User talk:Avraham/Archive 36

< Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37 >

All Pages:

1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  10 -  11 -  12 -  13 -  14 -  15 -  16 -  17 -  18 -  19 -  20 -  21 -  22 -  23 -  24 -  25 -  26 -  27 -  28 -  29 -  30 -  31 -  32 -  33 -  34 -  35 -  36 -  37 -  38 -  39 -  40 -  41 -  42 -  43 -  44 -  45 -  46 -  47 -  48 -  49 -  50 -  51 -  52 -  53 -  54 -  55 -  56 -  57 -  58 -  59 -  60 -  ... (up to 100)

Your attention would be appreciated on an RFCU

A second RFCU was filed against me today by parties who are attempting to game checkuser with fishing expeditions. Could you take a look here? I'd appreciate it. TGH1970 (talk) 04:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Might I request that the case is reopened per the opening rationale that RHMED may have some evidence? That is, of course, unless I have missed him saying he didn't have any somewhere. — neuro^(talk) 22:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Avi (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• A violation of policy would have to be established first. None of the editors have provided any reason for running a checkuser. Nobody is accused of votestacking, canvassing or improperly editing under an alternate account. So far all I see is a small group of people who desperately want to run a checkuser but can't figure out why. Their evidence does not correlate or even indicate sockpuppetry and this is a pathetic attempt at retaliation against me for filing a report against Banime at ANI. TGH1970 (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• That may be true, but I see no harm in holding off the archiving for a day or two. If the evidence is not forthcoming or weak, the request will be denied. If you believe you are being harassed through these reports, a discussion on WP:ANI may be appropriate. -- Avi (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• A discussion is already underway. In either case, there won't be any more substantial evidence presented so I will wait a little longer for this thing to get closed. I appreciate your help. TGH1970 (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. — neuro^(talk) 23:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• The filing administrator has said the case could be archived, can we finally close this thing? TGH1970 (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

RFCU

I was wondering if you would please take a look at this RFCU case: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/BreakEvenMatt. Several days have gone by without action. At this point, several people have discussed it, but no official action has been taken by any checkusers. You will find explanatory comments there. Regards, HoboJones (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Avi (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --HoboJones (talk) 01:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Should I remove it

and wait a couple of days, or leave it up?Historicist (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Email

I have sent you an email. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Ref Myself and Charles O'Sulivan

hi Avraham, I'm making approaches to have Charlie O'Sulivan re-opened as we are not the same person nor is Charles a meatpuppet....What is the process? (you looked at in Nov with Sam Korn and said get back to you when the block came off)

BT Market share

Oldham coverage Central Manchester, greater Manchester, Stoke-on-Trent, Oldham, Leeds, Preston Basically the entire NW England.

Although now my IP is from Southport (even further away) Liverpool, Blackpool (due to attack on e-mail provider, likely suspects JIDF)...Thank you for your timeAshley kennedy3 (talk) 13:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt and informative reply..Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

RFCU

Please email me before you release the result of either side of the RFCU. Thanks, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying the entire checkuser is done? Or just this section? — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm interested in how this checkuser turned out. Assuming you read or communicated by email with Cumulus Clouds, why did you not email or communicate with the others involved in the checkuser? Thanks. --Banime (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I suppose if the disruption is ended that's all that matters. Thanks for looking into it. --Banime (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for everything you've done in this matter. I have a fear that the user may come back with another account in the future to harass me some more, so although the disruption is over I'd just like to state that here. When a user creates an account simply to make gross accusations about other users and call them the worst thing possible then yes I get a bit worried about it unfortunately, and worried that it has a possibility of happening again. Hopefully its all over, but I just wanted this written somewhere so people could see this and my reasoning if it ever happens again. Thanks again. --Banime (talk) 05:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Note

I reverted PR on a comment and opened this action for community inspection - here. I'd appreciate your input/review as well. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

RFCU question

If it were another category would it have be accepted? Grsz¹¹ 05:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, just trying to understand. Thanks a lot, Grsz¹¹ 05:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Question

Re your question, honestly I wasn't aware of the discussion.

