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

Final (48/28/0); Closed as unsuccessful by WjBscribe at 22:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avraham (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - With the apparent need for more bureaucrats, the volunteering of a number of respected editors, and after some thought, I have decided to volunteer my services for the community's approval as a bureaucrat as well.

My general thoughts about requests for administratorship and bureaucratship are encapsulated on my user page as User:Avraham/RfA-B. These positions require that the wikipedia community feel that the candidate exhibits good judgment, and that they trust the candidate to exercise that judgment in difficult situations.

Regarding RfA's, we need bureaucrats less for when an RfA's candidacy is 22% or 98%, we need them for the cases when the statistics are in that 70% to 80% range, when it is the bureaucrat's job not to decide upon the candidate's status, but to carefully peruse the arguments and statements posed, and decide on what the community's consensus is vis-a-vis the candidate in question.

I have always been of the opinion that there should not necessarily be a limit on the number of bureaucrats. Different people have different requirements on their time, and having a quorum available is always beneficial. Having more community-trusted, bureaucrats allows for a better resolution in the most difficult of RfA cases as well.

About myself, I have been a registered wikipedian for around 2.5 years, and an administrator for about 1.5 years. I have approximately 21K edits that span most every area of wikipedia. I am also an administrator on commons, and an m:OTRS volunteer.

I appreciate your time in considering my application, I hope that I have earned your trust over the past 2.5 years, and I look forward to any and all constructive criticism that you may have.

Thank you,

-- Avi (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Self-nomination -- Avi (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a Bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?

A. Yes, I have read the discussions. The criteria for promotion is community consensus. As stated on Wikipedia:Bureaucrats: “They are bound by policy and consensus to grant administrator or bureaucrat access only when doing so reflects the wishes of the community, usually after a successful request at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.” This is what requires us to have a human bureaucrat as opposed to bot that can perform long division. It is not for the times when the consensus is obvious one way or the other, it is for the gray zone. Common practice is that over around 80% is clear, and under around 70% is clear, but that zone in-between is where the community relies on the judgment of its bureaucrats to best "tease-out" what its consensus is.

2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?

A. My optimal policy would be to be able to discuss it with fellow bureaucrats, on an open page, where the bureaucratic consensus as to the community consensus can be followed and understood by all. In those situations there is bound to be those that will argue with whatever decision is reached. When there is an open process and discussion, then at the very least, the final decision is understandable--which leads to much more acceptance. In the event I would be the only bureaucrat available to make this decision, I would do so with a detailed explanation of my thought process and which policies and guidelines were used to best capture the community's consensus, for the same reasons.

3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?

A. I have been an administrator here for over 19 months, and my record is open to all. I have been considered worthy of trust on the Commons as well. I have been trusted enough to be approached to mentor cases of editors as their last resort before community sanctions, and have been considered fair enough to be approached as such about editors whose issues deal with among our most difficult ones, such as the Palestinan-Israeli issues. Also, I have been considered trustworthy, fair, and discrete enough to be allowed to volunteer on the m:OTRS list, where the most difficult and contentious issues that affect all Wikimedia projects, and are bound by the policies and guidelines of all of our projects, not just Wikipedia, are dealt with.

4. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA, WP:B/RFA, and/or WP:CHU on a regular basis to attend to those requests?

A. Yes, I do, and will do my best.

Questions fromMBisanz

5a. Crats flag Bots per WP:BAG consensus. They also interpret close elections of editors to the BAG. What is your standard for an editor passing a BAG election?

A. Unlike RfA's and RfB's ( ) I have little-to-no experience with bots. I do not run one, although I have run into one or two every now and then. My initial response would be to treat it as any other situation which requires consensus, trying my best to inculcate the inherent idiosyncrasies that it has. It there was a clear consensus either way, the closure is simple; if I could not "unearth" a clear consensus from the discussion, I would close as no consensus. Consensus would be determined through the participation of all legal participants. [Note, in these questions I refer to "legal" participants, as there are some exceptions as to who may opine in various discussions, for example, sock/meat puppetry needs to be discounted etc.] -- Avi (talk) 15:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5b. BAG approves Bots in the WP:RBA process. How many BAGers supporting a Bot function would you require to flag a bot? What if there was opposition from non-BAGers?

A. It depends on the situation. If someone who is an expert on bot functionality were to be satisfied with the bot, its functions, and its safety features, with no opposition, that would be sufficient. Unanswered opposition from non-BAG members would be taken in to consideration, with more specific, educated, and explained reasons having more weight. If concerns are addressed (hopefully by members of the BAG, who are supposed to be our experts) that would, of course, play a large role in the decision. -- Avi (talk) 15:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5c Currently the process to involuntarily de-flag a bot is handled in an ad-hoc manner at WT:RFBA. Where, from whom, and in what form, would you require consensus to de-flag a bot against its owner's wishes? Against the BAG's wishes, but with the community's consensus?

