Wikipedia talk:Requests for bureaucratship/Avraham 2

Everybody loves counts!
Report for User:Avraham User groups: sysop Edits (including deleted edits): 24022 Edits: 23317 Users blocked: 319 Accounts created: 9 Pages deleted: 1008 Pages moved: 52 Pages moved over redirect: 10 Pages protected: 95 Pages restored: 96 User rights modified: 11 Users unblocked: 65 Pages unprotected: 25 Files uploaded: 43 Namespace counts! Namespace	Count	Percent Main	       8293	35.57% Talk	       3471	14.89% User	       1049	4.5% User talk	5012	21.5% Wikipedia	3910	16.77% Wikipedia talk	495	2.12% Image	       149	0.64% Image talk	8	0.03% Template	522	2.24% Template talk	151	0.65% Category	220	0.94% Category talk	27	0.12% Portal	2	0.01% Source: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~sql/sqlbot.php?user=Avraham

Forgot to sign! SQL Query me! 18:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments
He's gravely deficient in Portal talk: and Help: edits. Automatic oppose :)  MBisanz  talk 18:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Naturally. :) Rudget   (Help?) 18:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, how did this slip through the cracks??! &#172;_&#172; Thingg &#8853; &#8855;  20:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I for one am deeply concerned about the lack of bot flags..... :) Pedro : Chat  21:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Image talk shocks me. I mean, my god... Can't Support, not with only 8 edits there... such a good candidate, ruined... we're all being sarcastic here, right?-- Koji Dude  (Contributions) 22:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

