User talk:Avraham/Archive 45

This is an archive of past discussions with Avraham. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

< Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46>

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)

Kww 3 - Bureaucrat discussion

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kww 3/Bureaucrat discussion

I've opened a bureaucrat chat in relation to this RfA as I don't think the outcome is particularly clear cut. If you have a moment, I'd appreciate your input. WJBscribe (talk) 20:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ahem

:P --Dylan 620 (contribs, logs, review) 01:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CHU/USURP

Hi Avi, I hope you're well. :) I've recently started clerking at Changing username again and have moved 6 or so requests from usurp to the regular chu since yesterday. I've noticed that while Template:Renameuser has a place for the reason for the request, Template:Usurp does not. It may be a good idea to add a "reason" parameter for the second template so that requests moved from usurp aren't held up at CHU because a reason was missing. What do you think?

PS. Regarding "a personal note", thank you very much, I appreciate it. :)

Yours, –Katerenka ^☆ 18:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I think that's a good idea as well. Perhaps bring that up on WT:CHU or something? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea, Julian. I have gone ahead and done so. :) Yours, –Katerenka ^☆ 19:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Thank you Avi. I'll draft a response to the three RfA questions and accept the nomination this evening. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The RfA was closed as successful a little while ago. Thanks again for nominating me. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:X!/Tally

I saw your edit on the Malik Shabazz RfA. The tally is supposed to update every half hour, but it's had a lot of downtime lately. See the history. X is on break, but he probably is still reading his emails. The RfA is present in the text of the file, so it should update soon. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppet

Hi, I saw you edited User:AramaeanSyriac. I suspect this is another suck puppet of him; User:Dejwono. Could you please confirm? Thanks Iraqi (talk) 08:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GPG response

-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Use GnuPG with Firefox : http://getfiregpg.org (Version: 0.7.6)
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=m/v0
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----

Template:Anonblock

In Template:Anonblock, blocked users are encouraged to send an email to obtain a username. The link given is Template:Anonblock#Emailing us which in turn directs the user to "click here and follow the instructions under the Emailing us section". However this link just edits the sandbox, so I'm a bit confused about it. I thought I'd ask you as you wrote Template:Anonblock/doc. Thanks. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wik90

I requested the right to vanish, and my account was identified as a sock puppet and blocked. However I can still edit protected pages. I created another account a while ago called Wikix90, the ix suffix being the only difference in the name. I was wondering if my current account was intended to be, and should be blocked. (talk)

Well, you are not banned, you are merely indef blocked. If you would like to return, and commit to not using sockpuppets or violating other wikipedia policies, I will block all but one of your accounts, and you can edit using that one. However, if you continue to violate the policies, I will have to restore the blocks to all the found accounts. -- Avi (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter to me as I was planning on leaving Wikipedia, I would likely continue my behavior of compulsive back and forth edits, and have also lost interest in editing articles here. However, when I log out of any one of accounts and clear my cache, it says I am still logged in. As a result I am unable to edit using my IP address. I was wondering if that was apart of the conditions of the block in regards to making sure there is not a loophole, or if it was a mistake.(talk)

I am not sure; it sounds like something in your browser. Perhaps shut down and restart. I will block the Wik90 account per your intention to leave. Good Luck! -- Avi (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I rebooted and it initially showed me as signed off. But I discovered that when go on this page, or various others, at times they may still show me logged into whatever account I last had logged in on, or on one of my other accounts entirely. But when I go to post a response here it shows me as logged out, and I am able to post. I've shut down and restarted my computer and it sometimes has shown me as logged out again but not always. However if I log in at any time, and then log out, it shows me logged in for a while and after a while then shows me as logged out. One time on my Rumble74 account it showed me as logged on for a few hours even. Perhaps it may just be a browser issue as you said, and it doesn't matter much since I've now left Wikipedia, but I was confused about it and wanted to ask what you thought.

