Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Avraham

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Avraham

Final (63/5/1) ended 20:17, July 3, 2006 (UTC)

Avraham (talk • contribs) – Here's another terrific candidate. Avraham has been here since July 2005, and since then has contributed to this project in many ways. I have interacted with him many times over articles on Judaism, a topic both us share an interest in, and he has always impressed me with his competence and civility. He has a strong grip on policy from CVU and RC patrol duties, and has participated in many discussions at xfD, RfA, WP:AN/x, etc. Here's your rundown (stolen from RfA/Gwernol):

  • Edit count - high enough for all at ~3700.
    • High proportion of project-space and talk edits.
  • Time around - First contribution July 2005, heavy editing since January 2006.
  • Civility? - is his middle name.
  • Edit summaries - 100% all around.
  • Mistakes - Nothing beyond n00b errors a long time ago.
  • Email enabled? - Yes.
  • Userpage? - OK.
  • Any edit warring/blocks? - No blocks and no wars.
  • FA participation? - Working hard on Actuary - coming soon to WP:FA.

All in all, a great guy. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I feel both honored and privileged at the nomination, and I gratefully accept. -- Avi 20:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Support
  1. Support. Fine editor, well-versed in Wikipedia guidelines etc. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Natürlich - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support appears to be an excellent user. Also, has 666 user talk edits. Yanksox (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. Have observed this user beating me on RC etc in the past. Seems the user would use the extra couple of buttons well and effectively. ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC) Addendum: Specialism in editing is a good thing. Not every editor should be a generalist. Admins with specialties are to be encouraged. ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support. Not a fan of deletionism, as Hoopydink mentioned, but you appear to more than make up for it elsewhere. RandyWang (raves/rants) 21:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. User has experience in all of the community maintenance areas, and their polite, preagmatic attitude seems to override any prejudices they state on their userpage.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support ForestH2
  8. Support. Good contribs, civil, can make good use of tools, feel he can be trusted with adminship.--Dakota ~ 21:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support. I've never had the pleasure of meeting him until now, but the above references and my own small review give me a very favorable impression. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 22:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support As per nomination. Good luck. Abcdefghijklm 22:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  11. Strong Support -- I've neither interacted nor known about Avraham before. Let me tell you that their first edit was about a statistical fact while their last edit was expressin an opinion instead of voting. Deserved and chapeau mate! -- Szvest 22:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™
  12. Support Rama's Arrow 22:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support per nom. DarthVader 23:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  14. digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 23:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support per nom and answers to questions. Good luck! Brisvegas 00:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  16. Strong Support. Despite a specific difference in opinion in the past, I believe that he would make a great admin. He has always remained civil and has been a pleasure to edit with. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support I liked his answers to the questions. —Khoikhoi 00:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support brilliant user. Nobleeagle (Talk) 01:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support Civil user? legit! --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 01:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support Ya' can't argue with facts. AdamBiswanger1 01:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  21. Strong Support - I am fine with Avi's strict stance on removing unworthy content from Wikipedia. Have you guys done NPP. There is so much rubbish there. Secondly, he may be of deletionist ideology, but do you have any evidence he would practice deletion against consensus? He also keeps notable stuff like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lecomte.Blnguyen | rant-line 03:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support -AMK152 03:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support. Looks good, and "deletionist", all the more reason to support :).Voice-of-All 03:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support, didn't know him until now, but he looks like a thoughtful and earnest contributor based on my review. That he will be a specialty admin is a bonus. I also trust the nom and his judgment -- Samir धर्म 03:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support per nom. DVD+ R/W 04:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  26. I would and do oppose deletionism as a personal policy, but this editor's history tells me he considers the pros and cons on a case-by-case basis, satisfying my requirement therefor. Support. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 04:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support. Excellent candidate, clean history. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 06:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support. Appears (and I'm sure he is) a very good editor. Will make a fantastic admin. Эйрон Кинни (t) 06:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support. Can make good use of the admin tools. jni 07:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support Doesn't really pass my 4500 total edit requirement but this user seems ready for the mop. Anonymous__Anonymous 08:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support, thought he already was one. Stifle (talk) 09:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support, per nom.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 10:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 10:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support - fine user that needs admin tools --WinHunter (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  35. Merovingian {T C @} 14:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  36. Changed from Weak Neutral: I like focus on improving quality rather than quantity. Deletionist tendencies seem to be tempered by willingness to add corroborating material to strengthen articles. Stephen B Streater 14:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support seems fine Computerjoe's talk 16:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support per nom. Roy A.A. 16:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support -- per nom --T-rex 17:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support, duzhe dobry user. -- Heptor talk 19:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support as per User:Crzrussian. IZAK 23:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  43. Sup-per-nom. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    Support per nom. --WinHunter (talk) 09:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC) - Duplicate vote