RFB problem
There is a problem at Requests for adminship/RfA and RfB Report, Avraham for RfB isn't appearing, so results are potentially skewed, as only RfA regulars may be aware. I only happened to see this RfB because someone on my talk page referred me to WT:RFA; otherwise, I wouldn't know about it. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking into fixing it.  MBisanz  talk 02:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Should be fixed.  MBisanz  talk 02:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, MB. So, it went unlisted for almost 24 hours and no one noticed ? Not good. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There are 2 versions of the report. One is done by SQLbot and includes RFAs and RFBs, but it has no colors, so its considered ugly an only used when someone notices there is an RFB.  TangoBot only does RFAs and has colors, so its used by default until there is an RFB.  WJBscribe noticed and updated the box on WP:BN, but forgot about the RFA report page.   MBisanz  talk 02:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not good. No wonder I noticed it was being populated mostly by RfA regulars; it was.  The rest of us didn't know.  Skewed results. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No one uses my report anymore, so I do not maintain it anymore, as that would be a pointless excercise. I honestly thought that the process that ran that part of the bot had been shut down a couple weeks ago. Sorry about that, folks. (You'll also note that it won't pick up a S/N/O unless there are at least two of them, and, yes it has no colors. The templates it's based on can be modified to be colorfied if someone so desires to do so.) SQL Query me!  02:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I should also note, that it is having problems picking up the opposes. Probably something to do with the struck one. SQL Query me!  02:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see, it's over an hour lagged on Toolserver. SQL Query me!  03:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, Skewed results? Seriously? I noticed it, not because of that report, but, because the change to WP:RFA appeared on my watchlist (I don't check rfa often anymore). SQL Query me!  02:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to believe results will be skewed. I changed the reports on the two most visited pages that have them - WT:RFA and WP:BN to one that displayed RfB as well within a few hours of this RfB. If people choose to use Requests for adminship/RfA and RfB Report (I note that it has few incoming links/transclusions - ) rather than SQL Bot's report, they have to accept the limitation that RfB have to be manually added to that page. I don't accept your view that "RfA regulars" have a particular mindset in favour of supporting - in my experience those who regularly participate in this area are a fairly unforgiving crowd should they find fault with a candidate. This RfB has nearly 6 more days to run in any event. Plenty of time for very diverse participation... WjBscribe 11:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia's oppose
Oppose, sorry, but I see many of the usual RfA fan club signing up to support here, and that worries me, because the trend lately at RfA is towards cliqueish supports and little analysis; plus in all my editing time, I only recall encountering you once, when you and a small group of editors were canvassed by a later-proven sockpuppet for input at Talk:Israel-Venezuela relations. Of course, it's not your fault that a group of pro-Israel Jewish editors were canvassed by a sock (and complied with a singular pov), but I wonder why that particular sock chose to canvass that particular group of editors, and I wonder why the editors opining there didn't disclose that they had been invited to that discussion (trustworthy editors usually disclose when they've been invited to comment somewhere). Although I was a very new editor at the time, looking back now with more experience, the way that article evolved makes me uncomfortable. I need to have a much higher confidence level on candidates for RfB, and I just don't have that gut feel here. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * One bot report has RfBs, and one doesn't. Lots of people switched to the one that does last time there was a storm of RfBs. If you want to be aware of the RfBs that get posted, best to make sure you are using the bot report that has them. The proportion of RfA regulars is no different on this RfB than most others, and most other RfAs. Plenty of RfAs fail, to the point where only 12 admins were promoted last month. I don't think RfA regulars are a rubber stamp. As to your specific oppose... I'm curious about how long ago this e-mail incident was, if you were new at the time. Your recollection is that Avraham was invited to participate in a discussion by a sockpuppet, did so, and didn't disclose he was canvassed? What sort of discussion was it? Do you think he knew ahead of time that the e-mailer was a sockpuppet, and is it generally considered wrong to participate in a discussion based on a request by e-mail? Also, for clarification - were you on the opposite side of the issue from Avraham? The answers will inform my vote here - since you are one of two opposers so far, I hope you'll elaborate so I and others can make a more informed decision. Avruch  T 12:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * All of the information you need to inform yourself of the incident is in the links in my original oppose; please do try to read it, as you have a couple of misstatements or incorrect assumptions. We were squarely on the same side of the issue at the time; however, perhaps partly because of the socking and other issues involved, the article was never finished correctly, and soon acquired a POV tag; it furthered anti-semitic impressions of all Venezuelans in order to further a pro-Israel POV.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've read your oppose (again) and I don't see that I made any misstatements. You linked to the talkpage of an article and the user page of an editor - not a specific revision or diff or set of diffs to illustrate poor conduct. Given that your oppose doesn't contain any information about specific conduct that Avi did that demonstrates poor judgment or untrustworthiness (I don't think receiving an e-mail or joining an article talk page discussion as a result falls into either category), I asked you to elaborate as I'm sure that you have a strong justification for your reasoning (aside from the issue with RfA regulars and you not having been informed of this RfB earlier). Of course you're perfectly free not to elaborate further, if you don't wish to. Here is what I can see from that page, although I may be missing something in my quick review: The discussion in question is from two years ago. Avi contributed one time to a poll, voting oppose to a merge proposal. A user later pointed out that Republitarian had canvassed some users on their talkpages and complained that this spoiled the poll - you defended Republitarian and the notices and criticised the user complaining of canvassing. At the time, you were citing policies with ease and had been editing for 6 months. When did you decide that Avi's participation in the poll was problematic? Avruch  T 22:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Avruch, have you read my oppose yet? I will try again:  for some reason, you keep referring to an e-mail (several times), when I never mentioned the word "e-mail" or anything close to it, and I provided a wikilink that contains the answers to all of your questions, in plain sight.  Now that I've seen Naerii's addition to my Oppose, I guess you are referring to something I wasn't aware of; perhaps you knew something I didn't, but it is not my oppose, rather something else, that you appear to be responding to when you refer to an e-mail.  The question is why Avi didn't disclose he had been canvassed, why he was in the group that was canvassed, and I note that those fundamental questions remain unanswered by Avi, yet the community is supposed to trust him with 'cratship.  Apparently there's more to this than I knew about. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * While it was a long time ago, Sandy, and I don't fully remember, a little digging does show that WP:CANVASS did not exist until two months after the Israel/Venezuala discussions in questions, for what it is worth. Not that it was allowed then either, of course, but that there may have been less of the penetration of the issue through wikispace. -- Avi (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is true that "back then" we simply referred to it as "vote stacking", and canvassing is a newer term. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply, Sandy. I'm sorry that you didn't feel it necessary to respond to any of the substance of my comment, although I wish you had. It is confusing that you defended Republitarian at the time and now criticize Avi two years later for an action you found no fault with previously. I can accept that you are unwilling to discuss your reasoning and I won't trouble you further about it. Avruch  T 01:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * oh, but you're so wrong; I'll gladly discuss this as soon as you actually read my oppose; it appears you were referring to an entirely different issue, and never read the talk page. And I've also given Avi many days now to respond, but there's been no explanation. Perhaps back then he was as new and "green" as I was; I certainly didn't know about the sockpuppetry 'til much later.  Avi, though, hasn't given any explanation.  I'm listening, but he's not talking, and you're talking about someone else's issue, as far as I can tell, not mine.  Further, most of the queries you directed at me really should have been answered by him, yet they haven't been.  You asked one question that directly related to me ("Also, for clarification - were you on the opposite side of the issue from Avraham?") and quite a while ago I answered that we were on the same side of the issue.  The other questions should be answered by him.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(<-)Sandy, as I said above, I really don't remember why I didn't say I was approached, other than perhaps I didn't realize thhen that it was such an issue since the canvassing phenomenon did not have that much penetration to wikipspace. It's not like I tried to hide it, that comment remained on my talk page until the standard archiving, but other than that, I don't have a good excuse :( Of course, it being 20 months and 14K edits ago may contribute to my memory failure. Sorry I cannot give a better answer, I just don't have one. -- Avi (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * My point is not to be argumentative with you about this, but you seem to insist. I did, in fact, read your oppose. You'll notice that I have a summary above of the page in question, and that I inferred (incorrectly) the nonexistent e-mail - you didn't happen to state a method of canvassing. My mistake, I admit it.


