Wikipedia talk:Requests for bureaucratship/Avraham 2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] 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! SQLQuery me! 18:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 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??! ¬_¬ Thingg⊕⊗ 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?--KojiDude (Contributions) 22:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- I for one am deeply concerned about the lack of bot flags..... :) Pedro : Chat 21:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, how did this slip through the cracks??! ¬_¬ Thingg⊕⊗ 20:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] RFB problem
There is a problem at Wikipedia: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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, MB. So, it went unlisted for almost 24 hours and no one noticed ? Not good. SandyGeorgia (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. SandyGeorgia (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.) SQLQuery me! 02:47, 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 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 Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RfA and RfB Report (I note that it has few incoming links/transclusions - [1]) 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)
[edit] 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 (Republitarian (talk · contribs)) for input at Talk:Israel-Venezuela relations. Of course, it's not your fault that a group of pro-Israel Jewish editors were canvassed by a sock (and complied with a singular pov), but I wonder why that particular sock chose to canvass that particular group of editors, and I wonder why the editors opining there didn't disclose that they had been invited to that discussion (trustworthy editors usually disclose when they've been invited to comment somewhere). Although I was a very new editor at the time, looking back now with more experience, the way that article evolved makes me uncomfortable. I need to have a much higher confidence level on candidates for RfB, and I just don't have that gut feel here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- 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. SandyGeorgia (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. SandyGeorgia (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. SandyGeorgia (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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 8 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)
- It is true that "back then" we simply referred to it as "vote stacking", and canvassing is a newer term. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:16, 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)
- 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 7 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)
- 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 6 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
[edit] opinions made after the RfB was placed on hold
[edit] Support
- An enthusiastic endorsement. --Itsabouttime (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