Scibaby

Hi Avi, would you be willing to help us out with checking Scibaby socks? Nishkid has been doing this but he's not always around. I realize this could put you in a risky position so I would understand if you'd rather not, but we could use some help out here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Sent one. Just thought I'd drop a note. — ξ ^xplicit 20:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sunmoonbe

Hello. Thank you for filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sunmoonbe. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 05:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply, I too regretted this. All though I agree with your decision I can't quite come to terms with the fact that User:Sunmoonbe logs out and back in again every two minutes, Thanks for your help though. kiwiteen123 (talk) 05:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, I have all ready apologisied and I will take up your advice! Thanks, kiwiteen123 (talk) 05:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usurpation Seha-WizardOfOz

Hello Avraham. I am the User WizardOfOz on bs.wiki. I have leave a confirmation on my talkpage on bs wiki. So please rename or leave me a message on bs wiki if it´s not possible. Thank you. --Seha (talk) 08:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for that, but thanks for renaming! --WizardOfOz (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Anti-Spam Barnstar

		The Anti-Spam Barnstar
		Many thanks for your tireless efforts at SPI, keeping Wikipedia clear of abuse and other nonsense.--Hu12 (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Thanks for you quick attention in this sockpuppet case. Wikipedia is a better quality project because of hardworking and conscientious editors like you! Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Malik Shabazz

Does WP:SNOW apply???--Ramdrake (talk) 01:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me and my 16 socks will make sure it does not (wait, Avi's a checkuser, never mind). But seriously, I think it would apply if it were going the other way to say no, but not to say yes. nableezy - 01:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

commons request

Hi Avi, I uploaded an image to the wrong name, would you mind deleting this file? Also, I uploaded a French painting, though after reading Commons:Licensing I am less sure that it is in the public domain. Dont know if you can read French or not to make out the source, but this painting was initially published in 1798-1800 by an unknown artist, so I think it qualifies as work of art older than 70 years, but do you know if that is correct or not? Thanks, nableezy - 06:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Username usurpations

Would you please end the process for the pending requests of username usurpations. I've been waiting impatiently for more than a week to get my new username ;) Thanks for your time. --Ozculer (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need to double-check the mapping before we run the bot

{{sockpuppet|username|status=checked|spipage=SPI request subpage title}} does not work properly. It creates a suspected sock tag and places the SPI page as a link to "contributions".--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are mean [1]. I missed the fact that we have to rename your SPOM to {{sockpuppet}}, I was testing the target template name. I'll let you remove the sock tag so some day when I'm nominated for Comptroller General, I don't get asked by Congress why I removed a sock tag from my own page. ;-).--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and actually it's not my bot, it's Chris G's, I wish I were that skilled.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so we can't allow the bot to be run until we've deprecated {{sockpuppet}} then can we? What's the plan? If it's not too complicated I'll do some more AWB runs.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bleh! I get it, that's all worked into the re-mapping. God it's getting late here!--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also this mapping is incorrect:

{{CheckedSockpuppet-nb}}
- {{CheckedSockpuppet-nb|username}} --> {{sockpuppet|username|status=checked}}
- {{CheckedSockpuppet|username|SPI request subpage title}} --> {{sockpuppet|username|status=checked|spipage=SPI request subpage title}}

The second target is missing the "-nb" in its name.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything else appears to be fine, but then my eyes weren't working very well last night apparently. ;-) I didn't fix the one -nb problem as I wanted to make sure I wasn't creating an error. There are the outstanding issues, mentioned under Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations#Puppeteer_Mapping, but those don't affect the proposed bot run. I am posting some follow on issues at WT:SPI that go towards our overall tagging policy.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :)

Thank you for renaming me, and for deleting the redirects. I really appreciaite it. :) Cheers and big hugs, --Meaghan ^{guess who :)} 22:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did I forget to thank you? ..