 * You didn't realize Republitarian was a sockpuppet, but you defended him strongly on the supposed canvassing issue. Avi's comment on that page seems to be absolutely minimal, a very short comment in a poll where his opinion hardly seems to have been determinative. It occurs to me that perhaps he saw a request, participated briefly, and didn't return or even think about it again. Avraham started editing consistently 1 month before you did. At the time of the discussion, he had been an administrator for barely more than a month. Almost two years have passed since then. The reasons my questions are for you are simple - you raised the issue, and used it as justification for an oppose, but I think it is unfair to expect him to have determined at the time, prior to his single comment in the poll, what you did not realize throughout the course of your participation in that discussion. Additionally you noted the course and current status of the article, as well as its larger effect - but based on his single contribution, I simply can't understand how that is related to Avi at all. Many comments by you about Republitarian in that discussion mention WP:AGF - have you abandoned your championing of that policy since? I would also ask why you wouldn't assume a good faith error on my part in the use of the word "e-mail." Your responses have been combative - insisting that I am responding to someone else, that I haven't read your oppose despite the fact that I clearly have, etc. Mistakes are easily and often made by all, and neither bureaucrats nor simple editors are expected to be perfect. Avruch  T 02:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * First, Avruch, you asked me a long series of questions which indicated to me you hadn't really engaged my oppose, and it always made more sense to me to give Avi a chance to answer first (which he didn't take). Second, I'm not the one who wants to be 'crat or is asking for the community's highest levels of trust, but if I did want to be a 'crat, one of the first things I would do is answer questions about the newbie gaffes I made; that article situation was a wreck, and has bothered me ever since, particularly since I realized long after the fact I'd been snookered.  Third, Avi and a group of editors who had never been seen in Venezuelan articles were canvassed: that isn't in question.  He didn't disclose he had been canvassed (even back then, before WP:CANVASS people knew to disclose that).  I've asked about this in relation to why we should trust him now; he hasn't responded adequately to that query.  In fact, how much time went by before he gave any response?  Why?  There's a lot of levity surrounding this particular RfB that I don't understand; answering opposers is usually a top priority.  Perhaps it is unfair that he was canvassed and possibly snookered as I was; perhaps he was as clueless as I was back then. That would be a fair response.  There are plenty of responses he could give, but he hasn't; he's mostly been silent.  Now, subsequent to my oppose, Naerii's additional info combined with Avi's silence possibly casts the issue in a new, more complex light. Really, Avruch, you aren't the one who should be dialoguing with me; Avi is the one who should respond to the community's questions about why we should trust him at the 'crat level.  I don't think you trying to make this about me is going to answer my questions or resolve my concerns.   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit count for Avraham
User:Avraham

run at Thu May 8 04:08:42 2008 GMT

Category talk:        27 Category:             215 Image talk:           8 Image:                150 Mainspace             8346 Portal:               2 Talk:                 3470 Template talk:        152 Template:             522 User talk:            5027 User:                 1044 Wikipedia talk:       497 Wikipedia:            3968 avg edits per page    3.12 earliest              17:02, 27 July 2005 number of unique pages 7511 total                 23428

2005/7  5 2005/8   1 2005/9   0 2005/10  0 2005/11  0 2005/12  1 2006/1   680 2006/2   1293 2006/3   151 2006/4   46 2006/5   452 2006/6   1031 2006/7   1602 2006/8   1465 2006/9   501 2006/10  1001 2006/11  936 2006/12  90 2007/1   621 2007/2   1287 2007/3   1611 2007/4   1071 2007/5   1044 2007/6   170 2007/7   433 2007/8   822 2007/9   788 2007/10  1320 2007/11  369 2007/12  638 2008/1   1026 2008/2   455 2008/3   1486 2008/4   796 2008/5   236

(green denotes edits with an edit summary (even an automatic one), red denotes edits without an edit summary)

Mainspace 432 Circumcision 307 Actuary 287 Messianic Judaism 232 Mahmoud Ahmadinejad 192 2006 Lebanon War 167 Abbey Mills Mosque 153 Human rights in Israel 98 Rashid Khalidi 92 Abraham 89 Holiest sites in Islam 84 Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais 81 Yisroel Dovid Weiss 77 New antisemitism 72 Ahmed Yassin 70 Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Lebanon War