A. Currently, wikipedia is handled in an ad-hoc manner, . Who was it that said that wikipedia is a project that cannot work in theory, only in practice? Consensus for de-flagging a bot should come from all legal participants. The obvious candidates are BAG members and the admins who will have to "clean up" after a bot that is not functioning properly (the most likely case for a de-flagging, I would presume), but like everything from AfD to RfB to ArbCom and Steward elections, the modus operandi of wikipedia is community consensus, and any legal participant's opinion needs to be included and measured. -- Avi (talk) 15:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to actively participate in this process, and I hope that my answers have helped you come to a clearer decision. -- Avi (talk) 15:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Dorftrottel

6. Hypothetically speaking, if an RfA were to be opposed by a relatively large number of people who have a significant history of voting in unison, would that influence the weight you assign those opposes or not? Dorftrottel (harass) 01:42, March 1, 2008

A. Hypothetically speaking, of course, there is no clear answer. Consensus is the will of the community. As per any community over a certain size, there will be various opinions and sentiments held by different people. It is a natural state of events that like-minded people tend to congregate--just look at all of our wikiprojects. In general, this is a good thing, as people with more experience about a particular topic (biographies of fifteenth century dentists or the geogrpagy of Polynesia) can apply their expertise. Project noticeboards are where such like-minded people may find out about various discussions, and often in a short time period. Therefore, the fact that registered users, who are not sock/meat puppets of each other, and who have outside of RfA been known to share interests (and there are plenty of those) are voting similarly in a short amount of time would not ipso facto invalidate or cause suspicion. Every legal participant has a right to their opinion. However, should there be a significant amount of spa's, new accounts, editors who have already been suspected of sockpuppetry, etc taking part, that is an obvious red flag that would need to be investigated. Thank you for taking the time to participate in the discussion and help me understand the community's requirements of their bureaucrats. -- Avi (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7. What is your opinion on Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Gracenotes? In your own opinion, did the numbers (201/71/4, 73,9% support) and the overall quality of the opposes justify that closure? How would you have commented on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gracenotes/Bureaucrat chat? Dorftrottel (talk) 08:35, March 3, 2008

A.Let me start by saying I am not going to answer this question normally; I am not sure I can. Instead, I will attempt to convey what I think about the situation, and how I may have approached it. Firstly, the candidate's reluctance for the nomination to proceed is enough of a reason to withdraw the candidacy. Statistically speaking, the longer a nomination hangs in the balance, the less likely it is to be successful, as every oppose opinion is worth multiples of a support opinion, and most of the time, in contentious situations, the ratio of support to oppose is closer to 1:1 than 4n:n. As for the chat, I agree with Cecropia's summary of what a bureaucrat's role is in RfA's with Nichalp's amendation. We select our bureaucrats as people who we believe can best determine the community's will, even when that will is rather muddied, and are open, upright, honest, and fair enough to approach these decisions impartially, use their judgment NOT about the candidate, but about the opinions voiced in the discussion, and make a reasonable decision or admit that they cannot and do not promote due to "no apparent consensus". In this case the initial response was very good, but it tailed off over the next few days. I agree with the closing statements that it would have been better to reach a bureaucratic decision within a matter of hours and not days, which underscores the need for more bureaucrats, which is why I volunteered. In this case, there was clearly no community consensus not to approve the candidate, but it was unclear that there was community consensus to approve the candidate. The fact that the opposes all circled around one point is not an issue; may I respectfully point out the opposes below . This was on the boderline, and was subject to the human frailty's and foibles of the bureaucrats involved. I personally would have had to recuse myself from closing, as I opined in the RfA itself, but I could accept a closure as promote or no consensus determinable (the eventual outcome), as I think depending on the human being involved either one could be defensible. Closing as consensus not to promote would have been an error. I'm sorry I cannot be more specific, and, as a human being, I reserve the right to learn, grow, and change in the future, and should something like this happen while I am a bureaucrat, I hope to use my best judgment based on my experiences, both in wiki and in life, to make the best decision under our guidelines and policies. -- Avi (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen a few editors properly point out that my vocal participation in RfA's may be more sparse than they would have wished. I understand and appreciate that sentiment, but it raises an important point. A bureaucrat is not supposed to let their personal opinion color their decision on an administrator candidacy. The bureaucrat's role is to reflect the community's consensus, to unearth that consensus in convoluted cases, and to rule on a lack of consensus where it does not exist. In that regard, the fact that I may be less vocal than most in RfA's, in my opinion, becomes less of a factor. In my opinion, and I understand completely that many may disagree, I think that judging how a potential bureaucrat would close a case based on their voting record as an editor has the potential hazard of choosing a bureaucrat based on a potential action that they are not supposed to perform--allow their own opinion to color a difficult case. It is the strict adherence to policy and guideline in contravention of their own point-of-view that would demonstrate how a potential bureaucrat would act in a difficult situation, and I am gratified and humbled that someone with whom I have had differences in the past saw fit to exhibit trust in my ability to do just that--act impartially, fairly, and properly in potentially contentious situations. -- Avi (talk) 01:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the community's perusal, I have participated in at least 80 RfA's and RfB's. -- Avi (talk) 06:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of these 80 RfAs, only 8 were in the last 6 months. --A. B. ^(talk) 06:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See below at your comments for my discussion of that, and thank you for taking the time to look at the list. -- Avi (talk) 05:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