Avraham ,Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 174 in support, 2 in opposition and 1 neutral votes. Special thanks goes to RegentsPark, Samir and John Carter for their kind nomination and support. I am truly honored by the trust and confidence that the community has placed in me. I thank you for your kind inputs and I will be sincerely looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas ( including my english ;) ). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). Have a great day ! -- Tinu Cherian - 06:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight

You have a bright-line policy, and it was violated. In addition, Rlevse has had an email from me for three days, and could have responded, explaining the change in precedents, at any time.

The e-mail I sent him on October 25th is below:

“

The rules of oversight are very clear, and it was a violation of the oversight policy to remove it. These wereher exact words, on a medium she has constantly said should be treated as public.

The oversight rules only allow it to be done when:

Removal of non-public personal information, such as phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public. This includes hiding revisions made by editors who were accidentally logged out and thus inadvertently revealed their own IP addresses.

No personal information was included.

Removal of potentially libelous information, either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel; or b) when the subject has specifically asked for the information to be expunged from the history, the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision.

I made sure to get witnesses that can back that my transcription is accurate.

Removal of copyright infringement, on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel.

Has the counsel so advised you?

Removal of vandalism. Suppression may be occasionally used to remove vandalism that can not be removed by normal administrative measures. Such cases should be handled with suppression, rather than with the Oversight tool, so that they may be reversed if needed, and should be discussed in advance on the Oversight mailing list unless they are urgent or time-sensitive, in which case they should be discussed on the mailing list afterward. (Note: This criterion is an interim measure, due to limitations

I see no urgency, nor any time for it to have been discussed.

”

Your claims that it was in policy are against the actual policy, and if the stated bright-line policy is being widely ignored, and the oversighter you're defending can't be bothered to respond, you sure as hell don't get to take the moral high ground.

Still, I apologise for saying Rlevse was corrupt. Given the stated bright-line policy, and your claims this is being violated widely, It would appear the entire system is corrupt. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 19:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on user's talk page. -- Avi (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to change the oversight policy, all you had to do was edit it. You don't get to leave it stating something completely different, then claim that anyone complaining about removals against policy are wrong. There is a bright-line policy binding you. You can move the lie at any time, but don't get to cross the line, THEN act as if you were justified in pompously attaacking people complaining about you crossing the line. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 19:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The policy says that copyvbio can ONLY be oversighted on direct advice from Wikipedia's counsel. It may be this policy was foolish, and should be made broader. But I complained after reading the policy as written, and asked for an explanation. If you want to rewrite policy, you have every right to do so. If you want to say that precedent and Arbcom rulings have made the policy out-of-date, that's reasonable. If you want to say I was out of line for reading policy, asking for an explanation of why policy was apparently violated, and complaining when none was forthcoming, then you are out of line, and should retract your statements, at which point I will retract mine. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 20:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outing on WT:FPC

Is anyone going to remove Durova's outing? 86.131.244.94 (talk) 03:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What outing? -- Avi (talk) 04:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, but wouldn't this be considered a self-outing prior to Durova's post? -- Avi (talk) 04:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two things

1. Wikipedia cannot afford to lose either Shoe or Durova. I am not in a position to order you to do or not do anything, but I suggest you leave the feud between them alone. Like most irrational feuds, if left alone it will dissipate with minimal damage. Both users are in the wrong, but reminding them of that is just making the situation worse. Please. Losing either of them would irreversibly harm the Featured Pictures section. Thanks.
2. I really like that user status thing at the top of the talk page. Where can I get one?
Nezzadar [SPEAK] 05:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Nezzadar [SPEAK] 19:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sent you an e-mail

Following guidelines: I sent you an e-mail. You have been warned :-)

Treepleks (talk) 14:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

86.96.226.0/23

I have also unblocked 86.96.226.0/23 Emirates Telecommunications Corporation Fred Talk 17:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we need to keep this?

See any particularly big reason to keep {{Sockpuppeteerproven}}? I tagged it for speedy but had a discussion with Prodego about why that was probably unnecessary. Was going back to delete and an IP had removed the tag stating we should preserve the history. I don't see why. It only serves to confuse now that these have all been replaced.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]