My quick impression is that it is hard to tell what should be there, but that I don't see anything that significantly distorts the page, something which unfortunately couldn't be said for Khalidi's bio over time. You may recall when I first found it, and a significant section was headed "Political views," which in fact solely featured the most controversial quotes which have been attributed to him.[1] Friedman's statement was turned into "Accusations of PLO associations," even though it was nothing of the sort. Currently, we are talking about whether a section should present him as in fact having been connected to the PLO throughout his career, as having falsely denied this, and then having been refuted by a number of sources.

So frankly, if we were talking about adding a criticism of Kramer's to the article, I think I would be less concerned; at least then people see it's a criticism, and can go check it out. When the allegations are embedded throughout the entire bio is where I think it becomes more of a problem. That doesn't mean I'm confident that Massad's comments should be there, as in general I think it is the kind of thing Wikipedia should likely avoid. Of course, Massad's bio is full of controversy as well. Mackan79 (talk) 06:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

RFCI:CC

Don't have time to do blocks, please move it back to appropriate section. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Societyfinalclubs

Avi,

Thanks for the CU on that. It's already been moved to "completed", and I didn't know if you have your cases watchlisted, so just letting you know I asked something on that page. --barneca (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

page talk protection

Hi, I've been away from wikipedia a while, and was wondering: what is the benefit of protecting talk pages vs. just blocking without talk page editing rights? The latter seems to have the benefit that any timed blocks expire at the same time as the protection without finicking with the expiry times. Thanks, --fvw* 23:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Khalidi

Have you given up altogher on this?Historicist (talk) 12:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm coming up on two weeks when I won't be regularly available.Historicist (talk) 12:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

new language up as per your lates proposal. It wuld be nice if we could get a sufficient number of eyes on this to agree to put it on the page.Historicist (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Cyrusmilleyhannana (and adding/merging new cases)

Hi!

I filed this case, after a similar case had been completed. For future reference, what's the best way to handle this? Should I add to the previous case or create a new case?

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, thank you!

I thank you from the bottom of my heart for this last chance. I hereby swear off sockpuppetry and any other forms of disrupting Wikipedia forever! You won't regret this! And Merry Christmas! Huh (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Tajik

You'd be interested in RFCU on Tajik results, see section's 14 and 15. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rashid Khalidi. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 16:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Consensus

Hi Avi. My main concern is that I see no indication that a certain editor will ever agree to a consensus version. In fact it is clear to me that unless pushed to do so a certain edit will NEVER agree to any version, no matter how sympathetic to their POV. I absolutely agree that some information being included is better than none. I also think there needs to be some fair coverage of the substantial and notable controversies regarding the article's subject including in the recent presidential campaign. This is basic encyclopedic coverage we are talking about, as in why was this person in the news???? What happened? Who is he? What was his role in the negotiations?

The process has clearly been obstructed as twice now an agreement has been made and twice it's been backed away from. It doesn't take weeks to write a couple paragraph. I also object to ultimatums and acts of bad faith like wholesale removal, claiming BLP violations where there are none, threats, intimidation, and harassment. All that I ask is that the section be fixed as appropriate and that the parts of the section that are disputed are removed and worked on instead of everything wholesale with obstructive refusal to allow any of the information into the article until everyone agree to a single editors POV version.