1. Admin for 1.5 years and understands that we need crats for closing RFA's in the 70-80 percentile range. Malinaccier (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Being a crat doesn't require a PhD in rocket science, or the stability and precision of a neurosurgeon. Not saying anything about Avraham, maybe he's a neurosurgeon, but I'll support either way. Avruch ^T 22:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Experienced user who understands consensus. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 22:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Although I disagree (sometimes strongly) with Avraham on matters connected with Israel, I have seen that he has a sensible approach and is always willing to listen carefully. He has done a first-rate job in his mentoring work. Most important of all, he is scrupulous in following policy and consensus, even when it conflicts with his POV (100%, without exception). I trust him to exercise bureaucratship in the same fashion. NSH001 (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
   • Thank you very much; your comments mean a lot to me. -- Avi (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. AGK (contact) 22:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. A good and fair administrator who appears to meet any reasonable criteria for becoming a bureaucrat. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support, only ever seen good things coming from Avraham's corner. · AndonicO ^Hail! 22:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support Been around for a while, trustworthy, and able to assess consensus. Yanksox (talk) 00:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support - Avraham would make an excellent 'crat. Need I say more? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support John254 01:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. support JoshuaZ (talk) 02:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Avraham is a good user. He'll do fine. Acalamari 02:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support Yahel Guhan 03:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support - He'll be fine. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 04:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Daniel (talk) 05:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. Strong Support, one of the best, meets all the criteria. --MPerel 08:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 12:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support We need more bureaucrats. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. I don't see any problems here. SQL^{Query me!} 15:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. Rudget. 16:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. Per the crappy reasons below. Excellent admin, will make a good bcrat. Majorly (talk) 16:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. Intelligent, experienced and level-headed admin, clearly overqualified though. Dorftrottel (ask) 17:19, February 29, 2008

    I'm afraid the "insufficient RfA experience" argument is based on several fallacies, including the misconception that non-RfA-regulars are incapable of properly judging the outcome of an RfA (which is, among other issues, totally overstating the complexity of RfA in comparison to e.g. many editorial or other community-related judgment calls) and the inscrutable idea that RfA regulars are somehow more skilled at impartially judging a situation. I am a convalescent RfA regular, and I can testify that almost all regulars I've come across (including myself) are more or less incapable of keeping personal opinion out of play — which incidentally is the exact reason we like RfA so much. Dorftrottel (harass) 04:25, March 1, 2008

    Just a note to thank Avi for the thoughtful reply to my question. Dorftrottel (taunt) 19:41, March 2, 2008

23. Well, I'd prefer to see more participation at RfA too, but my personal interactions with Avi and my observations of him as a fellow editor, admin and as a co-worker on OTRS and unblock-en-l, have all been very positive. I would be very comfortable trusting Avi with reading community consensus and working the extra buttons and levers. And so I'm very happy to support his RfB. Sarah 17:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support. Good work at OTRS. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support - yeah.   jj137 (talk) 22:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support, as explained in my previous entry under oppose. Good luck. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 14:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
27. support Jon513 (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
28. support. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support - I am convinced that you would use the bureaucrat tools correctly, and have the right attitude to be a bureaucrat, comments you have made in this RFB alone show that. Participation at WT:RFA is nice, but not necessary, for bureaucratship in my opinion. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support - The Helpful One ^(Review) 21:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support: Avi is a very good, fair, diligent administrator who would make a great bureaucrat. His participation has been more than sufficient and his user-page essay shows a clear understanding of the issues relating to the position he seeks. 6SJ7 (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support. per above. Bigglove^talk 23:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note that User:Bigglove has made no edits except for this in the last five months. Pedro :  Chat  23:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please also note that User:Bigglove has a total of 894 edits, which seems like enough to express an opinion on an RfB. Four of those edits were subsequent to the comment here. In other words, this editor took a wikibreak. Is his/her opinion any less valid because of how and when he/she chose to end the break? 6SJ7 (talk) 04:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am back from a long wikibreak due to the demands of my job. I've had th RFA RFB pages on my watchlist since I voted for someone in th past and noted that Avraham was running. I've observed Avi's even handed actions as an admin, have admired him for staying above the fray in political disputes, and think he is ready for the next challenge. Bigglove^talk 15:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

34. has good judgement, dvdrw 02:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support Works for me. MBisanz ^talk 02:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support - A fair admin that will definitely work for the 'pedia.Bakaman 05:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support He is a good administrator and he would make a good bureaucrat. He shows an understanding of the bureaucrat role, answered the questions well and I trust him to make the best decision in that capacity.-- Ѕandahl 06:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support - trustworthy admin. Addhoc (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support - Trustworthy, responsible, capable. Yes to this one. Xdenizen (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support I haven't looked at all of this user's contributions, but everything I've seen has been calm, intelligent, and fair. That about meets all my criteria. IronDuke 01:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support Patient user. Spencer^T♦C 02:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
42. Avi is calm, clever, transparent and fair. He's also fantastically willing to listen to others' opinions, as I've seen on the OTRS mailing list. My own small interactions with him have been very positive. He shows understanding of the role he wishes to embark upon. There is nothing in his work or demeanour which shows that he would not perform well in this position. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm. How do you stop yourself from receiving an e-mail? Tricky stuff ~ Riana ⁂ 13:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You can't. But I highly doubt that's a one-off. To me it's obvious that was just part of the long-term activities of a group who have colluded off-wiki to influence content to Judaism-related articles. Needless to say, because Kelly blogged about it, and you and I, my darling, nominated Kelly for adminship, the same group opposed your RFB. We don't need to help out the secret mailing lists and backdoor cabals. Moreschi (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Avi supported my RfB. Anyway, this is probably to the detriment of the overall discussion, so I'll let this be here. ~ Riana ⁂ 14:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The recipients of that email had the most to gain by voicing their objection to the email — their silence has been deafening.
    If Avi can honestly, onwiki, let everyone know whether this was a once-off email, or alternatively that it was one of many and give us some sort of indication of the scale of the problem, then I will consider he has enough backbone to be a 'crat, and will support this and future requests for responsibility. John Vandenberg (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Not that your changing to support would matter at this point, John, but *I* am disturbed about your throwing out a 30-month long history, including plenty of on-wiki arguments and oppositions with Jay, because of an e-mail. See below under your oppose vote for a more detailed response. -- Avi (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