Talk: 417 Circumcision 278 Mahmoud Ahmadinejad 120 Actuary 101 Messianic Judaism 89 2006 Lebanon War 77 Human rights in Israel 62 Yisroel Dovid Weiss 52 Allegations of Israeli apartheid 52 Palestinian people 49 Israel 48 Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais 48 Essjay controversy 46 Haredim and Zionism 45 Abraham 42 Holiest sites in Islam

Category talk: 11 Midian 11 Anti-Zionism 2 Talk header templates

Category: 18 Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Daniel575 8 Anti-Zionism 5 Wikipedia sockpuppets of Daniel575 5 Wikipedia administrators willing to make range blocks 4 Wikipedians by alma mater: Queens College, City University of New York 4 Actuarial science 4 Low-importance Jewish history-related articles 4 Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pionier 3 Stub-Class Jewish history-related articles 3 Wikipedians by alma mater: City College of New York 3 Shared IP addresses 3 Unknown-importance Jewish history-related articles 3 WikiProject banners 2 Jewish culture articles by importance 2 Converts from Judaism

Image: 12 2001 ed The International Jew by Henry Ford.jpg 6 MessianicSeal.gif 5 Sheikahmedyassin300.jpg 5 Ilan Halimi.jpg 4 Grossmufti-inspecting-ss-recruits.jpg 4 Chatam Sofer colour.JPG 4 Chasamsofer.JPG 3 AAA 40Year Logo.PNG 3 Cwm.JPG 3 Paul Draper by Alan Bree at Gang of Pour.JPG 3 AndrewRegan0906.jpg 3 Lallen.jpg 3 Harry Frankfurt.gif 3 ASI logo.jpg 3 CAS logo.PNG

Image talk: 2 Chatam Sofer colour.JPG 2 Sheikahmedyassin300.jpg 2 Paul Draper by Alan Bree at Gang of Pour.JPG 2 MessianicSeal.gif

Template: 31 WikiProject Jewish culture 26 User PGP 15 User committed identity/doc 13 X1 13 User committed identity 11 TestTemplates 10 Sockpuppeteerproven 10 St Albans City F.C. squad 10 Citation/core 10 ISP 9 WikiProject Judaism 8 OTRS-talk 7 York City F.C. squad 7 ConfirmationImageOTRS 6 SharedIPEDU

Template talk: 30 User committed identity 16 Messianic Judaism 10 User PGP 8 SharedIPEDU 8 Test 8 TestTemplates 7 Talkheader 7 Sockpuppet 5 Archive box 5 Infobox Halacha 4 Citation 3 Cite encyclopedia 3 Cite journal 3 Test-self 3 Sockpuppeteerproven

User: 211 Avraham 100 Avraham/monobook.js 45 Avraham/UBX 43 Avraham/monobook.css 38 Avraham/sandbox 36 Avraham/OpenPGP 23 Avraham/Barnstars 20 Avraham/Sandbox 14 Netscott/Palestinian ethnicity 10 Avraham/Sandbox/Skipsmith 10 Sean William/RfB 8  Sarastro777 7  MichaelCPrice/mega 7  Avraham/AdminRblock 6  Avraham/Wiki of Trust

User talk: 370 Avraham 62 Yidisheryid 35 TipPt 35 Oiboy77 archive1 33 Bless sins 27 Netscott/Palestinian ethnicity 27 IZAK 24 Lordkazan 23 Josephbrophy 22 Sarastro777 21 LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 21 Seraphim Whipp 20 PalestineRemembered 19 Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification 19 Tiamut

Wikipedia: 410 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 116 Administrator intervention against vandalism 98 Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/ Questions for Avraham 78 Administrators' noticeboard/3RR 66 Requests for bureaucratship/Avraham 2 62 Requests for page protection 44 Requests for bureaucratship/Avraham 41 Wikipedia is not Google 39 Community sanction noticeboard 39 Articles for deletion/Ouze Merham 30 WikiProject on open proxies 30 Administrators' noticeboard 29 Citing sources 29 Deletion review/Log/2007 February 13 26 Requests for adminship/Seraphim Whipp

Wikipedia talk: 120 Requests for adminship 70 Citing sources 37 Requests for mediation/Mahmoud Ahmadinejad 35 WikiProject Judaism 24 Reliable sources 16 Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements 14 Wikipedia is not Google 10 WikiProject Messianic Judaism 10 WikiProject Palestine 8  Requests for adminship/RfB bar 8  Changing username/Usurpations 8  Manual of Style (dates and numbers) 7  Requests for adminship/Archives 6  Attribution/Poll 6  WikiProject Messianic Judaism/Memorandum of Understanding

If there were any problems, please email Interiot or post at User talk:Interiot . Based directly on these URLs: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]


 * The edit count was retrieved from this link at 04:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC).


 * Humans 1, Bots 0. John Henry would be proud. --barneca (talk) 04:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Support

 * An enthusiastic endorsement. --Itsabouttime (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)