The following threads are preserved as an archive of an inter-bureaucrat discussion regarding the related RfB, Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Avraham 2. The final decision was to not promote. Please do not modify the text if you are not a member of the bureaucrat group..

The varying opinions in opposition are strong. The issues involve (1) Avraham's judgment, reactions, and handling of disputes, and (2) Avraham re-applying for RfB too soon after the first try. Numerically, this RfB sits about 82.3%, on the low side of the spectrum considered at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/RfB bar.

If I were to act alone, I would close this RfB as unsuccessful. However, I'd like other bureaucrats to chime in. Kingturtle (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well statistically alone yeah, it's on the low side. However, a number of objections have been "per X" and X has subsequently had his or her objection(s) resolved, and moved to either Neutral (e.g. John Vandenburg) or Support (e.g. Ryan Posthlewaite). It may be that these existing "per X" opinions need to be revisited by the editors raising them? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but unfortunately we don't have their revisited opinions to go on. Also in various cases in RfXs people often still oppose based on the concerns raised and themselves don't feel they are resolved, or feel they are more serious, etc. For example one editor brings up a concern and places their comments in neutral and others oppose based on the rationale. Finally in this case specifically, there's only a single comment that is per someone that changed their vote and doesn't go on to expand the reasoning beyond the per so and so. Overall, I don't happen to agree with many of the oppose but that's not our job here, I do agree that the opposition is significant and varied. That combined with there not being a clear consensus how far the bar should be lowered, I concur with Kingturtle. I'd also like to note that he handled himself extremely well throughout. - Taxman ^Talk 13:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And at least three editors were neutral but leaning to support. Is there a precedent for the reconsideration of existing !voter's viewpoints for a limited time period (say 2 days) whereby positions can be reconfirmed or otherwise? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would basically amount to extending the RfA time without allowing new comments if I get what you're saying. There's not a precedent for it and I guess I can't see the value. That's what the 7 days were for, people had a chance to review the available information and adjust their views and comments. I think if we extend an RfA for reconsideration of existing views it should be open to new views as well so that information could be incorporated. There is however not any evidence here that not enough time was available so I don't see an extension being warranted. - Taxman ^Talk 13:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. And it would, naturally, open floodgates for all future close calls. I guess I'll go with the current 'crat consensus that since opposition opinions are varied and valid, and since the support is not quite as high as expected, it's a narrow fail. But, per Taxman, the way in which Avi has conducted himself has been exemplary. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just now finished reviewing the RfB. I will point out that there is a considerable number of opposition rationales that suffer from significant problems. That has really nothing to do with whether or not I agree with the point being made, but rather it pertains to judgement as to whether or not any given reasoning is actually contributing to the building of the consensus required to promote a user to Bureaucratship.
That being said, however, it is not simply an issue of what gets "validated" and what gets "rejected". As we all know, there are certain very-high standards that the community demands for Bureaucratship (not the place to discuss whether or not it is realistic), and part of it involves "very little significant opposition". In the case at hand, even taking into account the problems I mentioned, it is not enough to get to a point where the opposition presented could be considered "of little significance", at least to the extent that would be required for a RfB to be successful. Redux (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said what I was thinking better than I did. At this point the decision is clear, so if no one beats me to it I'll take care of the paperwork in a minute. - Taxman ^Talk 15:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been brought to my attention that had the RfB ended on time, the result would have been 101/20/9 or 83.5%. That result doesn't change my view, but I think it is only fair to share this information. Kingturtle (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it's fair to mention if you're going to mention numbers, but it's also been longstanding consensus that we should consider comments up until the official closing by a bureaucrat since it is supposed to be a consensus gathering exercise all valid comments are important. The nominal ending time is just that. - Taxman ^Talk 16:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]