43. Support. Avi is a very fair and thoughtful editor and administrator, and I'm absolutely confident that he will be equally beneficial to the project in whatever roles he's prepared to volunteer to do. Jakew (talk) 15:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support - I don't think there's much to say that hasn't already been said above. Trustworthiness, Good Faith, and Common Sense are paramount. I see that in Avi. • VigilancePrime • • • 06:06 (UTC) 5 Mar '08
45. Support I certainly share the concern of Moreschi and Eleland, but I am nevertheless comfortable concluding that the candidate is possessed of the sound judgment, civil demeanor, and—most importantly—understanding of the nature of bureaucratship as ministerial (a bureaucrat, that is, acts only to determine for what actions a consensus exists and not to substitute his judgment for that of the community) that serve a bureaucrat well, such that I think it rather clear that the net effect on the project of his being bureaucrat(t)ed should be positive; I'm sorry to see that this won't succeed (unless I should whip out my 50 sleeper socks in the next few hours). Joe 05:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support Looks good to me, opposes are not convincing in light of candidate's statements about abstaining from RfAs instead of !voting neutral. GlassCobra 05:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support, why not? Stifle (talk) 11:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support, based on Avraham's precise, detailed, and thoughtful participation in recent RfAs and rfa talk and on his impressive contribution history, talk page history, and overall civilness. Glad you're here! Looking forward to your next run at RfB. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Sorry, Oppose I don't see much participation in the RFA or its talk page. Secret ^account 23:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose In agreeance with Secret. You rationale on requesting 'crat tools seems entirely based on WP:RFA and yet your input both on the project page and the talk page is minimal. I'm sorry, but I have nothing in your contribution history to back up/demonstrate your statements on how you would approach RfA closure. Pedro :  Chat  23:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm not sure I understand. In my mind, the standard is whether you believe that an admin is trustworthy enough and has shown sufficiently sound judgment to merit the +bureaucrat. Judging a consensus, which is the role of a 'crat in an RfA, is something that many admins do on a regular basis. The ability of an admin to correctly interpret consensus is an important factor in an RfB, but I don't see how RfA participation itself necessarily is. The 'crats don't need experience in reviewing and voting on candidates, because that isn't their role in an RfA. The voters do that part themselves, and the crats interpret the outcome. (I know you understand the process better than I, but I'm stating my understanding so you can tell me where I'm wrong). When you say you're not sure how he would approach RfA closure, I can understand if this was based on some demonstrated weakness in his judgment (or the lack of evidence either way) - but with 21,000 edits and a long track as an admin, shouldn't such weakness be demonstrable by now? Perhaps you have seen such evidence, can you show me an example? Avruch ^T