  44. Support--blue520 10:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support - In my interactions with this editor, I have only found him to be polite, courteous and dignified at all times. Wikipedia needs more like him. -- Nesher 12:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support Joe I 14:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support. Good candidate. Jayjg (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support per nominator. Polonium 18:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support --Arnzy (whats up?) 15:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support --Jay(Reply) 16:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support Solid content editor. 172 | Talk 22:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support He is good wikipedian, and also good contributor. I would support him to be admin. Wikipedia needs this kind of admin. *~Daniel~* 01:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support — The King of Kings 02:33 July 01 '06
  54. Support. Excellent candidate. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support- excellent Wikipedian. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support We need more admins like this! TruthCrusader 20:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support. Claiming that someone is a deletionist is not a valid reason to oppose. Titoxd(?!?) 20:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support Will use the tools well. --Alf melmac 23:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support - =_= Iolakana|T 23:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  61. Support A kind, trustworthy user who would be a great asset to Wikipedia as an administrator. What more can we ask for? -- Where 15:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  62. Support Highway Batman! 22:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
    Weak support I believe I trust this user to not allow his/her deletionist tendencies interfere withe consensus in AfDs, which seems to be a concern in a number of Opposes below. "Weak", because I'm not quite sure, but I'm hoping to cross out "weak" pending response to follow-up question. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 01:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    No offense, but changing to oppose. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 14:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  63. Support. --Bhadani 16:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose per my brief overview of this user's edits - seems that almost all edits are dedicated to voting delete on AfD's, or editing actuary or Judaism related articles, along with helping out with templates... obviously a good editor, although his hardline deletionism and lack of diversity in editing leads me to vote this way (also, while mentioning that he/she'd help out with WP:AIV, I've seen little to believe that this editor has any interest/much experience with reverting vandalism). hoopydinkConas tá tú? 21:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    I have counted 18 edits to WP:AIV. That's not an awful lot, but it's a fair number. - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks for taking the time to sift through nearly 4000 edits to provide an accurate AIV count. It's a testament towards your friendship with the candidate and your belief that he/she will make a fine admin. However, I'll stick to my original vote for now, as the 18 AIV reports coupled with a lack of a good chunk of vandal reverting do not lend to the notion that the candidate would spend the time to actively seek out and warn/block vandals, should situations of that nature arise. Having said that, the scepticism about monitoring WP:AIV was only part of my reasoning to choose to vote oppose. Regardless, the candidate seems to have a lot of support within the community and I certainly wish him luck throughout the process. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 01:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I can't find a single Afd where he voted keep. If someone votes to delete every article they see on Afd, I certainly don't want them to have the power to delete pages at will. Tobyk777 01:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    Hmm... [1]; [2], [3] in the face of many deletes, a dozen more. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    In other words, yeah, Avraham is not exactly your keep'iest AfD participant, but my impression of him was never as a reflexive delete voter, unlike certain others. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    From voting mainly to delete does not logically follow that he would delete every page on AfD. Some of us just want to focus on the very worst pages when performing cleanup chores. jni 07:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose based on his admitted willingness to throw out the wheat with the chaff as expressed here: [4]. I would rather that admins at least paid lip service to keeping the wheat. Also because of the absurdities of the WP:NG page - the ridiculous fake policy template etc. - and finally because of the overuse of userboxes on the user page - User:Avraham - which to my mind, violates most of his own complaints about wikipedia not being a free webhost. --JJay 19:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose fiercely. I have supported deletionists (and have usually regretted it) but will not support anyone who thinks it's okay to throw out the "wheat with the chaff". This attitude is damaging to any but the most narrow conception of an encyclopaedia. We might differently interpret what the "sum of all human knowledge" is but someone who believes that that is not vast should not be given a delete button. Grace Note 06:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose (Note - support is crossed out above.) While I appreciate Avi's sincerity an answering my questions, I don't think I agree that discounting the given keep argument would be appropriate, considering that "notability criteria" are based on an essay, and without regard to the age of the stub. No offense, I'm just not sure that I personally would trust user closing AfDs. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 14:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Neutral