I came to the article in response to the third opinion request, and I also saw that a certain editor has obstructed the mediation process from ever getting started. If you have a suggestion for how you would like me to help, or not to help, I am happy to consider your thoughts. It pains me to see you and other good faith editors working so hard and being so willing to compromise and collaborate while an editor refuses to make good faith agreements and refuses to allow any of the well sourced information in any form to be added. I haven't seen an effort on one editor's part to suggest an appropriate version, instead they ask others to do all the work and then reject it in its entirety. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I haven't been more helpful. If I knew how to help resolve the situation I would do so. As far as a consensus version being agreed to, I already saw that happen once. Then I watched in awe as the section agreed to was removed IN ITS ENTIRETY by one editor, and nothing has been allowed back since. Not a sentence. I'll believe it when I see it as far as any version being included in the article. And let's be clear, the version that's been suggested is worded in some kind of strange manner so as to avoid saying what the sources do. This makes it awkward and rather absurd, but again, I agree with you that any version is better than none. Given the ultimatums, harassment, and obstruction, I'm looking foward to moving on ASAP. Take care and happy holidays. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Neither was the incivility of the proposer

I am sorry if you find the wording harsh but I do believe the proposer should have invited contributors to the article to discuss and not do a "hole in the wall" job....I should not have to play postman or patrol articles to keep the relevant contributing editors abreast of evens transpiring "under the radar". To have informed contributing editors would only have been common courtesy...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Avraham, yes I do understand your concerns. I personally have edited on 1,485 articles within the I/P conflict, I am interested in all of those and the ones I haven't edited on (yet). The watchlist system is not suitable for tracking all those articles, I do article patrolling manually. The system that you are defending is lacking in basic civility. The history of article editing is available at each article and basic civility would include giving it a cursory glance and an invitation to discuss made directly to the main contributors. Or more preferable the invitation being posted at the IP collaboration page with automatic posting to all on the IP collaboration list.

Had Tiamut proposed the same merger I would have felt no different...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Rashid Khalidi

Hi Avraham; I've left a citation on Rashid Khalidi (as you seem to be involved/uninvolved oversight admin for that article) for what I believe is an unnecessary citation needed (as are, also, most of the other citation needed tags)...I feel that the citation needed tagging is being used as a disruptive tool and not a tool for article improvement...As the page is protected at the moment could you please drop the citation in, if you agree with it's suitability....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Drive by tagging in contentious articles of 'obvious' facts should be discouraged as it is uncivil and disruptive. That apart I've collected the respective citations needed and put them on the talk page of Rashid Khalidi....The flyby tagger should by made to account for their reasoning and if their reasoning is spurious they should receive a warning about incivility...some of that tagging on very easily obtainable facts must have taken longer than getting the citation needed...Tagging for "editor of Journal of Palestinian Studies" is akin to asking for a citation on the sun coming up tomorrow...The tagger's 'obvious' intent was to despoil and disrupt... Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 14:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That is courteous...I'm sorry but my diplomacy skills were learnt while having a rifle butt in the shoulder, this means I tend to speak exactly how I see it and not try to use "fair words to cover an obscene action."...talking civilly is fine but the actions have to match the words...If actions do not match the words then the words are no more than hot air emanating from the nether regions and similar to that air, obscene actions leaves nothing but a bad smell in the room and is uncivil...that is not righteous indignation, that's facts....I don't need to build a rapport. In fact I have been shown that no rapport is needed and that gaming skills work far better. To that end I will continue to develop those gaming skills that are required to achieve a more factually accurate article that the gamers are presently achieving...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Hi, I want you to look [here] isn't this type of vandalism isn't it..? Could you guide me what to do --Bayrak (talk) 18:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know Avraham, but i hope he'll advise you to do what i've advised you to do already, Bayrak: Seek consensus on talk pages before making controversial changes. You should especially do so after you've been reverted by two separate editors who have asked you to seek (here's that word again) consensus. And no, asking you to seek consensus is not vandalism.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

what are you talking about? you are the only person who delete the references you can see the history page --Bayrak (talk) 18:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are arguing about, but adding a link to a generalized transliteration page in the first sentence does not seem necesary, especially as it breaks some of the wikimarkup. -- Avi (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Hannukah!