   "The ability of an admin to correctly interpret consensus is an important factor in an RfB, but I don't see how RfA participation itself necessarily is." Would you be able to determine a candidates suitability at RfA if they had made virtually no input at areas such as WP:AFD, WP:AIV or WP:RFPP, WP:ANI - i.e. the areas traditionally associated with aspiring admins? I wouldn't be able to. I'm afraid WP:AGF has to be secondary to actual evidence at both RfA and RfB. Sorry. Pedro :  Chat  20:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   The difference is that no participation in admin noticeboards or XfD discussions means there is no evidence of the candidates judgment at all. In this case, the required judgment is judging consensus and so the metric should be Is there a record of the candidates judgment in this area, and if so is the candidates judgment sound? What I don't understand is ignoring a history of judgment on the same question (Consensus, yes no?) because it isn't in a particular forum. Avruch ^T 21:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Sound arguments, but my take would be this. We have seen many candidates fail at RfA who have a solid background of 3,000+ edits vandal fighting and reports to WP:AIV. Demonstrably, they therefore know community consensus with regards to the difference between vandalism or merely test edits. Yet they fail RfA as we are unable to judge (through their contributions) how they would be able to apply consensus at AFD or judicious use of the protect feature. Essentialy, I prefer to base my decisions on evidence, not gut feeling (although I admit that I do occasionaly support at RfA based on nothing more than a positive interaction and a fleeting sample of edits, talk page etc.) At RfB the community has higher standards, and I am in agreeance with the community as to these high standards. I have nothing at all agianst this candidate who strikes me as a fine editor and overtly capabale administrator. Perhaps not now, but later would sum up this oppose. As ever, my best wishes. Pedro :  Chat  21:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Also, to follow on - 80 RfA's isn't virtually no input, and AGF does not enter into this at all. Avruch ^T 21:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. Per Pedro/Secret. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 00:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose - Per Secret, sorry. Tiptoety ^talk 01:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose. Mostly per Pedro and Secret. Avi hasn't participated much in RfA discussions; we need 'crats who've been involved in the project. Majoreditor (talk) 02:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose Hard to be in tune with community consensus on a subject when you haven't participated in the communities discussions on the subject. At the very least, it's difficult to judge familiarity with RFA and current community attitudes when there's been limited participation. Consensus at RFA is complicated and draws intense interest, it's not like consensus in other areas...it's controlled chaos at times and needs to be handled with care. Even a "book smart" bureaucrat can cause a lot of drama without knowing it. RxS (talk) 05:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment I understand your collective concerns, and I appreciate from where you are coming. As I said in the introduction, I am sincerely interested in the constructive criticism from fellow editors, and how I can improve, so please educate me about these conerns. What I can say that may alleviate your concerns is the following, which I will gladly expand up in the discussion section if you wish. What is it that you would have wanted to see from greater participation in the RfA section of wikipedia. If it is how I approach RfA's and RfB's, I have made my opinion and decision criteria well and publicly known over a year now with my essay at User:Avraham/RfA-B. When I opine on a candidate, I will usually link to itas well. While there are similarities, of course, I agree that the process and consensus required by RfA has uniquenesses not found in other processes such as AfD. Which is why while I do follow the RfA process daily, including discussions, in recognition of those differences, and in keeping with my general philosophy about RfA's and RfB's, I usually try not to comment on a particular candidate unless I feel strongly about the candidate and I feel that I can add something to the discussion--if it is only a mention of the trust and its extension. With some exceptions, I have tried not to "pile on" in obvious passes (unless I felt a personal need to recognize the candidate and distinctly express my trust in him or her) nor "pile on" in obvious failures, unless I thought that my explanation may help someone else crystalize their thoughts. So, if you want to know my philosophy about candidate support, it's in the open. If you want to know how I would close discussions, that is above, and I sincerely hope that I would not let my personal feelings about the candidate interfere with potential bureaucratic duties. If you want to know how I adhere to policy and guidelines in the face of personal opinions, there are 21,000 edits, 15,000+ as an admin on which to come to a reasoned opinion. If you want to know if I understand the RfA process, you have my essay, my explanations, and this week to use to make a reasoned and informed decision. If after that you still feel I would not help wikipedia as a bureaucrat, then I respect your decision, and ask for constructive feedback to help me better be able to serve in that capacity. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 05:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Well, speaking only for myself it's more a matter of wading into the constantly churning discussion about RFA than it is voting on individual RFAs. If Wikipedia was a zoo, RFA is the Monkey house...but there's only one way to be tuned into it (and let others become familiar with your feelings on it's constantly evolving meta-issues) and that's to jump in the middle of issues when they come up. I think an editor would be much more likely to pass a RFB if all they did was to consistently comment and engage on issues without ever voting on a candidate than the other way around. I couldn't do it...but many do. That's where the rubber meets the road so to speak. Anyway, those are my thoughts. RxS (talk) 05:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Thank you. As a rough tally (see the talk page) I participated in 80 discussions, but I concur that the majority were not back-and-forths but statements of my opinion. But if the community requires bureaucrats to have participated in hundreds of discussions, dozens of which were contentious, then yes, I do not fulfill that, and would need to become more vocal here . Thanks again! -- Avi (talk) 06:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose, per Secret, and in opposition to Avruch: You need to have participated to be able to sit in judgment of the results. It's a pity, as I trust this person in other matters. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 05:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Changed my opinion to support, after sampling the list of RfA participation. Thanks for the opp to set this straight. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 14:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I was going through my edit history, and I have participated in around eighty different RfA's and RfB's. May I ask how many I would need to participate in to be considered more appropriate in your opinion? Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 05:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Hmm. Well, as he notes above, he's participated in 80 or so RfAs. I guess that means most of the opposition is based on his lack of participation recently in Wikipedia_talk:Requests for adminship. Strange. Avruch ^T 13:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7. Oppose Per Pedro. While I think the candidate's response was pretty well thought out and logical, it doesn't change the fact that consistent participation in WP:RFA and WT:RFA are vital necessities. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose Insufficient evidence of participation in RfA for me to feel comfortable with b'cratship in this case. Xoloz (talk) 15:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose Per others on participation. Achromatic (talk) 18:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose Nope. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 23:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose Noor Aalam (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose There have been some comments about his WP:RFA participation. Though it is not completely necessary, I would rather a user to have experience with the process before becoming the head of it. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 03:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose -- weak participation in recent RfAs and RfBs: the candidate only commented in eight during the last 6 months. The community's attitudes towards both adminship and the RfA process evolve over time in sometimes subtle ways. More extensive participation a year or two ago does not make up for lack of recent experience:
    • Wikipedia talk:Requests for bureaucratship/Avraham#Last six months of RfA/RfB participation

    --A. B. ^(talk) 06:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • • Thank you, AB, for expressing a specific issue. For my benefit, should this candidacy fail and I intend to run again, I'd appreciate if you clarified a bit. It appears that you believe that bureaucrats need to be aware and current of the RfA process, and you feel that the "half-life" as it were of RfA is about six months. Does this mean that a bureaucrat who has not participated (not closed, b/c closing should never be done based on personal opinion) should need to refrain from closing until they get themselves back up to speed? Do you feel that the evolution of "consensus" is such that it changes over half-a-year? Because bureaucrats are only supposed to measure consensus, not provide their own opinion as to candidate appropriateness when they exercise bureaucratic responsibilities. Does this apply to AfD's as well? Or is consensus in various parts of wikipedia subject to different evolutionary processes? Lastly, does familiarity with the process require "dropping in" to various RfA's? Personally, I have had WP:RFA watchlisted since I have been a registered wikipedian, and I do review it daily. Thank you for taking the time to conmment and help me better understand the community's requirements. -- Avi (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Avraham, I find it odd you only participated in 8 RfBs or RfAs in the last 6 months yet you're interested in becoming a bureaucrat. I would think you would have been more active with RfAs. It's like the RfA candidates that say they want to block vandals but they've made no AIV reports and given no talk page warnings.
    2. I just don't understand -- if you're looking at multiple RfAs every day, it's odd that you would only make a comment every 3 weeks or so.
    3. Community values do drift over time; examples:
       1. Candidates that mostly did spam work had a hard time getting 75% approval 9 months ago based on perceptions of narrow experience and limited article-writing. Yet 6 weeks ago, my own RfA sailed through 86-0-0.
       2. A year ago, you could count on multiple oppose comments if a candidate had not been involved with a featured article. That's not true anymore
       3. Nowadays, candidate's civility track records seem to be stressed more.

