it enhances the safety and privacy of our editors if I were to be able to hide the offending edits as soon as I find them. I have been involved in many requests for oversight as the requester, and so I am comfortable offering to help EnWiki by standing to become the requested. Whether I am better qualified than other candidates is up to you to decide, but through my long term volunteer activities as a sysop with a sensitivity to privacy protection, an OTRS volunteer, and a checkuser, I feel that I am sufficiently qualified to be worthy of consideration. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 02:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Question from Offliner (talk) 13:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC): Could you give some numbers about how extensive your experience with the tasks and positions you mentioned above is, if this is not too much to ask? Offliner (talk) 13:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding checkuser, you can see the basic statistics at Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/Statistics and Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/Statistics. Regarding OTRS, I am not certain if they keep statistics, but I would estimate the number of specific anonymization/oversight requests that I dealt with through OTRS to be between a half dozen and a dozen and a half. I do not have a record of the number of times I've contacted RfO due to monitoring WP:AN/WP:ANI, sorry, but that was more frequent than OS. As a biased low estimate, there remain about two-dozen or so "poor-admin's oversight" entries in my logs. As the enhancement that allows the edit to remain but details to be removed is relatively recent, an oversighting prior to that would no longer be in the logs, so the number is definitely higher. As for renames, I do a decent amount of them (see here). We've only had one incident, so far, in my tenure as a bureaucrat in which we had a rename that should not have been handled as a rename but as a hiduser, and it was handled as hideuser through my tracking down an oversighter; but the account was renamed anyway (mix-up in the OTRS system - I was not handling the ticket myself, I was responding to a request for help from another volunteer, and a third volunteer posted the account on CHU, etc.) and so I had to scramble to run down an OSer quickly to hide the rename logs etc. Does that help you? Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Question from Mailer Diablo 04:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC): How would you deal with editors/vandals/requestors/lawyers who attempt to creatively stretch the Oversight/Suppression policy, be it making an edit or making a request for suppression?
 * This question may be better addressed if there was a specific example as it is hard to make a definitive statement in a vacuum. The response to a request should depend on the edit made, the information it contains, how that information would be considered a privacy release vis-a-vis readily available information about that user, the user's previous release of personal information, etc. For example, for someone with their real name on their user page, being called by that name and not their wiki ID is not a privacy violation; whereas, for someone who has no easily accessible link between their wiki ID and their real name, being called by that name on-wiki by someone who knows it is a different story. In general, I believe that wikilawyering and elastic interpretation of standing policy and guidelines is detrimental to the wiki, and that our policies and guidelines have spirits as well as letters (of the law). We are not supposed to become a group of static, stolid, individuals, but there is a difference between a grass-roots consensus movement for change and one or two individuals trying to "transgress the boundaries" of CU/OS. Requests for suppression that are not appropriate under the policies/guidelines will be refused. There is always "poor-admins-oversight", now known as revision delete that is admin-viewable, that can be used with fewer (but not no) restrictions. -- Avi (talk) 04:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Question from Kauffner (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC): I notice you don't edit on the Sabbath. Are you Lubavitcher?
 * No, but what does that have to do with oversight? Do you make your decisions based on people's race, color, gender, or creed? -- Avi (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Votes in support of Avraham

 * 1) Shappy   talk  00:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Jamie  S93  00:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) No question. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 00:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. — Aitias // discussion  00:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) King of  &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 7)  iMatthew  talk  at 00:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Yep.  Peter Symonds  ( talk ) 00:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Dabomb87 (talk) 00:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 10)  Majorly  talk  00:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 00:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 12)  Durova 285 00:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Caspian blue 00:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) Prodego  talk 00:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) NW  ( Talk ) 00:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) ( X!  ·  talk )  · @061  · 00:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 17) John Carter (talk) 00:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 18) &mdash;harej (talk) (cool!) 00:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 19) Antandrus  (talk) 00:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 20) --Aqwis (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 21) Pzrmd (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 22) J.delanoy gabs adds  01:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 23)   Chzz  ►  01:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 24) Rjd0060 (talk) 01:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 *  Triplestop  x3  01:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Sorry, not eligible, does not have 150 article edits before June 15. Risker (talk) 01:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) - Dank (push to talk) 01:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) —Animum (talk) 02:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 5)  Them From  Space  02:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 6)  Captain   panda  02:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Hers fold  (t/a/c) 02:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Noroton (talk) 03:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Kingturtle (talk) 03:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Nathan  T 03:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Jehochman Talk 03:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) '''Jav er t I knit sweaters, yo!  04:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) EVula // talk //  &#9775;  // 04:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) —  Σ   xplicit  05:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) Strong support --  Tinu  Cherian  - 05:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 16)  bibliomaniac 1  5  05:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 17) Pedro :  Chat  06:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 18) Without hesitation. Jakew (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 19) Offliner (talk) 07:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 20) AdjustShift (talk) 09:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 21) Euryalus (talk) 09:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 22) KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 09:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 23) Willking1979 (talk) 09:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 24) Goodmorningworld (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 25) Aditya (talk) 12:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 26) AGK 13:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 27) Shimgray | talk | 14:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 28) Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  14:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 29) -- Herby  talk thyme 14:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 30)  Little  Mountain  5   15:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 31) Pectoretalk 15:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 32) — Athaenara  ✉  16:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 33) Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 34) Daniel Case (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 35)  Ian ¹³  /t  18:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 36) — Gavia immer (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 37) Masonpatriot (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 38) RP459 (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 39) --Cybercobra (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 40) Davewild (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 41)  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 19:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 42)  -shirulashem (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 43) Woody (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 44) — Ched :  ?  21:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 45) —<font color="#9370DB">MC10 &#124;  Sign here!  21:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 46) - Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 47)  Vicenarian  <font face="Georgia">(Said · Done) 22:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 48)  Basket of Puppies  22:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 49) Recognizance (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 50) Bsimmons 666  (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 51) Aye  Phoe   talk   23:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 52) JoshuaZ (talk) 23:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 53) Daniel (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 54) chaser (talk) 00:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 55) Priyanath talk 02:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 56) Samir 04:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 57) BrianY (talk) 04:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 58) &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 06:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 59) --Conti|✉ 09:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Bejinhan Talk   10:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Sorry, not eligible, does not have 150 article edits before June 15. Risker (talk) 01:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Kusma (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 2)  ceran  thor 12:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Camaron ·  Christopher · talk 13:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) — Kralizec! (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Rigaudon (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) <font face="High Tower Text" size="2px"><b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 15:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) PhilKnight (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 8)  Pmlin  editor  17:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Thingg &#8853;&#8855; 17:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 10)  Alex ' fusco ' 5  19:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) -- SPhilbrick  T  23:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) (reasoning)  The Earwig  (Talk &#124; Contribs) 02:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 14)  IronDuke  02:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) &mdash; <b style="color:#309;">Mike</b>.<b style="color:#309;">lifeguard</b> &#124; @en.wb 06:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 16)   young  american  (wtf?) 11:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 17) Gwen Gale (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 18) Tryptofish (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 19) Res2216firestar 16:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 20)  Enigma  msg 17:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 21) Heimstern Läufer (talk) (rationale) 18:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 22)  &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT Jester   Son of the Defender  21:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 23) Strongly; see here. -- Dylan 620  (contribs, logs) 22:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 24) Tim  meh  02:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 25)  Ray  Talk 07:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 26) Ysangkok (talk) 11:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 27) Abecedare (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 28) Ynhockey (Talk) 00:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 29)  At am a chat 00:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 30) Kauffner (talk) 02:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 31)    Will Beback    talk    03:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 32) ++Lar: t/c 07:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 33) Jafeluv (talk) 13:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 34) <b style="color:#000">TFOWR</b>This flag once was red 14:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 35) --<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27 ( c  |  s ) 19:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 36) Synchronism (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 37) Fedayee (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 38) Absolutely. -- Jayron  32  03:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 39) Xenophrenic (talk) 05:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 40) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 06:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 41) Sure. Sarah 13:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 42) Sceptre (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 43)  Malinaccier ( talk ) 18:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 44) Nishidani (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 45) Acalamari 21:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 46) yes please -- Y not? 02:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 47) Perfect  Proposal  02:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 48) Joe (talk) 02:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 49)  Amalthea  11:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 50) Cailil   talk 18:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 51)  Cbrown1023    talk   17:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 52)  -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   20:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 53)  Grand  master  05:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 54)  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 09:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 55) GDonato (talk) 09:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 56) 6SJ7 (talk) 00:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 57)  Tide  rolls  01:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 58) ~ Amory <font color="#555555"> (user • talk • contribs) 21:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 59) snigbrook (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 60)  Alexius  Horatius  20:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 61) Weakly. -  ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  23:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 62) <font style="font-family: Hoefler Text">Steven Walling (talk) 03:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 63) —DerHexer (Talk) 22:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 64) -- Kanonkas : <font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> Talk  22:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 65) -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 04:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 66) Support &mdash;Terrence and Phillip 14:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 67) Support NSH001 (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 68)  Promking
 * 69) Strong Support. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 70)  Lara  17:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 71) <font face="times new roman"> hmwith t   18:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 72) Whitehorse1 21:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 73) Support -- Stani Stani  22:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 74) BJ Talk 23:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 75) --Wehwalt (talk) 23:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) --Wehwalt (talk) 23:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Votes in opposition to Avraham

 * 1) JayHenry (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * --Fox1942 (talk) 11:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC) (Vote indented as user is ineligible to vote in this election -  So Why  11:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC))
 * 1) <font color="#11A">  18:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Tombomp (talk/contribs) 10:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 3)  Axl  <font color="#3CB371">¤ <font color="#808000">[Talk]  14:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Cxz111 (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) -- TharsHammar Bits andPieces 23:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Privacy is important, but so is accountability. Too often in the past the former has been used as an excuse to subvert the latter. We need a better balance between the two, sorry Avi, but I don't think you are the one to find this.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) --Severino (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) --Severino (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)