שׂ‎מ‎ח!‎ From Chesdovi

File:Sufganiyah.jpeg

Happy holidays

Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; I will always treasure your articulation of Risker's Law and Avi's Corrolary.

Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement.
Best, Risker (talk) 01:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

User talk:79.73.125.113

This user is saying he's caught in a rangeblock--can this be fixed? Blueboy96 14:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello, Avraham. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bstone (talk • contribs) 12:39, December 25, 2008

Hi

Hello Avraham. I have a question: Is there any way of checking IP-adress here for users in Macedonian Wikipedia? Thanks. Bomac (talk) 18:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Forward

Avi, explain why you reinserted that The Forward newspapers was involved in the debacle of Rabbi Jacob Joseph in the 1880s, the kosher tax which ended in 1895, when The Forward did not exist until 1897. Check The Forward's wikipedia page. This is nonsense.Mrnhghts (talk) 07:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

NoCal100

NoCal100 has just broken 3RR on Jordan Valley Unified Water Plan..could you deal with it please...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he did not break it. You have to make four reversions before violating WP:3RR, and he has not done so. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Why did you block me?

You may say it was an error and I'll accept that explanation.

The reason that I am writing to you is to tell you what is on my mind. For the past month, I have not edited because Wikipedia is so poisonous. Now I am telling you this so you will know.

Without saying that you are causing the problem, I will say that Wikipedia has administrators who are downright bullies. They are hurting Wikipedia by chasing away everyone except their wiki-facebook friends. So when Jimmy Wales asks people for donations, go tell him to ask those bad administrators for money, not me. Am I mad? No, but I am ticked off at bad administrators who bully others in Wikipedia. Your block of me was the last straw. It may or may not have been part of the pattern of bad administrators but it certainly reminded me of bad things that others do.

Do you have a solution? Spevw (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

One trouble with Wikipedia is that any administrator with their own agenda can call someone a sockpuppet and cause much trouble that that other person. I didn't know it at first but later I saw others who are bullied. The correct way to address sockpuppetry is to identify the exact edit that is problematic. Merely calling one sock is just as convenient as a KKK member calling someone a "nig***" or a Nazi calling someone a Jew. I think the only solution is if you and many others not act like bullies. As for where I edit, I don't have a conflict with anyone but I read ANI. Have a Happy New Year! Spevw (talk) 23:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Wendy Campbell Article

some interesting additional sources for wendy campbell article:

http://www.persecutionprivilegeandpower.com/ then click on tv interviews, then click on "wendy campbell" Limbojones (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC).

MJZine.com

"Avraham" (or whomever). Your insistance on deleting MJZine.com is going to get you engaged in a Wikiwar. We object to the deletion of MJZine.com and have already once removed the deletion for MJZine.com. As per policy if anyone objects the Delete tab CAN NOT be re-added, is this not Wikirules? We have objected. I will remove it again. Please see the Talk page for the MJZine.com wikipedia article. Hkp-avniel (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Responded on user talk page. -- Avi (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Avraham/Archive 36's Day!

User:Avraham/Archive 36 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Avraham/Archive 36's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Avraham/Archive 36! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

DonaldDuck

DD continues 2 edit-wars in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaeo-Masonic_conspiracy_theory and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Dieterichs. Galassi (talk) 03:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser?

I'm not sure what code letter I'd file such a case under, but look at this. From the edits, it appears to be WALTHAM1, who appears to himself be a sock of another user. He/she/it registered an account to impersonate me and copied my userpage. Enigma ^message 05:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess a checkuser is not warranted, then? Should I file an SSP? Enigma ^message 05:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll think it over tomorrow. In any case, thanks for the quick block! Enigma ^message 05:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Check user/Geographic area

When a report says same geographic are/ inconclusive, how big is a geographic area, and can you give me an example of two cities that are at the extreme ends of the same geographic area. ThanksDie4Dixie (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I had another question on my talk page, if you would indulge me a little further.Die4Dixie (talk) 05:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)