    --A. B. ^(talk) 02:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    My interest is in helping the community and project. A need for more bureaucrats was raised, and, in my understanding of a bureaucrat's role, it is one that requires the ability to make certain decisions under strict neutrality and adherence to community consensus, things which I believe I can do and have done. Therefore, I chose to open myself up to community scrutiny and ask for its trust. The process has been, and still is, educational, and I think that even if I do not succeed this time I have a better understanding of what those who have felt I am unready at this point require.

    As for why my comments are sparse, I believe I wrote something similar above, that when it comes to making a decision about a particular candidates candidacy, it is a matter of whether or not I trust their judgment, or whether or not I have enough of an understanding of the candidate's behavior that I will go on record stating that I do not think that the community should extend their trust. That is a separate issue, in my belief, as to whether or not I can divorce my own personal opinions as to user appropriateness and accurately measure community consensus. As for civility, I do my best to maintain that at all times, and I believe I can accurately detect that in others :). It appears to me that perhaps my own personal standards of not weighing in on candidates of which I do not have a good feeling for one way or the other has been found lacking. Perhaps; it is completely your right to feel that way, and I appreciate your taking the time to explain your position. Thank you! -- Avi (talk) 05:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    By the way, you can keep your spleen. Just spend a few months on RfAs (including some controversial and/or close ones), then come back again. Assuming you've done nothing boneheaded, I think most of the opposes here will be happy to support a second RfB; I know I will. --A. B. ^(talk) 17:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    LOL. Thanks. I was loathe to part with the pancreas too . -- Avi (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

14. Oppose. Not enough RFA participation. Singopo (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for participating in the discussion. As I do with others who feel as you do, I am trying to guage a sense of the opposition's consensus as to what would be a sufficent participation. In your case, I have near double the edits on WP:RfA as you, as a matter of measure, so, may I ask in your reasoned opinion what would be a sufficient measure of participation, and how would you jibe the need for participation with the need for absolute neutrality. I have gotten some very good answers from others, and am interested in your opinion as well, especially as you saw fit to register a comment here. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 02:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

15. I'm sorry, but I am not sure that you are fit for this role at this time; as the others note, I don't think you participate in the requests for adminship process enough to fill the shoes. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. I have to oppose because I do not feel you necessarily need the tools granted of an bureaucrat; most of your contributions and actions as an admin have been in AfD's, moves and renaming, and very little participation (in recent months) with RFA's. --Ozgod (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A fair point. However, there is a need for more bureaucrats in wikipedia, and I am volunteering my services. To be able to help the project in this fashion, I would need the tools, wouldn't I . May I trouble you to explain as to why my track record over the past 21K+ edits and my over-a-year old essay which I maintain to in my participation in over 80 RfA's is insufficient? Understanding yours, and others', concerns will be the only way for me to ensure that, should this candidacy prove unsuccessful, I better understand the community's needs so I may serve it more appropriately. Thank you for taking the time to participate and opine. -- Avi (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It took me a while to make a decision - but I based it mostly on current activity and what you were participating in most - since as we both know Wikipedia can change swiftly. I would feel more comfortable supporting someone who was more involved with one the key areas that a bureaucrat is involved with. If I had seen you more involved with discussions on RFA's in recent months I would gladly give you support, but I only came across a few instances in your last 500 edits in Wiki space which spans back to October. It is a very weak oppose, but with the amount of RFB's I am trying to be more selective of who I support than I normally would with an RFA. --Ozgod (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you; that was clear, concise, and to the point, and I appreciate it. -- Avi (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