#Weak neutral: I'm tempted both ways here, and will probably amend based on further research and possibly a question. Almost all edits seem to be minor - it's hard to find even a few % hard hitting edits. OTOH, edits seem to be good faith incremental improvements. With this level of patient organising I'm left wondering how the user will wield admin power. Stephen B Streater 22:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Changed to support. Stephen B Streater 14:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. Neutral. Generally a good contributor, but the fact that he posted in essay in Wikipedia space (WP:NG) along with a big template saying "This is not policy but it should be policy" makes me unhappy. Such things in the common namespaces such as Wikipedia are confusing and give the appearance that the essay is more than just an essay. The fact that he proceeded to add a 3RR template message to the longstanding and respected contributor Kappa in the ensuing dispute also counts in his disfavor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Comments

All edits.Voice-of-All 00:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

--Viewing contribution data for user Avraham (over the 3683 edit(s) shown on this page)--  (FAQ)
Time range: 304 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 0hr (UTC) -- 27, Jun, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 17hr (UTC) -- 27, July, 2005
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 100% Minor edits: 100%
Average edits per day: 29.26 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 313 edits) : Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100%
Analysis of edits (out of all 3683 edits shown of this page):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 0.14% (5)
Small article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 8.23% (303)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 15.88% (585)
Minor article edits marked as minor: 90.6%
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 1630 | Average edits per page: 2.26 | Edits on top: 9.42%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 7.66% (282 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 77.9% (2869 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 8.53% (314 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 0.16% (6 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 31.28% (1152) | Article talk: 10.7% (394)
User: 5.4% (199) | User talk: 18.11% (667)
Wikipedia: 24.95% (919) | Wikipedia talk: 0.95% (35)
Image: 0.41% (15)
Template: 4.78% (176)
Category: 1.76% (65)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 1.66% (61)

Username Avraham
Total edits 3677
Distinct pages edited 1700
Average edits/page 2.163
First edit 13:02, July 27, 2005
-----------------------------------
(main) 1151
Talk 394
User 193
User talk 666
Image 15
Template 175
Template talk 45
Category 65
Category talk 16
Wikipedia 922
Wikipedia talk 35
Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: If entrusted with sysop tools, the chores that I would initially and immediately be able to participate in would be to reduce the backlog of speedy deletions, help with closing articles for deletions, and, of course, being able to add my support and time to responding to WP:AIV, WP:AN3, and other issues requiring immediate admin attention. I also plan on being able to contribute more fully by studying and then acting upon the other "bottleneck" issues such as fair-use and copyright violations, page protection, editprotected, and unprotection, and the other duties at WP:AN/I.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I have spent a lot of time and effort trying to bring Actuary to featured article status, and I am pleased with the resulting collaberation of the many editors involved. It went from a small article, to become a good article, and is now a featured article candidate. Another article I am also fond of is V. Kalyanasundaram, which was put up for deletion, and I was able to add reasearch enough reliable sources to confirm notability. I have enjoyed finding small stub-like articles with poor citations and trying to improve them, especially outside my areas of expertise, such as Henry Hastings Sibley, Erasmus D. Keyes, and 1932 Salvadoran peasant uprising to name a few.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A:Unfortunately, but inevitably, I have been involved in conflicts with various users that have caused me stress. My method of dealing with it has always been to maintain absolute civility (although I reserve the right to use a soupçon of dry humor), patience, WP:AGF, and deep breathing excercises. I follow wikipedia policy when I have been in conflict, and would expect the same of, and defend the same for, anyone, including those that I have had disagreements with. However, I am thankful that these conflicts are in the vast minority, and that most of my wiki-interactions have been great.
Question on Deletionism/Closing AfDs Since you seem to say "delete" a lot on AfDs (whether it is because you are deletionist or because you simply don't add your opinion to ones you think should be kept), I was wondering if you would be closing and borderline-consensus AfDs as "delete"? When closing, would you ever discount an opinion for having, in your opinion, and unsubstantial rationale? Please feel free to add anything else regarding what your policies would be regarding closing AfDs/discounting opinions that you feel is appropriate. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 23:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
There is no fast answer to that question for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the term "borderline consensus" is in and of itself difficult to pin down. Secondly, regarding specifically discounting a "keep" vote with an insubstantial rationale, it depends on the rationale proffered. Further, I would apply the same standard to a delete vote with an insubstantial rationale as well. My philosophy about what I feel is encyclopædic for wikipedia is posted prominently on my userpage, but I believe a careful perusal of my voting is that I try and judge each case on its merits. My standards may be more restrictive than some and less restrictive than others, and while voting, I'm always willing to be proven wrong with WP:RS and other standards of notability. I do not plan on closing "borderline" consensus items immediately, but I do reserve the right, especially as I gain experience, to excercise prudent judgement as to the merits of each case. As we all know, AfD is not a vote, but more an exclamation of vox populi and administrators are those that have earned the respect and trust of the community to be able to make reasoned and prudent decisions. Can I say I will never make a mistake? Of course not. Thankfully, we have a review process for undeleting those items that shouldn't have been deleted and a renomination process for the reverse. If it is truly a borderline consensus, it does take judgement to determine was there a consensus for keep, delete, or "no consensus" and I cannot truly say what I would do unless I actually see the article and the opinions yay or nay. So I am sorry that I cannot give you a flat-out, ironclad answer, but I hope you get a better feel for my rationale and my approach. -- Avi 23:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
It's alright, a flat-out, ironclad answer was not desired. : ) So do you think you could give me a few examples of what sort of unsubstantial rationales would be sufficiently unsubstantial, in your opinion, to discount? Thanks! Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
An example in my mind would be if the user's only comment (and I have seen this before) is "Keep: Stubs are cheap" or something to those lines. I do believe that while it is true that many stub articles can develop into notable ones, if there is nothing currently notable in the article, and no one has taken the time or effort to expand it (as I myself have done in the past, albeit somewhat infrequently), the "stubs" argument alone does not make it notable enough against standards such as WP:WEB etc. -- Avi 21:22, July 2, 2006
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.