Avraham

Avraham (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I am standing in this election for oversight, as I can attest from personal experience that there is a need for more people with the tool. As someone who has been dealing with oversight, and oversighters, for a long time, I am volunteering to assume that workload as well. As someone who can monitor e-mail for the majority of the day, I can respond quickly to new requests, helping to lower the response time. Moreover, it is extremely complementary to the maintenance work I already do.

• As a checkuser, there have been numerous times when I have uncovered completely disgusting usernames, or usernames that "out" individuals real names, telephone numbers, addresses, and the like. Often, these usernames will edit with said personal information in the edit summary or the edit itself. As quickly removing these names, edits, and summaries from circulation is critical to protect the project, having the oversight tool would obviate the need for me, or other checkusers, from having to hunt down oversighters via list, e-mail, or IRC, or, in times of desperation, flagging a steward.
• As an OTRS volunteer, I have worked with multiple individuals seeking to remove personal information-revealing edits performed by others. There have been times in the past where the removal of the edit has taken days, with multiple prodding to the list. The response time has been better over the past year, but it still can, and should, improve.
• As a bureaucrat and OTRS volunteer, I have dealt with multiple anonymization requests over OTRS and WP:CHU. The hideuser tool would complement the rename tool in that users who need anonymization (often usernames created by others to disparage the individual) who have no GFDL/CC-BY-SA edits requiring attribution should preferably be hidden as opposed to renamed.

In recap, as someone to whom protecting the privacy of our editors is important, who has been dealing with these issues in various capacities for years, and whose volunteer work now requires access to oversight and oversighters on a very frequent basis, having the tool would allow the maintenance work I do to be completed more efficiently and in a more timely manner. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 02:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions for Avraham

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

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

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

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

Votes in support of Avraham

2. Shappy ^talk 00:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. JamieS93 00:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. No question. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support. — Aitias // discussion 00:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. iMatthew ^talk at 00:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Yep. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Majorly talk 00:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 00:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Durova²⁸⁵ 00:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Caspian blue 00:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Prodego ^talk 00:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. NW (Talk) 00:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. (X! · talk)  · @061  ·  00:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. John Carter (talk) 00:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. —harej (talk) (cool!) 00:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Antandrus (talk) 00:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. --Aqwis (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. Pzrmd (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24.  Chzz  ►  01:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Triplestop x3 01:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Sorry, not eligible , does not have 150 article edits before June 15. Risker (talk) 01:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

26. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. - Dank (push to talk) 01:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. —Animum (talk) 02:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. ThemFromSpace 02:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. Captain panda 02:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
33. Noroton (talk) 03:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
34. Kingturtle (talk) 03:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
35. Nathan ^T 03:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
36. Jehochman ^Talk 03:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
37. Javert^{I knit sweaters, yo!} 04:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
38. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
39. — Σxplicit 05:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
40. Strong support -- Tinu Cherian - 05:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
41. bibliomaniac15 05:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
42. Pedro :  Chat  06:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
43. Without hesitation. Jakew (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
44. Offliner (talk) 07:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
45. AdjustShift (talk) 09:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
46. Euryalus (talk) 09:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
47. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 09:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
48. Willking1979 (talk) 09:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
49. Goodmorningworld (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
50. Aditya (talk) 12:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
51. AGK 13:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
52. Shimgray | talk | 14:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
53. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
54. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
55. LittleMountain5 15:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
56. Pectore^talk 15:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
57. — Athaenara ✉ 16:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
58. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
59. Daniel Case (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
60. Ian¹³/t 18:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
61. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
62. Masonpatriot (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
63. RP459 (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
64. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
65. Davewild (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
66. FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
67. -shirulashem^(talk) 20:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
68. Woody (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
69. — Ched :  ?  21:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
70. —MC10|Sign here! 21:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
71. - Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
72. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 22:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
73. Basket of Puppies 22:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
74. Recognizance (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
75. Bsimmons666 (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
76. Aye ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 23:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
77. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
78. Daniel (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
79. chaser (talk) 00:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
80. Priyanath ^talk 02:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
81. Samir 04:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
82. BrianY (talk) 04:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
83. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
84. --Conti|✉ 09:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    BejinhanTalk 10:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Sorry, not eligible , does not have 150 article edits before June 15. Risker (talk) 01:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

85. Kusma (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
86. ceranthor 12:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
87. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
88. — Kralizec! (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
89. Rigaudon (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
90. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
91. PhilKnight (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
92. Pmlineditor 17:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
93. SupportThingg^⊕⊗ 17:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
94. Alexfusco⁵ 19:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
95. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
96. --SPhilbrickT 23:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
97. (reasoning) The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 02:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
98. IronDuke 02:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
99.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 06:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
100. youngamerican (wtf?) 11:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
101. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
102. Tryptofish (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
103. Res2216firestar 16:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
104. Enigma^msg 17:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
105. Heimstern Läufer (talk) (rationale) 18:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
106. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
107. Strongly; see here. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 22:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
108. Timmeh 02:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
109. Ray^Talk 07:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
110. Ysangkok (talk) 11:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
111. Abecedare (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
112. Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
113. Atama^chat 00:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
114. Kauffner (talk) 02:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
115.   Will Beback  talk  03:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
116. ++Lar: t/c 07:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
117. Jafeluv (talk) 13:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
118. TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 14:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
119. --Giants27 (c|s) 19:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
120. Synchronism (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
121. Fedayee (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
122. Absolutely. --Jayron32 03:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
123. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
124. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 06:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
125. Sure. Sarah 13:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
126. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
127. Malinaccier (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
128. Nishidani (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
129. Acalamari 21:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
130. yes please -- Y not? 02:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
131. PerfectProposal 02:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
132. Joe (talk) 02:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
133. Amalthea 11:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
134. Cailil ^talk 18:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
135. Cbrown1023 talk 17:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
136. -- Banjeboi 20:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
137. Grandmaster 05:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
138. Master&Expert (Talk) 09:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
139. GDonato (talk) 09:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
140. 6SJ7 (talk) 00:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
141. Tiderolls 01:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
142. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 21:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
143. snigbrook (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
144. AlexiusHoratius 20:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
145. Weakly. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 23:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
146. Steven Walling (talk) 03:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
147. —DerHexer (Talk) 22:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
148. --Kanonkas :  Talk  22:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
149. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
150. Support —Terrence and Phillip 14:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
151. Support NSH001 (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
152. Promking
153. Strong Support. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
154. Lara 17:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
155. hmwitht 18:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
156. Whitehorse1 21:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
157. Support --StaniStani  22:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
158. BJ^Talk 23:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
159. --Wehwalt (talk) 23:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in opposition to Avraham

2. JayHenry (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   --Fox1942 (talk) 11:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC) (Vote indented as user is ineligible to vote in this election - SoWhy 11:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

3. *** Crotalus *** 18:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 10:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Cxz111 (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. -- TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 23:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Privacy is important, but so is accountability. Too often in the past the former has been used as an excuse to subvert the latter. We need a better balance between the two, sorry Avi, but I don't think you are the one to find this.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. --Severino (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]