17. Sadly oppose - great admin, but not active at WP:RFA. Bearian (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. Oppose Apologies but I do not think you're involved enough. Bstone (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. Oppose Good admin, but should wait a little while before 'crat. --Charitwo ^talk 03:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. Oppose While Avraham is a valuable user and administrator on wikipedia, I'll have to oppose (but may change my vote in a later RfB). Bless sins (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. Pre-mature nomination. Will reconsider with more RfA experience under his belt. - Mailer Diablo 14:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. Oppose per Kelly Martin. <eleland/talkedits> 23:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23. There are already enough 'crats to disagree with, no need for more, especially since it appears that I disagree much more with the newer ones then with the older ones. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 07:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
24. Very reluctant oppose. Emphasis on the "very". Avi is a trustworthy and friendly admin, but his lack of recent participation in the RfA process concerns me.--TBC!?! 10:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
25. Oppose Lack in participation is crucial. — Κaiba 11:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
26. Strong oppose. It is not the RFA participation, or lack of it, but the lack of an immediate and clear explaination of how he ended up being oncall to backup Jaygj - the response was to defend clear and embarrassing canvassing. I'm not so silly to think that this sort of thing doesn't happen, all the time, but this type of canvassing by "respected" admins on content shouldnt be encouraged by giving them more bits within the privately active group, especially when they are so outspoken about the evils of "IRC" when it suits them.[1] I waited to see if Avi would respond to Moreschi below, but Avi has neglected to do that. John Vandenberg (talk) 12:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If you read Moreschi's comments below, I was not asked to respond . When I commented on other people opposing, it was for my own personal edification. Moreschi stated a reasonable concern, and that he had to ruminate on it. That is his decision, and it is not my place to try and convince him either way. As for your concerns, if you honestly think, looking at my 21K+ edits, that you have to fear that I would "fix" (as Relata put it) an RfA to further any nefarious schemes, then, I feel badly, but I think you are grossly mistaken. Do I need to point out the times that I specifically opposed Jay on RfA's (Mongo for example). How about when I disagree vociferously with Jay regarding citations. How about when I was the only admin to bend over backwards in the Ascuena trolling affair. How about when it was *I* who was the first supporter of PalestineRemembered getting mentoring when he was almost tossed out of wiki? Have you "forgotten" those incidents? I am my own person, and have always been, and I have not, am not, and will not be afraid to call things as I see them and implement wikipedia policy and guideline in strict accordance with the rules. If you feel that because I was cc'd on an e-mail that makes me ipso facto unqualified, I believe that speaks more to your pre-suppositions and potential inability for impartiality than mine.

    Lastly, you reference this response. I will quote it for posterity:“Whether it was inappropriately sent or not, the aticle _was_ evicerated after months of discussion.” You claimed that my reaction was to “defend clear and embarrassing canvassing”. I don't see that in my response. My point was solely that whether my being informed was appropriate or inappropriate, my actions were appropriate in accordance with wikipedia policies and guidelines. So, once again, if you honestly and truly feel that my 30 or so months of activity here on wikipedia makes you feel that I am someone's stooge or meatpuppet, that is your prerogative, and this venue allows you to make that feeling felt. However, it also allows all of us to understand your assumptions and your ability and proficiency in reading people's edit histories. Thank you for taking the time to take part in the process, for though I severly disagree with your interpretations, to the point that I would characterize them as gross misinterpretations, it is still the ability for all of us to partake in the discussion that allows the checks and balances that govern a project that has inherent difficulty with different people and their backgrounds to flourish. -- Avi (talk) 15:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I asked that you explain how you came to be a recipient of that email as it doesnt appear to outsiders as a once-off email. Like most regular contributors, I have received similar canvassing emails from friends and people I've never heard off alike - they are usually very guarded in the way they canvass - Jaygj's email doesnt have that feel to it, which indicates it is a casual practise within that recipient list. Note that I am not saying that you are a "stooge". That is hyperbole. I am simply aware that no man is an island, and your decisions will be affected both by the friends you keep (you have to live with them after the decision) and the methods you use (i.e. private communications). If you cant acknowledge that, you are attempting to be inhuman. Very noble, but not bloody likely. 'crat actions are not easily reversible so I wouldnt want to put those tools into the hands of persons who are not willing to distance themselves from inappropriate methods. Unless you answer my query directly, you are merely directing me to your many good deeds - anyone who has been active on WMF projects for a while has plenty of good deeds - not everyone is 'crat material. John Vandenberg (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The literal answer to your direct query is that I was on the recipient list. The figurative answer is I don't know, ask Jay why I was on that list. More deeply, however, this is where I believe you are grossly mistaken. One of the primary issues in RfB's, RfA's, ArbCom elections, etc. is whether or not the candidate will fulfill the position properly, equitably, and in accordance with wikiepdia policies and guidelines. My pointing out the many times I have on-wiki disagreed with Jay, the sender of this e-mail, is exactly what should indicate to you that my decisions are not affected by any friendship I may or may not have with Jay. For the record, although I feel it unnecessary, I have no idea who Jay is in real life, nor am I any more "friendly" with him than, shall we say, User:Fayssal, User:Fredbauder, User:jpgordon, User:Malik Shabazz, or even User:Jimbo, all of whom I have had e-mail discussions with. My activities as an m:OTRS volunteer almost demand that I have e-mail contact with various editors and complainants. I have over 121 MB of wikipedia, strike that, wikimedia-specific e-mails. Furthermore, perhaps you are a licensed psychologist, or better yet, a CIA operative trained in gleaning out a persons thoughts from their e-mail, so you can determine the frequency of Jay's e-mails from this one instance. And if you are asking me to go through the thousands of wikimedia-related e-mails I have and statistically measure how often I get one from Jay versus Adon Emmet for example, I find that insulting. you can choose to look at this one incident and create, in my opinion, a fantasy about the lack of my independence, or you can look at the tens of thousands of on-wiki posts and interactions I have had and construct a realistic picture of my independence. It is your choice. Thank you for responding and taking the time to be heard in this venue. -- Avi (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not going to sweep this email under the rug simply because of many good deeds. Again you are delving into lovely hyperbole. I dont care who you have to email due to your Wikimedia involvement, or how friendly you are with them, but I do care if there is improper canvassing occuring as a normal practise. I didnt ask you to give stats so dont appeal to megabytes; I implicitly asked you to explain the nature of this private list, as a testament to your desire to distance yourself from it. You appear to be dismissive of my ability to determine whether there is more emails sent among this recipient list; are you willing to say plainly that I am wrong? I will be happy to hear it and start to AGF. This was an isolated email and you were an unwilling recipient? Prior to that email you never received emails from people on that recipient list requesting backup or "more eyes"? You bluntly told the sender you never wish to be canvassed like that ever again? Please be plain in your answers.
    There is no 'crat handbook written using indelible ink, so 'crats have the option of making some extremely unusual decisions that solely rely on a 'crats understanding of the community (e.g. ^demon), and for the most part the community will accept these decisions, so I am appauled that you consider my queries to be irrelevant. John Vandenberg (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    p.s. just in case you are thinking I have latched onto Moreschi's query below and am blowing it out of proportion for the sake of it, note that my RFA involvement is very minimal - I am not a drama junkie. I read the email when it arrived on the list and I consider it one of the very low points for English Wikipedia, despite the fact little was made of it. John Vandenberg (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If you are asking me to “explain the nature of this private list,” I cannot answer that question, since I didn't send the e-mail. You would need to ask Jay who he sends e-mail's to on a regular basis. If he puts me on one of his lists, that is his concern, not mine; I can only speak for myself, which I have at great length above. Have I received other e-mail's from Jay? Of course. I have also received e-mails from Fayssal. And Fred. And JzG. And Jimbo. And Daniel. And YidisherYid. And IZAK. And Isarig. And Jaakobu. And Adon Emmet. And Yamla. And Riana. And BrownHairedGirl. And Twefik. And Bakasuprman. etc. Some of them were article related, others editor related, others policy related, others block related, others protection related, others ArbCom related, others OTRS related, some due to wiki-en-l, some from accounts-en-l, some from unblock-en-l, etc. many of our templates suggest contacting admins by e-mail, or were you aware of that? Someone such as myself, who volunteers in a very large swath of wikimedia-related activities is bound to be contacted very often. Back to your point, I cannot say as to how often Jay "canvasses" or contacts other editors, you would need his e-mail records for that. All I can say is that I know that I comport myself with honesty and integrity, both on and off wikipedia, and that I have an open history and track record for each and every editor to make their decision. I am gratified that the majority have noted my behavior, and referenced it in their support messages. You seem to be focusing on one event, which as I said had absolutely no bearing on my actions -- I had been a very strong participant in that article for long before and long after the e-mail. I do not think you are a drama junkie, I think you are honestly concerned with b-crat impartiality. However, I do think that using that incident as your sole rationale for opposition makes you grossly mistaken in your interpretations, your deductions, and your opinions, but that is only my personal opinion, and here I'll admit I am biased, as I do my best to behave above and beyond what is expected . Thank you, and especially thank you for keeping the discussion civil and not personal. -- Avi (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As you have so far been unwilling to provide any indication on how frequently you have been canvassed due to being on this private list, it is impossible for me to believe you were an unwilling party to that email. John Vandenberg (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As I said, I find that your asking me to go back and count the number of e-mails I get from any one person is insulting. I have stated clearly and absolutely that no action I have taken on wikipedia was as a result of some "shadowy cabal" or "outside influence". I make my own decisions for myself, and if they are similar to one person's or another at different times, then so be it. If you are unwilling to take my word for what it is worth, then I hope you continue to oppose me, for there is nothing else I can do to change your mind. I am truly glad that you are the only one who has made this point, and I am happy that the other 48 supporters and 25 opposers (Moreschi I'll leave for now) disagree with you on this and have made their decision based on my actions, history, and good word. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

27. Switching to oppose, per, well, myself. John's arguments are convincing. Moreschi (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    All you had to do was ask, Moreschi. I did not want to influence your decision unless you specifically requested me to. -- Avi (talk) 15:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

28. Firstly per Xoloz. Secondly, I concur with John above. It's not appropriate for a bureaucrat to remain on the receiving end of Jayjg's private correspondence. Avi's responses to John indicate that he doesn't really understand the concern. (The initial point, by the way, is that we have public talk pages attached to every article, as well as a public edit summary window, and various public noticeboards, all of which could have been used when an article _was_ eviscerated. Whether or not evisceration occurred never mattered; that doesn't justify canvassing.) --JayHenry (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    So, would you have liked me to ask Jay never to cc: me again? Would you believe me if I said that I did? I don't think John would have . As I said, I understand John's concern completely. I think my 30 months here goes to show that it is not a concern, I think that John is not willing to look at a body of work, and instead is focusing on one instance, which he is misconstruing to boot. But that just is my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 17:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having to think about this for a bit after this. Moreschi (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC) Switching to oppose.[reply]

Not to badger the non-supporters, but do you mean his receipt of the e-mail or some other action he took as a result? Avruch ^T 00:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Receipt of the email. Moreschi (talk) 14:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's not good. But will it affect his ability to correctly close an RfA? Relata refero (talk) 13:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it won't. I'm thinking more in terms of power issues than competence. Maybe 90 percent of people in this discussion, non-admins and admins alike, would make perfectly competent crats. Crats, as far as I can make out, have a childishly easy job 90 percent of the time - certainly with the way RFA is structured at the moment. The way things are at the moment, though, being a crat has considerable clout. Worrying. Hmmm. Moreschi (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Especially if someone ever gets round to fixing RfAs. Relata refero (talk) 10:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above 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.